Welcome Inn 1905 -

Folkestone Daily News 15-2-1905

Wednesday, February 15^th: Before Mr. E. Ward, Mr. W. Carpenter, and Lieut. Col. Fynmore.

John Luck, landlord of the Welcome Inn, was charged with permitting drunkenness on the premises.

Sergeant Osborne deposed that in company with P.C. Sharp he visited the house and found a man named French very drunk. He was in the sight of the landlord, and a man was offering him beer from a glass. On seeing me he said a policeman was looking at him. Witness called the attention of the defendant, who replied that he had not seen him or served him with anything. He wanted him to leave. French was too drunk to stand, so he took him into custody. He had been keeping observation on the house for a quarter of an hour. There was nothing to prevent the landlord seeing him. French could not have entered without witness seeing him. After taking French to the station, witness returned at 11 p.m. and saw a drunken prostitute leaving, and two soldiers also drunk. He had seen the prostitute there at 10.35. He told defendant two men were drunk, and he referred to French, saying that he never saw him. He (the Sergeant) went out and saw the soldiers, who were too drunk to walk, so the Military Police took them into custody.

The Bench fined defendant £5 and 15s. costs.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 18-2-1905

Wednesday, February 15^th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Lieut. Col. Fynmore and Mr. W.C. Carpenter.

John Luck, landlord of the Welcome Inn, Dover Street, was summoned on Wednesday morning for permitting drunkenness on licensed premises. Mr. G.W. Haines, for the defence, tendered a plea of Not Guilty.

Police Sergt. Osborne said: At 10.35 on the night of the 8^th inst., in company with P.C. Sharp, I visited the Welcome Inn, Dover Street. I went into the bar, and found a man named Charles France sitting on a seat very drunk in full view of the landlord. A man was standing in front of France offering him drink from a pint glass, apparently containing beer. France attempted to get up, but the other man pushed him back, and said “Sit down, you ---- fool; there is a policeman looking at you”. I called the attention of the landlord to the man`s drunken condition, and he replied “I have not seen the man before; I have not served him. I want him to leave”. I then found France was too drunk to stand, and with the assistance of P.C. Sharp took him into custody and brought him to the police station, where he was charged with being drunk and incapable on licensed premises.

By Chief Constable Reeve: Before visiting the house I had been keeping observation for fifteen minutes, and it would not have been possible for France to have entered without my seeing him. Defendant was serving in the bar, and there was nothing to obstruct his view of the man France. After taking France into custody I returned to the house just before eleven. I saw a well-known prostitute named “Spratter” come out. She was drunk and fell over the steps.

Mr. Haines objected to the introduction of evidence not specific to the charge.

The Chairman held that the evidence was admissible, as the charge was that of permitting drunkenness.

Witness (continuing): This woman was in the bar at 10.35. I then went into the front bar and saw three soldiers, two of whom were drunk; one was drinking from a pint glass. The landlord followed me out, and I said “There are two men drunk in here”, and he made no reply. I told him that I should report him for permitting drunkenness. Subsequently I saw the drunken soldiers outside. One was leaning against a wall, and a lance corporal of the Military Police took him into custody for drunkenness.

Further corroborative evidence was given, and the witnesses cross-examined at great length by Mr. Haines, who also made a powerful appeal to the Bench. However, the case was held to conclusively proved, and defendant was fined £5 and 15s. 6d. costs.

Folkestone Express 18-2-1905

Wednesday, February 15^th: Before E.T. Ward Esq., Lieut. Colonel Fynmore, and W.C. Carpenter Esq.

John Luck, landlord of the Welcome Inn, Dover Street, was summoned for permitting drunkenness on his licensed premises on February 8^th. Mr. Haines, who appeared on behalf of the defendant, pleaded Not Guilty.

P.S. Osborne said on February 8^th, at 10.15 p.m., in company with P.C. Sharpe, he visited the Welcome Inn. On going into the bar at the back of the house he found a man named Charles France sitting on a seat in full view of the landlord, who was serving in the bar at the time. A man stood in front of France offering him a glass of beer. France attempted to get up, but the other man pushed him down, and told him there was a policeman looking at him. Witness called the attention of the defendant to the man`s drunken condition, and he replied “I have not seen the man before. I have not served him with anything”. Witness then found French was too drunk to stand, so with the assistance of P.C. Sharpe he brought him to the police station and charged him with being drunk and incapable on licensed premises. Before visiting the house he had been keeping observation on the house for a quarter of an hour, and it was not possible for a man to enter without witness being able to see him go in. In the centre bar he saw two women and two men sitting. After locking France up they returned to the house just as the clock was striking eleven. He saw a well-known prostitute coming out of the house. She was drunk, and stumbled as she came out. She was one of the women he had previously seen in the house. In the front bar he saw three soldiers, two of whom were drunk. As he opened the door he saw one drinking what appeared to be beer. The landlord followed him into the bar, and witness said to him “There are two men drunk in here”. He made no answer, and witness told him he should report him for permitting drunkenness on his premises. The soldiers left the house during his conversation with the landlord. On finishing his conversation he went into Dover Street and saw one of the soldiers leaning against the wall, drunk. He appeared as though he could not get home. Lance Corporal Preston, of the Military Police, took him into custody for drunkenness. The man gave his name as Michael O`Donnell.

Cross-examined, witness said he did not know when he was keeping observation that France was inside.

P.C. Sharpe corroborated the last witness`s evidence.

Lance Corporal Preston, of the Military Foot Police, said on February 8^th he was in Dover Street a few minutes after eleven when he saw a soldier who was drunk and unable to take care of himself. Witness took him into custody. His name was Michael O`Donnell, of the South Lancashire Regiment.

P.C. Eason said he was on duty in the police cells on February 8^th, when he received France from P.S. Osborne and P.C. Sharpe at 10.45 p.m. He was drunk, and later a soldier named O`Donnell was brought in. He was drunk and incapable.

Defendant went into the box, and said he had been in the house since November 1^st. That was the first licence he had held. On the evening of February 8^th he was very busy. He did not see France come in the house. He did not serve him, and he could swear that the man had nothing to drink. He did not think the man had been in the bar above five minutes. In the one bar, where women were allowed, there were notices up saying that no females were allowed in the house above ten minutes. With regard to the soldiers, they came in a few minutes to eleven. Witness refused to serve them, and when the police sergeant came in one of the soldiers picked up a glass containing beer, which had been left on the counter by another customer. With regard to the woman, she had not been served.

In cross-examination by the Chief Constable, defendant said he wished he had never seen Folkestone. It was a difficult house to manage and had got a bad name.

Mr. Haines submitted that the defendant took reasonable precautions, and he was not aware of the man being drunk. With regard to the woman, there was no evidence that she was drunk, only that she tripped over the step. She had not been served by the defendant for half an hour at least. With reference to the three soldiers, the defendant said he did not serve them. He contended that the defendant had tried to keep the house in good order.

The Chairman said no doubt it was a very difficult house to manage. To the Magistrates` mind the evidence was quite clear, and the defendant would be fined £5 and 15s. 6d. costs.

Folkestone Herald 18-2-1905

Monday, February 13^th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Councillor R.J. Fynmore, and Mr. W.C. Carpenter.

John Luck, licensee of the Welcome Inn, Dover Street, was summoned for permitting drunkenness on his licensed premises on the 8^th inst. Mr. G.W. Haines appeared for the defence.

P.S. Osborne deposed that at 10.35 on the night of the 8^th inst., in company with P.C. Sharpe, he visited the Welcome Inn, Dover Street. In going into the bar at the back of the house he found a man named Charles France sitting on a seat very drunk, in full view of the landlord, who was serving behind the bar at the time. A man was standing in front of France, and was offering him some beer. France attempted to get up, but the other man, on seeing him (witness), pushed him back on the seat and said “Sit down, you fool; there`s a policeman looking at you”. He called the attention of the landlord to the man`s condition, and defendant replied “I have not seen the man before. I have not served him with anything”. He then found that France was too drunk to stand, and with the assistance of P.C. Sharpe took him into custody.

In reply to the Chief Constable, witness said before he visited the house he kept it under observation for a quarter of an hour. It was quite impossible for France to have entered the house during that time. Defendant himself was serving in the bar at the time, and there was nothing to obstruct his view of France. Having removed France to the cells, he returned to the house with P.C. Sharpe just as the clock was striking eleven. He saw coming out a well-known prostitute.

Mr. Haines objected to this as having nothing to do with the present case, but the Magistrates disallowed the objection.

Witness, further examined by the Chief Constable, said the woman was drunk and stumbled over the steps as she went out. He had not the slightest doubt as to her condition. He went into the front bar, where he found three soldiers, two of whom were drunk. One was drinking what appeared to be some beer from a glass. As he opened the door the man reeled back against the counter. The landlord followed him (witness) into the bar. He (the sergeant) said “Why! Two men drunk in here?” The landlord made no reply. He told him he would report him for permitting drunkenness on his premises. He replied “That man (referring to France), I never saw him, never served him, and he could not have been there many minutes”. The soldiers left the house during the conversation with the landlord. He went out into Dover Street, and there saw one of the three soldiers leaning up against the wall of the house, drunk. He appeared to be unable to get home. It was the man who he saw drinking out of the glass. Lance Corporal Preston, of the Military Foot Police, at that moment arrived and took the soldier into custody for being drunk.

Cross-examined by Mr. Haines: While he was waiting outside he did not know that France was in the house, or that there was a man drunk in there at all. There was a notice in one of the compartments to the effect that women were not allowed.

P.C. Sharpe corroborated.

Lance Corporal F. Preston, of the Military Foot Police, stated that on the 8^th inst., a few minutes after eleven o`clock, he was in Dover Street, where he saw a soldier leaning against the wall. Seeing he was drunk, and unable to take care of himself, he took him into custody.

P.C. Reason said he was on duty at the police cells on the night in question, when the man France was brought in by Sergt. Osborne and P.C. Sharpe. He was drunk and incapable of taking care of himself. He afterwards received the prisoner brought in by the last witness, Corporal Preston. The soldier was drunk, and gave the name of Michael O`Donnell.

Defendant, on oath, said he had kept the house since the 1^st of November. It was the first licence he had had. From where he was standing on the night in question he would not be able to see anyone coming in from the front door to the seat on which France sat, before the person got to the seat. He was very busy at the time, but was sure that if France had been sitting there for quarter of an hour he would have seen him. He could not have been there for longer than five minutes. He did not serve France, nor did the man have any drink in his house. He was sitting very quietly on a seat. He remembered that the three soldiers entered the bar about closing time, and he refused to serve them. He then went round to order them out, but when he got to the passageway he met Sergt. Osborne, who told him he should charge him with permitting drunkenness. The sergeant then referred to one of the three soldiers, and said “You have a drunken man here”. At that time the man was taking up some drink that was left on the counter. He was the only person serving in the bar at the time. He did not admit that the man was drunk. The house had a bad reputation when he took it, and he almost wished now that he had never seen Folkestone.

Mr. Haines, addressing the Bench, pointed out that the house in question was in a very crowded neighbourhood, and very strict supervision was necessary. Formerly it used to be necessary for the police to show that the landlord was aware of the drunkenness, but under the Act of 1902 the onus was thrown upon the defendant, who had to show that he had taken reasonable and proper precautions to prevent it, and that it was not within his knowledge. He ventured to say that the defendant had endeavoured to conduct the house in good order. If they thought otherwise, however, he hoped they would temper justice with mercy.

The Chairman said the Bench had no doubt about the house not being an easy one to control, but they had also no doubt that the evidence clearly showed that there had been drunkenness.

Defendant was fined £5 and 14s. costs, in default, one month`s imprisonment.

Folkestone Daily News 17-3-1905

Friday, March 17^th: Before The Mayor, and Ald. Vaughan.

A soldier was charged with being drunk and incapable in the Welcome Tavern.

P.C. Prebble heard the scuffle and went in.

Mr. Andrews (Deputy Magistrates` Clerk) advised the Bench that they could not convict under the circumstances. If the policeman had brought the man into the street he could have been convicted, but while he was in a private place no conviction could lie.

The case was dismissed.

 

Folkestone Express 25-3-1905

Friday, May 17^th: Before The Mayor and Alderman Vaughan.

Charles Healey, a private in the South Lancashire Regiment, was charged with being drunk and disorderly in Dover Street the previous evening. He pleaded Not Guilty.

P.C. Prebble said about 10.40 p.m. the previous evening he was on duty in Dover Street outside the Welcome Inn, when he heard a noise inside the house. On going inside, he found prisoner drunk and fighting with another soldier. Witness had to eject him from the house, and subsequently had to take him into custody, as he persisted in going back to the house.

Prisoner said it was the other man who was drunk.

John Luck, landlord of the Welcome Inn, said prisoner did not seem drunk, but was very excited.

Prisoner was discharged with a caution.

Folkestone Daily News 30-8-1905

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

Mr. Haines made an application on behalf of Mr. Luck for the transfer of the licence of the Welcome Inn. Mr. Haines said his client was making this application on account of the condition of his wife, who was in a bad state of health.

Mr. Lick was then sworn and said he took the house last September, but was ignorant of public house business. His wife had recently become very strange, and he had sent her to Walthamstow with her friends. She did not drink, although her appearance might suggest that she did. It was for the purpose of being with her and going into a different business that he was making this application. He had called in a doctor to see her while she was in Folkestone, but she refused to see him.

Mr. Andrews (Deputy Magistrates` Clerk) pointed out that a person could not apply for a transfer unless he had held the licence for twelve months, but the Magistrates could, under certain circumstances, grant the transfer if sufficient grounds were shown.

Mr. Haines said he thought good grounds had been shown why the application should be granted.

After brief consultation the Chairman said the application would be adjourned for a fortnight in order that Mr. Luck might produce a medical certificate of his wife`s health.

   

Folkestone Chronicle 2-9-1905

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

Mr. G.W. Haines made an application for the temporary transfer of the Welcome from the licensee, Mr. Luck, to Mr. Edward Henry Tunstall, of London.

The usual notices, &c., having been admitted, Mr. Haines said there was one point upon which he would like to address the Bench. It was the clause in the Licensing Act which laid down that two transfers should not be granted under a period of 12 months, unless, as the proviso put it, the tenant could show good cause for such transfer. In this case he hoped to show good cause. Mr. Luck`s wife`s mind had to a certain extent become affected, and the tenant, as it were, losing his wife`s hand, wished to leave the trade. This, he thought, was good cause why the stipulation should be waived.

The Chairman: Is the register here?

The Clerk produced the register, and pointed out that Mr. Luck obtained his transfer on the 7^th December last year. The previous tenant, Mr. Jarvis, had obtained a transfer in April, also of last year. For some reason the clause appeared to have been waived on that occasion. On the 27^th May, 1903, the licence of the Welcome was granted to Charles Brown.

It was also stated that the previous tenant was convicted for permitting prostitutes to frequent the house, and the present tenant, on the 15^th February this year, convicted for permitting drunkenness.

Mr. Haines pointed out to the Bench that when Mr. Luck was convicted he was quite new to the trade, but that since then he would invite the Chief Constable to say that the house had been well conducted.

The Clerk read the second sub-section of section 16 of the Act, which stipulated that two transfers should not be granted in one year, and also read the proviso, “except good cause be shown” etc.

The Chairman: Mr. Luck had better be sworn.

Mr. Luck (sworn) said: My wife is in London. She has been backward and forward now for some time on account of her ill health. She is suffering from rheumatic gout and general debility, but the most serious matter is she is going out of her mind. Sometimes one would think, by her manner, that she was a woman given to drink, but she does not drink. She condemns everyone as bad and wicked. She never used bad language, and always objected to it. Now nothing I could say would equal the bad words from her mouth. Her mother went out of her mind, and died in an imbecile home. I know that I made a mistake in bringing her to a public house.

The Chairman: Is your wife under restraint?

Witness: No; she is with her friends.

The Chairman: Have you any medical testimony?

Witness: No.

The Chairman: Have you had a doctor?

Witness: I called in a doctor, but she would not answer him, and he put on his hat and went out saying “What is the good of talking to a woman like that?”

The Chairman: Who was the doctor?

Witness: I do not know his name. He was visiting a patient opposite, and I called him in.

The Chairman (after a short consultation with his colleagues): The Bench are of opinion that at present Mr. Luck has not made out a sufficient case for the granting of the transfer. The case will be adjourned one week to enable him to obtain medical evidence.

Local News

Before The Mayor, Lieut. Col. Westropp, and Mr. W.C. Carpenter, at the police court on Friday morning, a rough looking individual, apparently about 60 years of age, was placed in the dock to answer a serious charge. The prisoner, John Smith, was charged with entering a dwelling house on Thursday night, with intent to commit a felony.

Mrs. Jessie Hall, the wife of William Jas. Hall, a fisherman, residing at 26, Dover Street, said: Last night I locked up the house about midnight. I left one door at the side, opening into the yard, unlocked. The yard is a private yard, leading by another door into Dover Street. The window looking into the same yard was open about three inches. The other windows were all fastened. The yard door was only on the latch, not fastened. I went to bed as soon as I had locked up. My husband was at sea. In the bedroom with me were my five children. The oldest will be nine in October. When I went to bed the children were all asleep. I had a small tin lamp alight on the table close to my bed. About 20 minutes after I had gone to bed, I was dozing with the baby on my arm. I heard a slight noise, which I thought at the time was the cats, but when I opened my eyes I saw a man standing over me. There is a screen at the top of the bed, and the man (the prisoner) was looking round the screen at me. I saw the man`s face distinctly. That is the man, the prisoner in the dock. I put my hands together and said “My good man, you have made a mistake”, and with that he jumped out of the window into the yard. Both sashes were down, and the man got through the top portion of the window. I screamed, and ran to the side door of the room, opened it, and saw the prisoner getting over the Welcome wall, the adjoining premises. I called for assistance, and running to the front door called “Police”. P.C. Allen then came to the house. Shortly after P.C. Allen brought the prisoner to my house, and I identified him directly. In getting back into the yard prisoner smashed one of the panes of glass in the windows. By the way in which he stepped on my pram, I should say that he did not have any boots on.

P.C. Thomas Allen deposed: This morning at 12.45 I was on duty in Dover Street when I heard a cry of “Police! Police!”, and went in the direction of No. 26, Dover Street, a dwelling house occupied by W.J. Hall. I there saw the last witness, who was out in the street in front of her house. She was in her night attire, and made a communication to me, and in consequence I searched the yard of No. 26. I noticed that the window opening on the ground floor was open from the top sash, and that one pane of glass was broken. Finding no-one in the yard I got a ladder and placed it against a wall, about 11 ft. high, abutting the Welcome Inn. In the yard of the Welcome, I found prisoner in the corner. I said to him “What are you doing in this yard?” He replied “I`ve only got over here to have a sleep”. I then noticed that he was not wearing boots. I said to him “Where are your boots?” He said “I`ve got them under my head for a pillow”. I said “Stand up” and he did so, and I looked for his boots and could not find them under him. I then took him to No. 26, Dover Street, having called up the landlord of the Welcome, who let me through the side door, which was locked and bolted. At 26, Dover Street the last witness identified him as the man she saw in her room. I took prisoner to the police station, and returned to No. 26, Dover Street, when I made a thorough search of the yard and found a pair of boots under the open broken window in the yard. I returned to the police station, showed prisoner the boots, and he said “They are mine; they are no good”. I then charged him with entering the house with intent to commit a felony. Prisoner made no reply. I searched him and found two candles, a knife, a key, and a spoon.

The Mayor: No lucifers upon him?

Witness: No, sir.

The Chief Constable asked the Bench to commit prisoner to take his trial at the next Quarter Sessions under the 54^th section of the Larceny Act.

The Clerk: What is your reason? Do you not wish to proceed under the Vagrancy Act?

The Chief Constable: Dear me, no. I have reason to believe this is not his first exploit.

The Mayor (to prisoner): Have you anything to say, or any statement to make?

Prisoner: No.

The Mayor: You will be committed to take your trial at the next Quarter Sessions.

Mr. Haines, who was going on his vacation, asked for a fortnight, which was immediately granted.

Folkestone Express 2-9-1905

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

Mr. G.W. Haines appeared on behalf of Mr. Luck, the licensee of the Welcome Inn, for a temporary transfer from him to Edward Henry Turner, of Tufnell Park, London. A point that might be raised against the transfer was in reference to the regulations with regard to transfer. It stated in those regulations that twelve months should elapse before an application for the transfer of the licence could be granted after the licence was granted, except where there was good cause for the transfer. Since Mr. Luck took the house in December last, his wife had developed a thing which had been in the family. Her mind to a certain extent was giving way, and at present she was away in London suffering from rheumatic gout. She could not come back because the doctor advised her not to do so, and therefore Mr. Luck would like to give up the house so that he could go and look after her. He had made enquiries after a tenant, and one had come forward and was willing to take over the premises. He hoped the Magistrates would say that they had good cause for waiving that particular stipulation mentioned.

The Clerk produced the register, and said the previous holder of the licence was a Mr. Jarvis, who obtained the licence in April, 1904. In that instance the stipulation must have been waived. There was also a transfer of the licence on May 22^nd, 1903, so that there had been three occupiers of the house since that time. The present tenant was convicted on February 15^th for permitting drunkenness, and fined £5 and costs.

Mr. Luck gave evidence on oath, and said his wife was at present at Walthamstow. She had gone there on account of ill health, suffering from rheumatic gout and general debility. The most serious part was that her mind was giving way. Her mother went out of her mind also. He knew he had made a mistake in going in for a public house. He had no medical testimony to bring before them, but on account of her actions he could do nothing with her. He did not know the doctor`s name.

The Chairman said that Mr. Luck had not made out a sufficiently strong case to warrant them granting the temporary transfer. They would, however, adjourn the case for a fortnight in order to produce medical testimony with regard to his wife`s health.

Folkestone Herald 2-9-1905

Wednesday, August 30^th: 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.

Mr. G.W. Haines made an application on behalf of Mr. Luck, of the Welcome Inn, Dover Street, for the transfer of the licence of the Welcome Inn to Henry Wm. Tunstone. He explained that last December the applicant took over the house. Since that his wife had developed a certain illness, which resulted in her being forbidden to stay in Folkestone. Under those circumstances Mr. Luck would like to give up the house. The speaker asked the Bench to waive a stipulation that they invariably enforced, viz., that no transfer should be effected in respect to any one house until the tenant had been in occupation twelve months.

The applicant, on oath, bore out Mr. Haines`s statements.

The Bench adjourned the case for a fortnight, in order that medical testimony could be adduced.

Folkestone Daily News 13-9-1905

Wednesday, September 13^th: Before The Mayor, Messrs. Westropp, Carpenter, Herbert, Hamilton, and Swoffer.

Mr. Haines applied for the transfer of the Welcome Inn.

The case had been adjourned for a fortnight in order that a medical certificate might be produced of the landlord`s wife.

The Bench, after consulting, refused to grant the transfer.

   

Folkestone Chronicle 16-9-1905

Local News

At the police court on Wednesday morning Mr. G. Haines renewed his application with reference to the transfer of the licence of the Welcome Inn, Dover Street, from the present tenant, Mr. Luck, to Mr. Edward Henry Tunstall, of London. When the application was originally made, Mr. Luck gave as his reason for wishing to transfer the licence that the business had caused his wife to lose her mental balance, but as he did not produce medical testimony the case was adjourned for that purpose. At the original hearing it was also stated that a previous tenant had been convicted for permitting prostitution, and the present tenant for permitting drunkenness. There was also the difficulty that the Act of 1902 provides that there should not be more than one transfer in one year, unless good cause were shown. Against this Mr. Luck relied upon the good cause as the illness of his wife.

On Wednesday morning Mr. Haines produced the medical certificate, but the Bench, looking at all the facts, refused to grant the temporary transfer.

Mr. Luck (who was apparently much surprised) said: But may I address the Bench? This is a matter of life and death.

The Clerk: The decision of the Bench has been given.

Folkestone Express 16-9-1905

Wednesday, September 13^th: Before The Mayor, Lieut. Col. Westropp, Lieut. Col. Hamilton, W.G. Herbert, G.I. Swoffer, and W.C. Carpenter Esqs.

A fortnight ago Mr. Haines applied on behalf of Mr. Luck, the licensee of the Welcome Inn, for a transfer of the licence. He asked the Magistrates to suspend one of their regulations, that no application should be considered until after the licence had been transferred twelve months, because of the illness of Mr. Luck`s wife. The application was adjourned, and he now produced a doctor`s certificate giving the condition of Mrs. Luck, which he asked the Bench to say was sufficient to warrant the licence being transferred.

The Chief Constable, when asked by the Magistrates for his opinion, said having regard to what took place at the last licensing meeting, he thought the Magistrates should consider the application carefully.

Mr. Herbert said the Bench were unanimously of opinion that they could not accede to the application.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 14-10-1905

Quarter Sessions

Monday, October 9^th: Before J.C. Lewis Coward Esq.

John Smith, 64, described as a tailor, was indicted for feloniously and burglariously breaking and entering the dwelling house of William James Hall with intent to commit a felony therein, about the hour of half past 12, on the night of Sept. 1^st. Prisoner at once pleaded Guilty.

Mr. Weigall, for the Crown, briefly described the events which led up to the charge. On the night in question, Mr. Hall was at sea and his wife retired to rest. Before retiring the lady, as was her custom, left the back door shut, but unbolted. Shortly after midnight she awoke, and saw prisoner standing by her bedside. Mrs. Hall raised an alarm, and prisoner jumped out of the window. P.C. Allen came to the scene, and in a few minutes found accused crouched in an adjoining yard, having dropped over a 12 ft. wall. The accused was bootless, and subsequently the boots were found under Mr. Hall`s window. Mr. Weigall concluded by mentioning that the Chief Constable had some information to give.

The Recorder: Is he indicted for a previous conviction?

Mr. Weigall said he understood not.

The Recorder: Why?

Mr. Wiegall (having consulted the instructing solicitor, Mr. J. Minter), said that the accused admitted the previous convictions, and as the witness had to be brought from a long distance, the course had been taken to save expense to the borough.

The Recorder: It is a very curious proceeding. Who gave such instructions? Still, let us hear what you have to say, Chief Constable.

Chief Constable Reeve produced and read a copy of a register obtained from the Habitual Criminals` Office, Scotland Yard. From this it appeared that prisoner`s “previouses” were:- 12^th March, 1897:- Three months hard labour at Marlborough Street; 20^th September, 1898:- Six months for burglary at the North London Sessions; 5^th April, 1899:- Three months at Bow Street as a suspected person; 25^th March, 1901:- Two months at Marlborough Street; 22^nd December, 1901:-  Three months` hard labour for larceny at Carlisle; 9^th September, 1902:- Fifteen months for robbery with violence at the Central Criminal Court; 27^th June, 1904:- Six months for attempted burglary at Brighton Quarter Sessions.

The Recorder: A bad record, Smith. What have you to say?

Prisoner: It is all through being out of employment.

The Recorder asked the Chief Constable if he had any details of the robbery with violence, and upon receiving a negative reply said he would like to hear the prisoner`s version.

Prisoner: It was not violence. The gentleman knew it was not. In getting his watch I pushed him. (Laughter) I did not mean to hurt him. It was in getting the watch off the chain. (Laughter)

The Recorder: What has his conduct been while awaiting trial?

A warder: His conduct in prison has been very good, sir.

The Recorder: Well, John Smith, many Courts would take a very serious view of this case. You will have to be very careful in the future. I am going to give you one more chance. Thee months` hard labour.

Prisoner (gratefully): Thank you, sir, thank you.

Folkestone Chronicle 9-12-1905

Wednesday, December 6^th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Alderman Herbert, Lieut. Col. Hamilton, Maj. Leggatt, and Mr. Linton.

Mr. R.M. Mercer made an application for the transfer of the licence of the Welcome Inn, Dover Street, from Mr. J. Luck to Mr. John Foreman. Mr. Mercer referred briefly to a previous unsuccessful application made on the 30^th of August, when the Bench decided that Mr. Luck had not shown sufficient cause to vary the regulations, i.e. forbidding five (sic) changes of tenant in one year, Mr. Luck only having been in possession a few months. The advocate now suggested that the circumstances he was about to put before the Bench were such as would warrant the granting of the application. The present tenant`s name was Luck, a word not borne out in his fortune. His wife was seriously ill, and the doctor advised that she must not live in Folkestone, or engage in the business conducted by her husband. Two medical certificates were put in. Both showed that it was impossible for her to continue in the business, as she was in a neurotic condition. When the last application was made, Mr. Luck had not been in possession one year, but now he had been in possession over that period. There was a further regulation that two changes should not be made in three years. With regard to that, the Bench were not bound by those regulations, but could dispense with them if the circumstances were sufficient to warrant their setting aside. It would be inflicting a great hardship to make Mr. Luck go on, both on public and private grounds. If the Bench insisted, it would mean his having to keep his wife in London and obtain assistance in Folkestone, and compel him to shut up his house, or go into the Bankruptcy Court. He could in a measure set the regulations at defiance by closing the house and sending the key to the brewery, when the licence would have to be deal with under the old Ale Houses Act.

The Chief Constable offered no objection to the transfer.

Mr. Loftus Banks having proved the service of the usual notices upon the police and overseers, the Chairman said the Bench would suspend, under the circumstances, the regulations, and grant the application, but in doing so it would not tie their hands at a future period.

Folkestone Express 9-12-1905

Wednesday, December 9^th: Before E.T. Ward Esq., Lieut. Col. Hamilton, Major Leggatt, W.G. Herbert and J. Linton Esqs.

At the special sessions for the transfer of ale-house licences the following transfer was made: The Welcome Inn, from Mr. J. Luck to Mr. J. Forman

Folkestone Herald 9-12-1905

Wednesday, December 6^th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Alderman W.G. Herbert, Lieut. Colonel Hamilton, Major Leggatt, and Mr. T. Ames.

Mr. R.M. Mercer, on behalf of Mr. John Luck, applied for a transfer of the licence of the Welcome Inn, Dover Street, to Mr. John Foreman. He stated that Mr. Luck`s wife was seriously ill, and it was quite impossible for her to live in Folkestone. She was at present residing in London under medical attendance. When an application was made before, they had not been in the house a year, and the Magistrates declined. Now they had been in the house over a year.

The application was granted, but the Chairman remarked that although they would let the transfer go through, it would not tie their hands on any future occasion.

Folkestone Daily News 3-2-1906

Saturday, February 3^rd: Before Messrs. W.G. Herbert, G.I. Swoffer, R.J. Linton, C.J. Pursey, J. Stainer, Lieut. Colonel Hamilton, and Major Leggett.

Nellie Maud Williams appeared in answer to a summons charging her with refusing to quit the Welcome Inn.

John Foreman, the landlord, said defendant came into the bar on Thursday before nine o`clock and requested to be served. As she was an undesirable customer, she was refused. She went out.

The charge was dismissed.

Throughout the case, defendant behaved with her usual levity, and thanked the Bench most heartily as she left the Court on discharge.

Folkestone Daily News 7-2-1906

Annual Licensing Sessions

Wednesday, February 7^th: 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 7^th: 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 31^st 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 7^th: 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 5^th.

Saturday, February 3^rd: Before W.G. Herbert Esq., Lieut. Col. Hamilton, Major Leggett, J. Stainer, C.J. Pursey, G.I. Swoffer and R.J. Linton Esqs.

Nellie Maud Williams was summoned for refusing to quit the licensed premises of the Welcome Inn on the previous Thursday.

John Foreman, the licence holder of the inn, said on Thursday morning defendant asked for a drink, but he refused to serve her as she was an undesirable customer. He asked her to leave several times but she refused, until witness went towards her, when she backed out the door. When she got outside she used such language as he had never heard from the biggest blackguard. She eventually went away, returning ten minutes later. She was going to enter again, but defendant kept out when she saw him.

Defendant said she never went into the witness`s house. He said to her “You are a candidate for the Black List. Instead of having two weeks in Canterbury, you ought to have two months”. That made her mad. She was sober at the time, and to show she was going on all right, the Chief Constable told her on Tuesday that he was pleased to see she was reforming. (Laughter)

The Chairman said the case against the defendant would be dismissed.

Defendant: Thank you. Good morning, sir.

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.

Saturday, February 3^rd: Before Alderman W.G. Herbert, Lieut. Colonel Hamilton, Major G.E. Leggett, Messrs. C.J. Pursey, J. Stainer, G.I. Swoffer, and R.J. Linton.

Nellie Maud Williams was summoned for refusing to quit licensed premises.

John Foreman stated that he was the landlord of the Welcome Inn, Dover Street. Before 9 o`clock on Thursday morning, the defendant entered his house and asked for a drink. His experience was that defendant was an undesirable customer, and he had been told to be careful of her. She had never been served in his house but once, and then she obtained drink under false pretences. The defendant had been drinking, and he asked her to leave. On his coming towards her she backed out very reluctantly. In the street she used the vilest language he had ever heard anyone use. She went away and came back soon afterwards, using the most disgraceful language, and saying that as she had got a drink further up she did not see why he did not give her one.

Defendant (addressing witness): It`s a cross-summons, and you appear on Wednesday. (Laughter)

She further stated that witness had jeered her, and said she ought to have two months instead of two weeks.

The Chairman stated that the case would be dismissed, and defendant, saying “Good morning”, left the Court.

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 5-3-1906

Adjourned Licensing Sessions

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

Mr. John Foreman applied for the licence of the Welcome Inn, Dover Street.

Mr. Mercer appeared on behalf of the owners and licensee, and concisely opened the case, asking that the licence, if opposed, be on the ground of redundancy, and not on that of misconduct.

Mr. Rook appeared in opposition to the licence. He could not assent to Mr. Mercer`s application.

His application was refused.

Mr. Rook said on December 4^th, Mr. Luck, the previous tenant, applied for a transfer, and was refused owing to the fact that he had not held the licence for one year. When he had completed the twelvemonth the transfer was granted, but it was pointed out that that would not prejudice opposition to the licence, so he went into the house with his eyes open. During 16½ years the licence had been transferred 16 times. In the last three or four years there had been three convictions, and during the past two years, two convictions – one for drunkenness, and one for harbouring prostitutes. He contended that the house had been badly conducted, and that the present tenant, until the last month, had not improved it, it being frequented by persons of the lowest character.

Inspector Lilley proved serving the notices. The house was formerly known as The Folkestone Cutter. The house had been a general resort for prostitutes, with exceptions of short periods. In 1892 a conviction was obtained for keeping the house open during prohibited hours on Sunday. He had cautioned several different landlords. He kept observation on the house in 1905 from 27^th March to 2^nd April, principally during the last hour. The chief customers were soldiers and prostitutes, there being very few civilians. On the 27^th March, from 10.45 till closing time, he saw three prostitutes leave with men, two of whom were drunk. On the following day, from 10.35 he saw a prostitute go in, and ....

Mr. Mercer objected to the evidence on the common ground of fairness. They were dealing with over a year ago, and the present tenant had no means of checking the evidence. If evidence of that character was permitted, then the publicans were at the mercy of the police.

The Bench said they should admit the evidence.

Inspector Lilley, continuing, said the late tenant was warned and told no doubt he would be summoned, and he had been cautioned in February. On the 28^th, at 10.45, two more prostitutes went in and came out later with two soldiers, at 10.55. Music and dancing was going on. On the 29^th, at 10.35, a woman came out and went away with a soldier. At 10.50 two prostitutes came out and went away with several soldiers. At closing time two prostitutes left, who went away with soldiers, also one married woman and another woman. There were 20 or 30 soldiers came out, some under the influence of drink. On the 31^st, at 10.40, a woman went in with a soldier, and at 10.50 a prostitute went away with a soldier. At 10.55 another woman went away with a soldier. At 10.45 some Hussars came out drunk. On the 1^st April, at 10.25, a prostitute came out and went in again at 10.30. At 10.35 two prostitutes came out and returned in a few minutes. At 10.50 a prostitute came out with a soldier, and came back at 10.55. At closing time four prostitutes and two other women left, all going away with soldiers. Four of the women must have been in the house all the time witness had it under observation.

Cross-examined: He had known the house 22 years. He made the entries in his notebook each night. He recollected the house being prosecuted once as the resort of prostitutes. He had reported the house to his chief verbally. In April, 1905, it was reported in writing, the first time in 21 years. There was no prosecution in consequence. He acted on his own initiative in observing the house. He did not arrest any of the drunken soldiers as they were capable of taking care of themselves.

Mr. Mercer protested against the Inspector refusing the names of constables who, he said, knew the house as harbouring prostitutes.

The Bench thought the names should be given, and he mentioned Inspector Swift and the two sergeants present – Osborne and Lawrence. They had had conversations on the subject, and they were told to observe, and, if necessary, to report. They did not do so in writing. Three or four constable had also reported verbally.

Re-examined: He made a special report at the time based on his notes.

Mr. Mercer brought to the notice of the Bench that a lot of constables were present, and they were not asked to withdraw.

P.S. Lawrence said he had known the Welcome 18 years. There was very little day trade. In the evening it was the habitual resort of prostitutes and men of the lowest type, and soldiers. He produced a copy of the conviction on 25^th May, 1904, for harbouring prostitutes. He had cautioned the previous tenant on the 6^th and 7^th December, 1905. In January, 1906, he went to the house and found several constables trying to disperse a crowd. Witness entered and saw Foreman. He said “At 20 past ten seven or eight soldiers came in. Neither of them had any drink, but went straight into the back room and said to a civilian “This is the bloke we are looking for”.” A free fight ensued. There was a prostitute in the bar, and the attention of the landlord was called to her, and he said he did not want her in his house, and he asked her to leave, but she would not. He was told he knew his remedy.

Cross-examined: The landlord could not help the disturbance.

P.S. Osborne said he had known the Welcome 10 years. During the last few years it had been rather rowdy, with soldiers, prostitutes, and those who used the common lodging houses. On February 8^th, 1905, at 10.35 he visited the house and saw a man there drunk, and he was arrested. He saw two prostitutes in the house. He visited the house again at 11 o`clock and saw a prostitute so drunk that she fell out of the house. Some soldiers were there, some of them drunk. One was arrested by the Military Police. He produced the conviction on February 5^th. On 27^th January witness saw Foreman turn out a prostitute. On the 29^th he spoke to him as to a prostitute in the bar, and he said he thought she was a respectable woman. On January 13^th, 1905, he arrested a prostitute in the house.

Cross-examined: He agreed with Inspector Lilley`s description of the house to a great extent. He had reported the house several times to the late Superintendent. He had reported it three or four times during the past seven years. During Foreman`s time the house had been very noisy.

P.C. Simpson said he had known the house 13 years. He agreed with the previous witnesses as to the character of the trade done there. On Christmas Day, 1904 (a Sunday) witness visited the Welcome at 7.30 in the evening. The room was full of girls and soldiers, and some girls were sitting on the soldiers` knees. They were all singing. The customers in the bar were all of a low class. In January, 1905 he kept observation and saw soldiers and prostitutes enter and leave the house. They did not enter together. On 27^th January, 1905 he saw similar scenes. On the same date, 1906, he saw well known prostitutes enter and leave the house. He referred to the disturbance with the soldiers referred to by Sergeant Lawrence.

Cross-examined: He had never reported the house in writing, but had done so verbally.

P.C. Prebble said he was attracted by a noise on the 16^th March, 1905. He found a number of women and soldiers there, all the worse for drink, the soldiers were fighting, and one was lying on the floor bleeding. One soldier was ejected, and afterwards was arrested.

Cross-examined: The landlord might have been to blame to some extent, but he was not prosecuted, or reported.

P.C. Sharp stated he had known the house 14 years. He agreed with previous evidence as to the character of the house, and corroborated the evidence as to prostitutes habitually using the house, adding some of a similar character as to his own observations on specific occasions.

Cross-examined: He reported the result of his observations in writing to the Chief Constable. No prosecution followed.

P.C. Butler said he observed the house in March and April, 1905, and saw prostitutes leave on the evening of each day between the 27^th March and the 2^nd April (omitting the 30^th March and 1^st April). He had seen men leave under the influence of drink. In December he saw prostitutes leave, and cautioned the landlord. He said he had been in business 21 years, and did not wnat to be taught his business.

Cross-examined: He did not compare his knowledge of licensing law to Mr. Mercer`s. He knew police offences under it. He thought ten minutes a reasonable time to obtain refreshments, but had seen prostitutes stay half an hour.

P.C. Bourne described the Welcome as being the resort of prostitutes and men who associated with them. When cautioned, Foreman replied that “his house was no worse than others”.

Thomas Henry Penn, 55, Penfold Road, pensioned staff-sergeant from the Army, said during the winter of last year he was employed as caretaker of the Albany Club, Tontine Street, and very often passed the Welcome on his way home. He saw the majority of the customers were soldiers and women of loose character. In February, 1905, about 10.45 one evening, he saw a man carried out and laid on the pavement. To all appearance he was senseless. He saw the landlord come out with a “long arm” and put out the lights. That would be about 10 to 11.

George Miller, 38, Dover Street, bootmaker, had known the Welcome ever since he could remember. Of late years it had borne a bad character. It was not used by the residents of Dover Street, but by loose women and disorderly men. Forty years ago it was a most respectable house.

Mr. Mercer protested against a question of Mr. Rook`s, and it was dismissed.

Thomas S. Franks, grocer, of 5, Dover Street, said he had lived there six years, and the only trade the house did was with soldiers and prostitutes, and had had cause to complain of their conduct. He had seen well-known prostitutes leave the Welcome, and had seen them at the back of his premises with men. The respectable inhabitants of Dover Street did not use the house.

William Thomas Drury, bootmaker, Dover Street had known the house many years. It was a rough, rowdy house, with noise, bawling, shouting, and drunkenness.

Cross-examined: He had seen a scandalous amount of drunkenness for the last 20 years near the Welcome, but not since Christmas.

Harold McCrow, bootmaker, said he had a shop nearly opposite. The trade done at the Welcome in the evening was practically all soldiers and prostitutes.

That closed the case for the opposition.

Richard Moxon (managing director of Ash and Company), said he had been connected with the firm for 38 years, but had never received any complaint of the conduct of the house.

John Foreman, the licence holder, stated that he had been in occupation since December, 1905. It was a difficult house. He had prosecuted a woman for disorderly conduct, but did not obtain a conviction. On that occasion he did not receive any help from the police.

Mr. Herbert interposed and said Mr. Mercer was putting an entirely different complexion on the case to what took place in Court on the day mentioned. The woman was charged with refusing to quit, and as she had left at the request of the landlord, the case was dismissed.

Mr. Mercer apologised, saying he took the report from the Folkestone Herald. He had no wish to put an unfair complexion on the case.

Witness said he had plenty of experience in various houses in London and Bristol. He believed he could get a living if he was left alone.

Cross-examined: He believed he could get a living if he was not persecuted by the police. During the first week he was in Folkestone P.C. Butcher never left his door. The house was not a difficult one. (Witness had previously said it was) He took the house direct from Messrs. Ash, and paid £243 to go in.

The Chairman: We granted the licence under special conditions, and said that it would not tie our hands.

Mr. Mercer said he thought it was a hard case. He said he was again quoting from the Folkestone Herald, and perhaps it was wrong again. It stated that the licence would be opposed on the grounds of necessity.

The Chairman: Then the Folkestone Herald is wrong again.

Mr. Mercer: I shall not take the Folkestone Herald again.

In the course of a most powerful speech Mr. Mercer asked that the case might go to Quarter Sessions for compensation in the usual way. He thought the owners had been hardly used in not having been warned as to the conduct of the house by the police. The tenant had been hardly used. Houses of all classes must be provided, and he admitted the house was a rough one, and used by undesirable characters,, and was a nuisance to the neighbourhood. If the case went to the Compensation Authority he would not fight it, and the police would gain their end.

The Magistrates then retired, and on their return said the Bench were unanimous in deciding to refuse the licence on the ground of bad conduct.

Notice of appeal was given.

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.

Welcome Inn

The first case of opposition heard had reference to the Welcome Inn.

The Chief Constable objected to the renewal of this licence on the grounds of misconduct.

Mr. Herbert Rook supported the objection, while the tenant and owners were represented by Mr. Mercer, the County Coroner.

Mr. Rook, in opening the case, said the present tenant was a man named John Foreman, to whom the licence had been transferred in December of last year. In October the late tenant, Mr. Luck, had applied to transfer the licence to Foreman, but at that time there was a difficulty, as the licence had been previously transferred within a period of 12 months. What, said Mr. Rook, was the character of this house?  In 16½ years there had been 15 transfers of the licence; in the last three or four years there had been three convictions; in the last two years two convictions, one for harbouring prostitutes, and one for drunkenness. The house, he would prove, had been the habitual resort of persons of ill fame and of the lowest character.

At this stage Mr. Mercer pointed out that for six licences held over, five it was proposed to refer to Quarter Sessions on the grounds of redundancy, while his client had to face a charge of misconduct. The tenant had expended a considerable sum of money to go into the house, and it would be a great hardship if only this one house were refused without a chance of compensation. If the Bench would refer the licence to Quarter Sessions under the Compensation Act on the ground of redundancy, he would advise his clients not to further contest the application to close the house as a licensed premises.

The Chairman intimated that the Bench preferred to go on with the case on the grounds advanced by the Chief Constable.

Mr. Rook, having foreshadowed the evidence he intended to produce, called Inspector Lilley, who said:  I served the notice of objection on Mr. Foreman. I have known those premises for the past 22 years well. They were formerly known as the Cutter. The general character of the house during the whole time, with the exception of a very short period, has been the habitual resort of prostitutes. There have been one or two good landlords in. In 1892 I was in Court when a landlord of the house was fined £5 and costs for keeping the house open on Sunday. I have cautioned several different landlords as to the conduct of the house. Last year, from the 27^th March to the 3^rd April I kept observation of the house, especially during the late hours. A very great majority of the customers were soldiers and prostitutes; a very few civilian cusromers. At that time I made notes (produced). On the 27^th March, 1905, I kept observation from 10.45 until closing time, and saw three prostitutes leave with men, two of the men being drunk. On the 28^th I watched from 10.25. At 10.35 I saw a prostitute go in. At ....

At this point Mr. Mercer interrupted, and strongly objected to this class of evidence, dealing with a period of over a year ago. No warning had been given, and no-one could check police evidence. It was practically doing away with the liberty of the subject; and if such evidence was admitted, everyone would be at the liberty of the police.

The Chairman said the Bench must admit the evidence.

Inspector Lilley, continuing, said that on this particular case warning was given to the tenant; further than that, he had warned the tenant. (Continuing): On this particular night I saw two prostitutes come out with soldiers; they had been there, but I do not know how long. They came out at 10.35. On this evening there was music and dancing, the dancing accompanied by a band. Again on the 29^th I watched from 10.25; at 10.35 I saw a woman come out with a soldier. At 10.50 three women, two well-known prostitutes, a married woman and another woman. The two first women went away with soldiers. Five or six of those who left the house were under the influence of drink, and stumbled down the street. On the 31^st I watched from 10.25. At 10.40 a woman went in with a soldier. At 10.50 a prostitute came out and went away with a man; at 10.55 another woman came out and went away with a soldier. At 10.45, ten minutes previous, three Hussars came out; one was drunk, and bolted up the street. On the 1^st of April, at 10.16, I kept observation. At 10.25 a prostitute came out, and returned to the house at 10.30. At 10.35 two prostitutes came out and returned again in about three minutes. At 10.50 a prostitute came out with a soldier, and returned again at 10.55. At closing time four prostitutes and two other women left, all of them going away with soldiers. The prostitutes must have been in the house before I commenced to keep observation. Between 20 and 30 soldiers left the house while I was keeping observation.

By Mr. Mercer: The notes were made at the time I was keeping observation. The last note of observation in this year is made on the 23^rd Feb.; the remainder of the book is absolutely blank, except another entry at the end of the book in reference to a larceny committed on January 10^th, a reference to the Leas Hotel. The house during the last 22 years had been the habitual resort of prostitutes, except under two or three landlords. The house in 22 years had only been prosecuted once for prostitution. He had given a verbal report to his superior officer, but the first written report was made in April of last year.

Mr. Mercer: Have you reported the house a dozen times in 22 years?

Witness: No.

Mr. Mercer: Ten times?

Witness: No.

Mr. Mercer: How many times in this 22 years?

Witness: About four I should think.

In further cross-examination, witness said he watched the house as part of his duty, and not by the special instructions of the Chief Constable. Of the drunken people who had left the house he did not arrest any because they were not disorderly, and were capable of taking care of themselves. Information concerning this house would reach the police station in many other ways through other police officers. Among those who had conversations concerning the house he could mention Inspector Swift and two police sergeants. He could not say that either of these had reported to their superior officer. He, upon hearing these conversations, might have instructed the officers to keep observation on the house. In addition to the Inspector and sergeant, three or four of the private constables had reported the house to him.

Re-examined by Mr. Rook: It would depend upon circumstances who the sergeants reported to; if at night, and the witness was on duty, the report would be made to him; otherwise, to the Chief Constable.

Sergt. Frank Lawrence said he had known the Welcome Inn about 18 years. There was very little day trade. The character of the evening trade is the habitual resort of prostitutes, and men of the lowest types, who live in the common lodging houses, and soldiers. On the 25^th May, 1904, I was present in Court when the then landlord was convicted for harbouring prostitutes. On the night of the 13^th May, 1904, I saw a number of prostitutes leave the house. On the 5^th and 6^th of December, 1905, I cautioned the last tenant. I mean December, 1904. That was not Luck, but Jarvis. On the 27^th of January this year, from what I heard, I went to the Welcome Inn. I found P.C.s Simpson, Chaney, and Boorn endeavouring to disperse a crowd in front of the house. I entered the house, and there saw the present applicant. I went with him to a room at the back of the bar. He said “About 20 minutes past 10 seven or eight soldiers came to the house; neither called for any drink, but walked straight into the back room, where seven or eight customers were seated. One of the soldiers said to a civilian “This is the bloke we are looking for” and went for him, and immediately about six couples were fighting”. Hen I entered the house, one woman, a prostitute, was in front of the bar. I spoke to the landlord about her, and he said he “did not want her to come here”, and I said “You know your remedy if she refuses to leave”.

Cross-examined by Mr. Mercer:  He could not see how Foreman was to blame for the soldiers fighting in the room, if the statement was true, and he had no reason to doubt that it was.

Sergt. Osborne said: I have known the Welcome Inn the last 19 years. During the last 19 years the trade has been rather rowdy, the customers being soldiers, prostitutes, and those who visit common lodging houses. On the 8^th of February last year, with P.C. Sharp, I visited the house. In the bar I found a man named France. The man was drunk and incapable; I arrested him. At the time two prostitutes were in the bar. The same night I visited the house again, and saw one of the prostitutes coming out. She was drunk; in fact, she fell out. There were three soldiers in the front bar; two of them were drunk, and one was arrested by a corporal of the Military Police. I now produce the conviction of John Luck, on the 15^th of February, 1905. On the 27^th of January this year I was proceeding up Dover Street. I saw the present applicant turning out a prostitute. He said she use such bad language he could not stand it, and had turned her out. On the 29^th of January I cautioned him in respect to a prostitute, and he said he thought she was a respectable woman. At a later date I arrested a prostitute in the house who had broken away from a constable by whom she had been arrested.

Cross-examined by Mr. Mercer: In a great measure he agreed with the description of the house given by Inspector Lilley. Practically the house had been the resort of prostitutes on and off for the past 19 years. During the last seven years he had reported the house, he should think, about four or five times. During Foreman`s time the house had been very noisy.

P.C. Simpson said: I have known the house during the last 13 years. There has been during my observation practically no day trade, and at night time a very rough trade. The house had been used by low characters and prostitutes, and disturbances had been frequent. On Christmas Day, 1904, with P.C. Sharp, I visited the house, and at 7.30 p.m. I found on the ground floor a room full of soldiers and girls. Some of the girls were sitting on soldiers` knees, and one girl was playing “Blue Bell” on the piano. (Laughter) On the other side of the house there were several costermongers and rag and bone pickers humming to a tune played by an automatic machine. On the 19<sup>th</sup> of January I saw a prostitute leave the house with three soldiers. Shortly after two other prostitutes left with soldiers and civilians. On the 20<sup>th</sup> of January, 1905, I saw two prostitutes in the front bar. Shortly after these two left with another one and three soldiers. On the 27<sup>th</sup> of January this year I was in Dover Street, keeping observation on the Welcome Inn. Between 6.30 and 8.30 I saw three prostitutes enter and leave, Jane Fraser, Minnie Smith, and Martha Williams. On the 17<sup>th</sup> of January, about 10.15 p.m., I was attracted to the Welcome Inn by a police whistle. I saw six soldiers of the Royal Scots come out. One had his face bleeding. I called the landlord`s attention to it, and he said the men had entered and made a row with some of his customers.

By Mr. Mercer: He had known the house about 13 years; had never reported the house in writing, but several times verbally. If six soldiers went into a house and fell upon six customers, witness would say that the landlord had done no harm.

P.C. William Prebble said: On the 11^th of March, 1905, I was at the Welcome Inn. I entered the house, and found several soldiers and women in the back of the house. Four of the soldiers were fighting, one was bleeding very much from the back of the head, all were the worse for drink. One soldier was ejected, and on his refusing to go away I arrested him, and he was convicted.

By Mr. Mercer: The landlord was not summoned for misconduct. He did not report the landlord, but reported the soldier. If he had thought the landlord had committed an offence under the licensing laws, he would have reported him.

P.C. Sharp said: I have known the Welcome Inn for about 14 years. The house has been the habitual resort of prostitutes, soldiers, and rough characters. On the 31^st of March, and 1^st, 2^nd, and 3^rd of April last year, I kept observation on the house. On the 31^st March at 10.05 I saw two prostitutes leave the house, and at 10.10 returned again. At 10.35 twp prostitutes left; they had entered during the time I had been watching. At 10.50 Spearpoint again left the house, accompanied by a soldier. At 10.55 the soldier and Spearpoint returned. At 10.53 another prostitute left in company with a soldier. I had not seen that prostitute enter, and had been there since 9 p.m. On Sunday, the 23^rd of April, I kept observation from 8.30 until closing time. At 8.40 two prostitutes and two soldiers came out. I had not seen them enter. At nine o`clock the same two returned to the house. At 9.05 a prostitute and a woman left in company with three soldiers, and all went up High Street. On the 3^rd of April I kept observation from 8 p.m. until 11 p.m. At 8.50 two prostitutes and two soldiers entered. At 9.20 two prostitutes left (not the same two) and returned at 9.30. At 9.48 one of them left, and returned at 9.50. At 10.25 two prostitutes left, followed by two men. One of the prostitutes and one man went to a passage at the back of Saffrons Place, and a few minutes later returned to the Welcome.

By Mr. Mercer: After keeping observation for four days witness reported this evidence to his Chief Constable in writing. No action was taken; he could not say why. A prostitute was entitled to get refreshment. A publican would not be doing wrong in supplying a prostitute, but he would be doing wrong if he harboured a prostitute.

P.C. R.J. Butler said: I kept observation of the house in March and April of last year from the 22^nd of March to the 2^nd of April, from 10 p.m. On the evening of each of these days I saw prostitutes leave the house. I also saw soldiers and civilians leave the house. On the 27^th I saw two civilians leave under the influence of drink. On the 12^th of December in the same year I saw two prostitutes leave the house. On the 12^th I saw five prostitutes leave the house at five minutes to 11. I then called the present landlord and cautioned him, by giving him the women`s names. He replied “he knew them; he had been in the business 21 years, and did not want telling”.

By Mr. Mercer: He knew that “harbouring” in the Licensing Law was a very serious offence. Ten minutes to 15 would be quite enough for obtaining refreshment. In March, 1905, witness submitted a report to the Chief Constable, but no proceedings were taken. When the two men came out on the 27^th of March they were under the influence of drink, but not drunk; that was why he did not report them.

P.C. Robert J. Boorn said: The character of the Welcome from my observation has been the resort of prostitutes and a low class of character. In December, 1904, on the 5^th, I visited the house at 10.25, and went into the public bar with Sergt. Lawrence. There were two prostitutes there, Herring and Allchin. The landlord said he knew Herring was a prostitute, but thought the other woman was the wife of a man in the bar. On the 6^th of October, 1904, I kept observation on the house, and saw the same two women enter the house at 10.10 with two soldiers (cavalry), and left at 10.30 with two infantrymen. At 10.40 the women returned again alone. At 10.50 the woman and a man who went in at 10.40 came out. At 11 o`clock the first two came out with two other women, soldiers and civilians. On the 7^th the house was quiet. On the 28^th February, 1905, I saw the woman Herring with another prostitute, Williams, in the house. Williams left the house, but returned again. At closing time, Herring, Williams, and Sweeney (another prostitute) all left the house; I did not see Sweeney enter the house. On the 1^st of arch I again kept observation, and saw a woman named Norris enter the house, and come out with Sweeney and another woman. At 10.40 I went with Inspector Lilley and cautioned the landlord that if the prostitutes were allowed to remain he would be reported for a summons, and he replied “his house was no worse than others, as he had seen other houses full of them”.

By Mr. Mercer: There was always to be found a rough place in every town, where one did not expect to find a high class house.

It was now 1.30, and the Court adjourned until 2.15.

On the resumption of the hearing, four civilian witnesses were called, and by a peculiar coincidence three who lived in Dover Street were all of one trade – bootmakers.

Mr. Rook called Thomas henry Penn, who said he was a pensioned army staff-sergeant. From his observation the majority of customers frequenting the Welcome Inn were loose characters. In February, 1905, he saw a man carried out of the Welcome by four other men and deposited on the pavement. The man, to all appearances, was senseless. On that occasion the light in front of the house was put out a quarter of an hour before time.

By Mr. Mercer: Witness did not make any special point about the light being put out.

George Henry Miller said he had known the Welcome as long as he could remember; first as the Cutter. The character of the house was very low, mostly used by unfortunate women. Witness lived at 30, Dover Street. Forty years ago the house was a very respectable one.

By Mr. Mercer: Now unfortunate women and soldiers frequent the house.

Mr. Mercer: Have you everheard of any prosecutions of this house?

Witness: I have wondered there have not been years ago.

Thomas Stokes Franks, a grocer, said: I have known the street and house practically all my life. I have lived in Dover Street for six years. The character of the customers is bad. The trade is with soldiers and prostitutes. I have had cause to complain of the conduct of the customers. I have seen well known prostitutes enter and leave the Welcome, and I have seen the same well known prostitutes and men at the back of my house. I could not say that I had seen acts of indecency. I do not know of one of the respectable inhabitants of Dover Street who use this house.

By Mr. Mercer: I am personally interested in property in Dover Street.

William Thomas Drury, a bootmaker, said: I have known the Welcome Inn, and the Cutter before it, for some years. I should think it ought to be termed a very rough, rowdy place.

By Mr. Mercer: He had seen a scandalous amount of drunkenness this 20 years past, but not so much since Christmas.

Harold Macrow said: I live at 49, Dover Street, and have a shop nearly opposite the Welcome Inn. I am a bootmaker. From what I have seen of the Welcome Inn, the trade done is practically with prostitutes and soldiers. I have heard and seen scenes of disorder at the house. My experience of the house extends over about 12 years.

This closed the case for the prosecution.

Mr. Mercer at once put one of the managing directors of Messrs. Ash in the box for the defence.

Richard Moxton, a member of the firm of Messrs. Ash and Co., said he had been connected with the firm for 35 years, and during that time no complaint had been made to him from the police.

By Mr. Rook: Witness said he did not suggest that it was the duty of the police to make a complaint to the firm.

John Foreman said: The licence was transferred to me on December 7^th. During the time I have been in the house I have exercised care to the best of my ability. I brought a woman here lately for abuse, but on that occasion I received no assistance from the police.

Mr. Herbert: You are putting an entirely false impression; the police did not arrive until the woman had left the house.

By Mr. Mercer: None of the civilian witnesses had written to him or warned him. He contended he could have done all right in the house if he had been left alone.

Mr. Rook: You say you would have done all right if left alone. What do you mean by that?

Witness: By being persecuted by the police, especially P.C. Butler, No. 6, who remained on my doorstep from the first week when I entered the house. I am not supposed to ask any woman her occupation when she enters my house, and they do not wear a brass breastplate with their occupation on it. I have had considerable experience in the licensing business, but have never held a house under Messrs. Ash before. When taking this house Messrs. Banks and Son acted for me and the brewers. I paid £214 valuation to take over the house.

Mr. Rook: You applied for the transfer in October, and did not get it until December. What were you doing in the meantime?

Witness: Am I bound to answer such a question?

The Chairman, after consulting his colleagues, said witness need not answer such a question.

Mr. Mercer protested against Mr. Rook having put the question. He had never heard an advocate wish to extract such information in such a case.

Mr. Mercer then at considerable length addressed the Bench again, asking the Justices to re-consider their decision, and to report the house to the compensation authority only. The case was a somewhat peculiar one, and he ventured to say one which inflicted great hardship on the owners and the tenant. The case was hard, inasmuch as, if the Bench decided to take away the licence, the tenant would have to leave the house without compensation. Messrs. Ash had since the passing of the Compensation Act, paid a very considerable amount into the fund, and yet they, too, would lose their house without compensation. In appealing to the Magistrates, he asked them to bear in mind that the general public did not contribute to the compensation fund, but the “Trade” themselves. The specific hardships which his clients would suffer were that, covering a period of 14 years, the police had only proved three convictions, and yet the charge was that the house was the habitual resort of prostitutes. He quite agreed, and could not confuse the evidence, that the house was a rough one, but they must all agree that there must be such class of houses. The gentlemen would not like to have to associate with this class at their hotels, etc. On the tenant, to lose the licence would be a gross hardship. He had paid £214 to take over the house in December, and now, if reference to teh Compensation Court were refused, it simply meant that he could take his goods into the street, and not get as many shillings for them. If thehouse was so bad in 1905, as the police said it was, how was it that the licence did not go then, and not wait until 1906 before taking it away? He (Mr. Mercer) had to admit the whole of the facts, yet he would ask the Bench to consider the specific hardships upon both owners and tenant. It was only two years ago that the Marquis of Lorne (Messrs. Ash`s property) came before the Bench. That was before the clause of the Act was in operation, therefore, to lose their second house without compensation would be “blow upon blow”.

The Magistrates retired, and after an absence of seven minutes returned into Court, when the Chairman announced that the Magitrates were unanimous in refusing the renewal of the licence upon the grounds of misconduct.

Mr. Mercer: My instructions are to appeal; will the Bench fix the recognisances?

The Chairman: The recognisances will be the landlord in £100, and two sureties in £50 each.

  

We understand the Welcome appeal was duly entered on Wednesday morning.

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 Welcome

The licence of the Welcome Inn was first considered. John Foreman is the licence holder, and the objection against the licence was that there had been a conviction against the house.

Mr. Mercer appeared on behalf of Messrs. Ash and Co., the brewers. On the case being called, he said before going on with the case, he would like to mention that when it was put back, there was a verbal objection against the house that it was not required. He had, however, been served with a notice that it had not been well conducted. He asked that the objection should be taken on the ground that it was not required. Under the present objection the licence could be confiscated.

Mr. J.H. Rook, who appeared on behalf of the police in opposition to the licence being granted, objected to it being other than on account of ill-conduct.

The Magistrates stated they could not accede to Mr. Mercer`s application.

The register was handed in by the Magistrates` Clerk.

Inspector Lilley said he had known the house twenty two years. It was formerly known as the Cutter. During the whole time, with the exception of a short period, the house had been the habitual resort of prostitutes. In 1892 he was present in Court when a conviction was made against the landlord for keeping the house open on Sunday during prohibited hours. He had cautioned several different landlords about the conduct of the house. From March 27^th to April 3^rd last year he kept observation on the house, and he saw that the customers were composed chiefly of soldiers and prostitutes. He made notes at the time, which he produced. On March 27^th, from 10.45 p.m. to closing time he saw three prostitutes leave with men. On the 28^th at 10.35 p.m. he saw a prostitute go in.

At this point Mr. Mercer objected to the evidence because the present licence holder was not in the house then. On the ground of common fairness he asked them that the evidence be not heard.

The Chairman said they would admit the evidence.

Inspector Lilley, continuing, said on March 28^th at 10.55 p.m. two prostitutes came out with soldiers. They had been in all the time he kept observations, as he did not see them enter. Music and dancing was going on. On the following day he watched from 10.35 p.m. to 10.55. He saw women, two of them well-known prostitutes, leave the house at 10.50. At closing time two known prostitutes left the house with soldiers. Two other women also left the house. They were all sober. Between ten and twenty soldiers came out, and several were under the influence of drink. There was also music and dancing on that occasion. On March 31^st he kept observations from 10.35 p.m. At 10.40 a woman went in with a soldier, and at 10.50 a prostitute came out with a soldier. At 10.55 another woman came out with a soldier. At 10.45 three Hussars came out, and one of them was drunk. On April 1^st he kept observation from 10.16 p.m. At 10.25 a prostitute came out, and went in again at 10.30. At 10.35 two prostitutes came out and returned in three minutes. At 10.50 a prostitute came out with a soldier, and returned at 10.55. She had previously come out of the house at 10.25. At 10.53 a prostitute came out and went away with a soldier. At closing time four prostitutes and two other women left, all of them going away with soldiers. He had not seen the prostitutes enter, so could not say what time they entered. From 20 to 30 soldiers also left.

Cross-examined, witness said he made the notes about the house during the time he was in the street. The first prosecution against the house he remembered was 1892. He had known the house prosecuted for being the resort of prostitutes only once during the twenty two years. The first time he had reported the house for being the resort of prostitutes was last April. He had reported it verbally four or five times during that time. There was no prosecution in respect of his report. He did not keep observations on the house in consequence of instruction from his chief, but did it in the performance of his duty. On April 3^rd he warned Luck that he would be summoned, but that was not done. He could not say the reason of that. Inspector Swift knew of the character of the house, and had had conversations with him on the matter. Two sergeants had also verbally reported it to him. He told them to keep observations, and if anything happened to report it. They had reported verbally with regard to the conduct of the house. Three or four constables had spoken to him on the matter. There had been two convictions, one for drunkenness, and another for allowing the house to be the resort of prostitutes.

P.S. Laurence said he had known the house about eighteen years. There was very little day trade, while the character of the evening trade was that it was the resort of prostitutes and men of the lowest type, who lived in the common lodging houses, and of soldiers. He was in Court on May 25^th, 1904, when a conviction was made against the landlord for harbouring prostitutes. On December 5^th and 6^th, 1904, he cautioned Jarvis, the then tenant. On January 27^th, 1906, at 10.35 p.m., he found P.C.s Simpson, Cheyney and Boorn endeavouring to disperse a crowd in front of the house. He entered the house and saw the applicant, with whom he went to the back of the bar. He also said about twenty past ten seven or eight soldiers entered the house and walked straight through to the back room, where several of the regular customers were seated. One of the soldiers said to one of the civilians “This is the bloke we are looking for”. Immediately there were six couples fighting in the room. He saw a well-known prostitute in the house and he called the landlord`s attention to her. He said he had ordered her to leave but she refused. The floor of the back room was flooded with liquor, and there was evidence of a disturbance having taken place.

Cross-examined, witness said he could not see how the landlord was to blame for the disturbance.

P.S. Osborne said he had known the Welcome for nineteen years. During the last few years the trade had been rowdy, with prostitutes, soldiers, and generally those using common lodging houses. On February 8^th of last year, at 10.35 p.m., he entered the house with P.C. Sharpe, and found a man named France in the bar drunk and incapable. Witness arrested him. He also found two prostitutes there. At eleven o`clock the same night he went to the house again, and saw a prostitute named Spranklin come out. She was drunk and fell down. He found three soldiers in the bar, and they were drunk. One was afterwards arrested by the military police. He produced the conviction against Luck, the landlord, made on February 15<sup>th</sup>. On January 27<sup>th</sup>, 1906, he was going down the street at 9.30 p.m., when he saw the applicant turning a prostitute out of the house. On January 29<sup>th</sup> he called the landlord`s attention to a prostitute in the house, and the landlord said he thought she was a respectable woman. On January 13^th, 1905, he arrested a prostitute in the house. There were also three other prostitutes in the house at the time.

Cross-examined, he said he agreed in a great measure with Inspector Lilley`s description of the house. He spoke to the late Superintendent several times about the conduct of the house. During the last seven years he had verbally reported the house several times. During Foreman`s tenancy the house had been very noisy.

P.C. Simpson said he had known the Welcome Inn for thirteen years. Disturbances had been frequent at the house. On Christmas Day, 1904, P.C. Sharpe and himself went to the house at 7.30, and on the ground floor a room was full of soldiers and girls. Some of the girls were sitting on the soldiers` knees. One girl was playing the piano. In the public bar there were several costermongers, flower sellers, and two prostitutes. In January, 1905, he kept observation on the house on the 19<sup>th</sup> and 20<sup>th</sup>. He saw on the 19<sup>th</sup> a prostitute leave with three soldiers, and shortly saw two other prostitutes enter and leave with men. On January 25<sup>th</sup> last year, at 9.15 p.m., he saw two prostitutes in the front bar, and shortly after they left in company with soldiers. On January 27<sup>th</sup> that year he kept observation, and between 6.30 p.m. and 8.30 he saw three prostitutes enter the house and remain there a quarter of an hour. Later he saw six soldiers of the Royal Scots come out, and one of them had a bleeding face, and the landlord told witness that they had picked a quarrel with some civilians. He saw a prostitute sitting in the house, and when he drew the landlord`s attention to her, he replied that the woman`s time was up, and he was just about to tell her to go.

P.C. W. Prebble said on March 6^th, 1905, he went to the Welcome Inn, and he found several soldiers and women there. Four of them were fighting. All were the worse for drink, and witness sent for a military picquet. He ejected one, and as he would not go away, witness took him into custody for being drunk and disorderly.

Cross-examined, he said he did not report the landlord.

P.C. Sharpe said he had known the Inn for fourteen years. It had been the resort of prostitutes, soldiers, and rough characters. From March 31^st to April 3^rd last year he kept observations on the house. On March 31^st he saw two prostitutes leave at 10.05 p.m. He had not seen them enter as he had been there from 9.15. On April 1^st he kept observation from nine o`clock until eleven o`clock. At 9.30 a prostitute entered the house, and left at 9.45. At 10.10 she returned again and left later. On each occasion she left with a man. At 10.35 two prostitutes left. They had not entered during the time he had been watching. At 10.53 a prostitute left with a soldier. He had not seen her enter. On April 2^nd, a Sunday, he kept observation from 8.30 p.m. At 8.40 he saw two prostitutes come out with two soldiers. At 9 o`clock they returned to the house in company with the two soldiers. At 9.05 a prostitute and a woman left with three soldiers. On April 3^rd he kept observation from 8 p.m. At 8.50 two prostitutes and two soldiers entered. At 9.20 two prostitutes left, and returned at 9.30. At 9.45 one left, and returned at 9.50. At 10.25 two prostitutes left followed by two men. After a short conversation one left with one of the men and went to a passage at the rear of the house. They returned to the Welcome at 10.48.

Cross-examined, witness said he reported in writing what he saw, but no action was taken. He could not say why.

P.C. Butler gave evidence of the house being the resort of prostitutes, and also of civilians and soldiers leaving it under the influence of drink.

Similar evidence was given by P.C. Boorn.

The Court then adjourned.

Mr. Thomas Henry Penn, 54, Penfold Road, a pensioner staff-sergeant in the Army, said during the winter of last year he had been employed at the Albany Club, in Tontine Street, as caretaker, and he used to go home at night by the route of Dover Street very often. The customers appeared to be soldiers and women of loose character. He remembered on a Saturday night in February of last year seeing a man being carried out of the Welcome Inn and placed opposite. The landlord followed the men out, and turned out the light and then closed the door.

Mr. George Miller, bootmaker, 38, Dover Street, said he had known the house ever since he could remember. The character of the house during the last twenty years was pretty low. The class of customers were mostly unfortunate women.

Cross-examined, he said he had wondered very much to hear of no prosecutions against the house.

Thomas Stokes Franks, a grocer and provision merchant, of 51, Dover Street, said he had liced there six years, and the character fo the customers was bad. The only trade as far as he could see was with prostitutes and soldiers in general. He had had cause to complain of the conduct of the customers. He had seen well-known prostitutes enter and leave the Welcome. He had also seen them leave with men at the back of his house.

William Thomas Drury, a bootmaker, residing in Dover Street, also gave his experience of the house, and said it was a very rough and rowdy place as regarded men and women shouting, drunkenness, and bawling. He went on and minded his own business when he heard a noise.

Cross-examined, he said the amount of drunkenness had been scandalous on and off during the last twenty years.

Harold McCrow, also a bootmaker, residing at 49, Dover Street, said the trade done at the house was practically with prostitutes and soldiers. He had heard disorder in the house, and also seen scenes of disorder outside.

Mr. R. Moxon, a member of the firm of Messrs. Ash and Company, said he had been acting as manager for 35 years. No information had been received during that time that the house was conducted in any other manner than it ought to have been.

Cross-examined, witness said he did not suggest it was the duty of the police to send him such intimation. The present tenant had not been a tenant of the Company before.

The tenant, Foreman, said he came before the Court on December 7^th. He was told at the time that it was a difficult house, and would require care to manage it. During the time he had been there he had exercised care to the best of his ability. He had brought a woman before the Magistrates for abusing him. He was unsuccessful in obtaining a conviction. He had no assistance from the police in that case. Althogh the house had been watched night and day, yet on that occasion when the woman was disorderly there was no policeman there.

Mr. Herbert said the witness was putting a different complexion on the affair to which he referred. When the landlord brought the woman before the Magistrates he charged her with refusing to quit licensed premises before the police came on the scene, and that the woman left the bar when she was requested.

Mr. Mercer told the justices that he obtained his information from what he considered would be the best authority he could get – the Folkestone Herald.

Mr. Foreman, continuing, said he ejected the woman, and when the constable arrived he told him to summon her. He did so. None of those gentlemen who had given evidence had made a complaint to him. In fact they were perfect strangers to him. He had not been summoned for any offence since he had been in the house. He paid £203 on entering, apart from the stock on valuation. When he was away his wife looked after the house. She had had twenty one years` experience. His experience had been gained in various houses in Bristol and London, some houses being of a superior class, while others were very rough. It appeared to him that he got at the present time the same class of customers as every other licensed house in Folkestone. Comparing his house with the houses he had had elsewhere, he did not find it was more difficult to manage than the others. He thought he could manage his present house if he was only left alone.

Cross-examined, he meant by being left alone, if he had not been persecuted by the police. They had not prosecuted him up to the present. The way they had persecuted him was: P.C. Butler never left his door the first week he was there. P.C. Butler had called his attention to two or three women who came out of his house one day. He told the constable he was a stranger in Folkestone, and then asked him how he could expect him to know the occupation of those women, for they did not carry their characters on their breast. He kept his eyes open for respectability. He did not think it was a very difficult house to manage if he was left alone, but it was only through the persecution of the police that it was difficult to manage. He had never previously held a licence under Messrs. Ash and Co. He paid £243 to go into the house.

The Chairman: You went into this house with your eyes open?

The Applicant: Yes, sir.

Mr. Mercer, in addressing the justices, said the case was a somewhat peculiar one, as he ventured to say it was rather a hard one. The Magistrates at the general sessions, having come to the conclusion that there was a redundancy of licences, notified their desire that certain houses should be closed. He again ventured to refer to the Folkestone Herald, which might be wrong. According to the report it was intimated that at the adjourned sessions the six houses, including the Welcome, would be opposed on the ground that they were in excess of the requirements of the neighbourhood.

The Chairman: The Folkestone Herald is wrong.

Mr. Mercer: I shall not take in the Folkestone Herald again. (Laughter)

Continuing, Mr. Mercer asked the Magistrates to refer the licence to the Quarter Sessions on the ground that it was not required. If the Bench decided not to allow it then it would deprive the owners and the licence holder of any compensation from the fund to which they had been contributing. He appealed to the Magistrates to reconsider the matter from that point of view. The brewers had been forced to stick to the previous tenant owing to the rule that the licence could not be transferred within a year. Men, who resided near the house, had said the whole place was a beastly nuisance. He agreed it was not a house to be kept. If the Magistrates reported the house to the Compensation Authority, then he would give an undertaking that he would not object and fight it when it came up.

The justices retired, and on their return into Court the Chairman announced that they had decided to refuse the licence on the ground of misconduct.

Mr. Mercer said he was instructed to appeal, and he asked the Magistrates to fix the amount of recognisances.

The Chairman said the recognisances would be the landlord in £100 and two sureties of £50 each.

Folkestone Herald 10-3-1906

Adjourned Licensing Sessions

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

The Welcome Inn

The case of the Welcome Inn (landlord Mr. John Foreman) was taken first.

Mr. Mercer, who appeared for the brewers (Messrs. Ash and Co.), said when the Magistrates put the case back at the former Licensing Sessions it was done on the ground of its not being required, but since that date he had been served with a notice stating the ground, not that the house was not required, but that it had not been conducted properly. He asked that the Bench would deal with the case not on the ground of which they had written notice, but on the ground on which they had had verbal notice.

Mr. J. Herbert Rook, who appeared in support of the withdrawal of the licence, objected to this application.

The Chairman: The Bench cannot consent to that.

Mr. Rook briefly addressed the Bench setting forth the main features of the evidence of the following witnesses.

Inspector Lilley, examined by Mr. Rook, said the house was formerly known by the name of the Cutter. It had been, since 1892, the habitual resort of prostitutes. In 1892 he was in Court when the conviction on the register was recorded. It was for keeping the house open beyond the specified hours on a Sunday night. He had several times cautioned the defendant, and during a period of last year kept watch on the house. A freat majority of the customers were soldiers and prostitutes. He made notes at the time, and these he now produced. On the 27^th March he saw, from 10.45 p.m. till closing time three prostitutes with men leave the house. Two of the latter were drunk. On the 28^th of the same month he watched from 10.35 p.m. and saw a prostitute go in.

Mr. Mercer objected to this on the grounds of unfairness. It was impossible for the tenant to check the evidence in any way.

Mr. Rook said it was perfectly clear from a case which he quoted that such evidence was admissible.

The Bench decided to admit the evidence.

Inspector Lilley (continuing) said previous warning was given to the late tenant of his conduct of the house. On the 28^th two more prostitutes went out with soldiers. He started keeping observation at 10.35 p.m. There was dancing, with an automatic piano, going on in the house. At 10.35 p.m. on the next day a woman came out with a soldier. At 10.55 p.m. two well-known prostitutes came out with several soldiers. At closing time two more women left the house with soldiers. Several of the soldiers were under the influence of drink. There was the same noise of dancing and music and shouting in the house as on the previous day. On the 31^st he watched from 10.25 p.m. At 10.40 a woman went in with a soldier, and at 10.50 a prostitute came out and went away with a man, and a similar thing occurred at 10.55. At 10.45 three Hussars came out, one being drunk. On the 3^rd April he kept observation from 10.10 p.m. At 10.25 a prostitute came out, and went in again at 10.30. At 10.35 two prostitutes came out and returned in three minutes. At 10.50 a prostitute came out with a soldier, and returned at 10.55. She was the one who came out at 10.25 and returned at 10.30. At 10.53 a prostitute came out and went away with a soldier. Four of the women must have been in the house the whole of the time he had kept watch.

Cross-examined by Mr. Mercer, witness said he made the notes in the street at the time of the occurrences. The last entry was on the 23^rd February this year, and the remainder of the book was blank. The last entry had reference to a larceny. He had known the house for twenty two years, and during that time it had, with few exceptions, been the habitual resort of prostitutes. There had only been one prosecution on these grounds. He last reported it in writing last April. He had reported the house four or five times during the twenty one years. He did not arrest the drunken persons referred to because they were able to take care of themselves. They were not disorderly. When he went to the landlord in April, he (the landlord) was not summoned. Information concerning the house reached the police station in several ways. Inspector Swift and he had had conversation respecting the house, and also two of the sergeants had reported on it. Beyond the two sergeants, three or four other members of the force had reported the house, either verbally or in writing, as being the habitual resort of prostitutes. There had been three convictions.

Re-examined by Mr. Rook, witness said he made a special report at the time, founded on the notes in the notebook.

Sergt. Lawrence, examined by Mr. Rook, said he had known the Welcome Inn about eighteen years. There was very little day trade, and in the evening it was the habitual resort of prostitutes and men of the lowest type. He was present in Court in May, 1904, when the then landlord was convicted. On the night of 5^th and 6^th December last year (1905), he cautioned the landlord (Mr. Jarvis). At 10.45 p.m. on the 27^th January, 1906, from what he heard, he went to the Welcome Inn, where he found three policemen endeavouring to disperse the crowd in front of the house. He entered the house, and the landlord made a statement as to what had occurred, to the effect that about twenty past ten seven or eight soldiers came to the house, and, without calling for drinks, walked straight through to the back room. One of the soldiers said “This is the bloke we were looking for” and made for him, and immediately about six couples were fighting in the room. There was one prostitute in the house with a glass containing liquor. He called the landlord`s attention to her, and he said he had asked her to go out, but she had refused. He (witness) said “You know your remedy if she refuses to leave”. The floor of the back room was flowing with liquor.

Sergt. Osborne, examined by Mr. Rook, said he had known the Welcome Inn for 19 years. For the last few years the character of its trade had been rather rowdy. On the 8^th February last year he visited the house at 10.35 p.m. P.C. Sharpe was with him. He found in the bar a man drunk and incapable. He arrested him and took him to the police station. He found also two prostitutes there. He went to the house again at 11 o`clock, and saw one of the women coming out, and she was drunk; in fact she fell out. He found three soldiers in the front bar; two were drunk, and one was subsequently arrested by the Military Police. He produced a conviction, dated February 15^th, relating to the premises in question. On the 29^th January, 1906, he spoke to the previous applicant outside the house, and cautioned him in regard to a prostitute standing by. On the 13^th January, 1905, he arrested a prostitute in the front bar of the house. There were three other prostitutes there at the time.

Cross-examined by Mr. Mercer: He agreed in part with the description of the house given by Inspector Lilley. He had spoken to the late tenant several times about the house. During Mr. Foreman`s tenancy of the house it had been very noisy.

P.C. Simpson, examined by Mr. Rook, said he had known the house for thirteen years. The night trade was very rough. Disturbances had been frequent. On Christmas Day, 1904 (Sunday), he went with P.C. Sharpe and found the ground floor in front full of soldiers and girls, the girls sitting on the soldiers` knees, one girl playing the piano, and all singing “Bluebell”. In the front bar at the same time there were several flower sellers, costermongers, etc. In January, 1905, he kept observation on the house on the 19^th and 20^th. On the 19^th he saw prostitutes leave with soldiers. They did not enter with the men they left with. On the 25^th January, 1905, at 9.05 p.m. he saw two prostitutes in teh front bar; they left with soldiers. On the 27^th January, 1906, he was in Dover Street keeping observation on the Welcome Inn. He saw three prostitutes enter and leave. They remained for about fifteen minutes. At the top of Dover Street, on the 27^th, he heard a police whistle blown, and spoke to the landlord, who told him there had been a general fight.

Cross-examined by Mr. Mercer, witness said he had reported several times casually. The case he had referred to on the 27^th was identical with that referred to by Sergeant Lawrence.

P.C. Prebble, examined by Mr. Rook, said that on an evening of March, 1905, a noise attracted him to the Welcome Inn. He found several soldiers there and some women. One was bleeding very much from the head; all were the worse for drink. He ejected one of the men who refused to leave, and subsequently arrested him.

Cross-examined by Mr. Mercer, witness said he did not report the landlord for this case. If he thought the landlord had committed an offence under the intoxicating liquor laws he would have summoned him.

P.C. Sharpe, examined by Mr. Rook, said he had known the Welcome Inn for fourteen years. He deposed to keeping observation on the house and seeing women of bad repute leave there.

Cross-examined by Mr. Mercer, witness admitted that prostitutes were entitled to go to a house. There was no particular time limit in regard to their stopping. Ten minutes would be a reasonable time, but an hour would be unreasonable.

P.C. Butler, examined by Mr. Rook, deposed that he was keeping observation over the Welcome Inn in March and April last year. He saw prostitutes leave the house.

Cross-examined by Mr. Mercer, witness said he would say from ten to fifteen minutes was a reasonable time for prostitutes to be in a house.

P.C. Bourne, examined by Mr. Rook, said he had known the house for six years. The night trade of the house had been low in character during that time. He spoke to having seen prostitutes enter and re-enter the house in February and March, 1905.

Thomas Henry Penn, of 55, Penfold Road, said he was a pensioned staff-sergeant from the Army. During the winter of last year he was employed at the Albany Club as caretaker, and whilst so employed went home by the Dover Street route. In doing so he would pass the Welcome Inn. With regard to the general character of the customers, they were soldiers and women of a loose character. On one Saturday in February, 1905, he was returning to his house about 10.45 p.m. when he saw a man carried out of the house in question by four men and placed on the opposite footway apparently senseless. Witness went about ten yards, and on turning round saw the landlord come out with a lamp extinguisher and put out the lights. He went in immediately and closed the door. It was then ten minutes to eleven.

George Miller, a bootmaker, of 38, Dover Street, stated that he had known the house for the last twenty years, and he considered it to be of a very low class, whilst the customers, for the most part, were unfortunate women. He lived about four houses away, and he had never seen any respectable people in the vicinity go in or come out. Forty years ago the Welcome Inn was a respectable house.

Cross-examined: In the days of Mr. Court, forty years ago, it was a good house. He had never heard of any prosecution, though he wondered there never had been.

Thomas Stokes Paine, a grocer and provision dealer, said he had lived in the vicinity for six years, and during that time the character of the house was bad. He had had cause to complain of the character of the customers, and had seen prostitutes there with men, and alone. They came up a passage which abutted upon his premises now and again to have a fight. He did not know of one respectable inhabitant of Dover Street who used the house.

William Thomas Drury, a bootmaker, said that he had known the house for years. He thought it might very well be termed a very rough, rowdy house. By that he meant there was plenty of noise, drunkenness, and brawling. He could see the house from his place, but as soon as he heard the noise he went indoors and minded his own business.

Cross-examined: He had seen a scandalous amount of drunkenness in the last twenty years, but he had not seen much of late.

Harold McCrow, also a bootmaker, living at 49, Dover Street, stated that he had a shop opposite the Welcome Inn. The character of the trade done at the house was as described by the previous witnesses. He had heard scenes of disorder outside the premises, and had seen them inside.

Evidence in support of the licence was then taken.

Richard Moxom, manager of the firm of Ash and Co., declared that during the thirty eight years of his management he had received no news of the conduct of the house. The present applicant (Mr. Foreman) had not been in the house very long.

John Foreman, the tenant of the house, stated that he had been in occupation since November. He was warned when he took the house that it was a difficult one to control. He had conducted it to the best of his ability. He had proceeded against one woman for disorderly conduct, but he had been unable to obtain a conviction.

Mr. Herbert complained that Mr. Mercer was putting a wrong complexion on the case.

Witness, further examined, said that he did not find the house any more difficult to control than others, and he would manage if he was let alone.

Cross-examined by Mr. Rook: When he said that he would manage all right if he was left alone, he meant if the police had let him alone.

Mr. Rook: If they have persecuted, they have not prosecuted you, have they?

Witness: When I was there the first week, No. 6 (Mr. Butler) did not leave my door. (Laughter)

Witness (continuing) added that in October he was negotiating directly for the house, and agreed to take it. He paid £243 to go into the place.

Mr. Mercer asked the Bench to reconsider this case. The fund from which the compensation was to be drawn was not provided by the Magistrates or the general public. It was a fund provided by the trade itself, and as had been said by a well-known Englishman occupying a high position, the Magistrates could afford to be generous. In that case the Magistrates could decide, if they believed the evidence, not to adopt the power they had of saying “No, this house is of such a character as to deprive you of the licence and we grant you no compensation”. He asked them to say that, upon certain conditions, they would report the licence to Quarter Sessions with other cases that they might have. It was a case of peculiar hardship, both to the brewers and the tenants. He asked the Bench, assuming the trade was bad and rough, that they would allow the case to go to Quarter Sessions, on a condition on which he would not have to oppose it. He agreed that he could not listen to the evidence that the Bench had heard and say it was a desirable house. He agreed that it was not a house to be kept, but he wanted, if it was referred to the Committee, to have the right to the full compensation that the property was worth. Only two years previously the Marquis of Lorne was extinguished without compensation, and the owners in that case were the same as in this.

The Bench having considered the matter in private, the Chairman announced that the Magistrates were unanimous in refusing to grant the licence on the ground that the house had been an ill-conducted one.

Mr. Mercer said he had been instructed to appeal, and asked the Magistrates to fix the amounts of the recognisances.

The amount was fixed, the landlord in £100, and two sureties of £50 each.