Folkestone Chronicle
11-2-1905
Licensing Sessions
Wednesday, February 8th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward,
Lieut. Colonel Westropp, Lieut. Colonel Fynmore, and Mr. W.C. Carpenter.
There was the usual animated scene as the names of licensees
were called out in alphabetical order, and the usual theatrical ring of the
burly constables shouting “Get your money ready, please”.
The Chairman opened the Sessions by briefly saying “I will
ask the Chief Constable to read his annual report”.
Chief Constable Reeve then read the following:- Chief
Constable`s Office, Folkestone, Feb. 8th, 1905. To the Chairman and
Members of the Licensing Committee. Gentlemen, I have the honour to report that
there are at present within your jurisdiction 139 places licensed for the sale
of intoxicating liquore, viz., full licences 87, beer (on) 11, beer (off) 6,
beer and spirit dealers 16, grocers 12, chemists 4, confectioners 3. This gives
an average (according to the Census of 1901) of one licence to 220 persons, or
one on licence to every 313 persons.
Eighteen of the licences were transferred during the year,
viz., 12 full licences, 3 beer on, and three spirit dealers. One full licence
was transferred twice during the year.
The orders which were made at the last licensing meeting to
close the back entrances to various licensed houses, and to make certain
alterations to others, were complied with by the licensees.
Proceedings were taken by the police against three of those
licence holders during the year, one for harbouring prostitutes, and two others
for permitting drunkenness. The former only was convicted. He has since
transferred his licence and left the house.
Two other licence holders were proceeded against by the
Inland Revenue Authorities (six informations were laid against one defendant,
and three against the other), and in each case a conviction followed, the
defendants being fined 20s. and costs upon each summons.
For selling drink without a licence 8 persons were proceeded
against by the Inland Revenue Authorities, and two by the police, in each case
a conviction being recorded.
For drunkenness, 171 persons (143 males and 28 females) were
proceeded against, 156 convicted, and 15 discharged. This is an increase of 17
persons proceeded against as compared with the previous year. One person was
convicted of refusing to quit licensed premises when requested.
Six occasional licences and extension of hours on 42
occasions were granted to licence holders during the year.
There are 16 places licensed for music and dancing, and
three for public billiard playing.
Eleven clubs where intoxicating liquors are sold are
registered in accordance with the Licensing Act, 1902.
The general conduct of the licensed houses being in my
opinion at present satisfactory, I have no objection to offer to the renewal of
any of the present licences on the ground of misconduct.
I beg to point out that within the area formed by a line
drawn from the Harbour through South Street, High Street, Rendezvous Street,
Dover Road to the Raglan Hotel, thence over Radnor Bridge to the sea, there is
a population approximately of 5,090, with 45 “on” licensed houses, giving a
proportion of one licensed house to every 113 inhabitants. I would ask the
Bench to exercise the powers given them by the Licensing Act, 1904, and refer
the renewal of some of the licensed houses in this area to the County Licensing
Committee for consideration, and payment of compensation should any of the
renewals be refused.
The houses situate in this congested area which in my
opinion should be first dealt with under the provisions of the Act are the
following, viz.:- Victoria Inn, South Street, Duke Of Edinburgh, Tontine
Street, Cinque Ports, Seagate Street, Providence Inn, Beach Street, Star Inn,
Radnor Street, Perseverance Inn, Dover Street.
I would respectfully suggest that the consideration of the
renewal of the licences of these houses be deferred until the Adjourned
Licensing Meeting.
I am, gentlemen, your obedient servant. H. Reeve, Chief
Constable.
The Chairman: The report just read by the Chief Constable is
very satisfactory as to the general conduct of the houses, but we are sorry to
see an increase of 17in the number of charges for drunkenness, and we hope that
the licence holders will assist the police by doing all in theor power to
prevent drunkenness, and a decrease in charges during the coming year. As a
Licensing Bench we cannot close our eyes to the fact, as shown by Chief
Constable Reeve`s report that there are a very large number of licensed houses
in one certain area, and as the legislature have taken steps to compensate
licence holders for the loss of their licences, we have decided to adjourn the
granting of the six licences mentioned in the Chief Constable`s report, viz.,
The Victoria, Duke Of Edinburgh, Cinque Ports, Providence, Star and
Perseverance. In the meantime notice of objection to the licences will be
served, and the recommendations of the Justices will be considered by the Court
of County Quarter Sessions (Canterbury), and if one or the whole of these
houses are closed the owners will be compensated.
Folkestone Express
11-2-1905
Annual Licensing Sessions
Wednesday, February 8th: Before E.T. Ward Esq.,
Colonel Hamilton, Colonel Fynmore, W.G. Herbert Esq., and W.C. Carpenter Esq.
The Chief Constable`s report was read (see Chronicle for
full report).
The Chairman said the report was of a most satisfactory
nature. The Magistrates were pleased to fine there were no complaints against
any of the houses. It was, however, an unfortunate thing that there was an
increase in drunkenness during the year, and they hoped that the licence
holders would, in the coming year, be still more careful in trying to help the
Bench and the police as much as possible in keeping down drunkenness, so that
next year they might have a better report from the Chief Constable. With regard
to the houses the Chief Constable referred to in what he called the congested
area, there was no question that there were too many public houses there. By
the new Act they were empowered to report to the County Quarter Sessions those
houses which they thought were not required in the borough. They would
therefore direct the Chief Constable to serve notices of objection against
those six houses – the Victoria Inn, the Duke of Edinburgh, the Cinque Ports,
the Providence Inn, the Star, and the Perseverance – so that they might report
to the Quarter Sessions that those houses were unnecessary in the borough. Of
course, if the Quarter Sessions upheld their decision with regard to those
houses, or any one of them, then the owner would be compensated. If the Chief
Constable would kindly serve the notices, the licences would be dealt with at
the next Sessions.
The adjourned meeting was fixed for Monday, March 6th.
Folkestone Herald
11-2-1905
Annual Licensing Sessions
Wednesday, February 8th: Before Mr. J. Pledge,
Lieut. Colonel Hamilton, Alderman W.G. Herbert, Councillor R.J. Fynmore, and
Mr. W.C. Carpenter.
The Chief Constable read his report (see Folkestone Chronicle
for details).
The Chairman said that the report of the Chief Constable was
very satisfactory, and the Licensing Bench were very pleased to find that there
was no complaint against any licence holders. There was an unsatisfactory
matter in connection with the report, and that was the increase in drunken
persons during the year, but the Bench hoped that the licence holders would be
more careful, and so try to help the Bench in the matter of keeping down
drunkenness, so as to have a better report from the Chief Constable next year.
With regard to those houses which had been reported upon, there was no question
about it that in the congested district there was a large number of houses,
viz., one to every 113 persons. By the new Act, the Bench were empowered to
report to the County Quarter Sessions those houses which they thought were not
required in the borough, and they would therefore direct the Chief Constable to
serve notices of objection before the adjourned meeting against those six
houses. The Bench would then report to the Quarter Sessions that, in their
opinion, those houses were unnecessary in the borough. If Quarter Sessions
upheld the decision of the Bench in regard to one or all of those houses, those
houses would be compensated.
Folkestone Daily News
6-3-1905
Adjourned Licensing Sessions
Monday, March 6th: Before Messrs. Ward, Pursey,
Fynmore, Hamilton, and Carpenter.
The Duke of Edinburgh
Mr. Avery K.C., instructed by Nicholson, Graham and Co.,
solicitors, appeared for the owners and tenant.
The Chief Constable repeated his previous statement as to
population, and said the house was owned by Flint and Co., of Canterbury, and
occupied by Mr. Ralph. Within a radius of 200 yards there were 39 public
houses. The accommodation was meagre both for tenant and public. Structural
alterations were ordered at the last Sessions. There was very little trade, and
the licence was unnecessary.
Cross-examined by Mr. Avery: He fixed the area, and could
have made it larger or smaller. If he had made it larger it would have included
more private houses and made a smaller average. He made no complaints against
the house. If it did a trade of 3½ barrels he should be surprised and modify
his opinion.
Mr. Ralph, examined by Mr. Avery, deposed that he averaged
3½ barrels of beer per week, and paid his way. He occasionally worked as a
bricklayer, but relied on the trade of the house.
Mr. John Jones gave evidence in favour of the house, and
said he had known it ever since it was opened, and it would be an inconvenience
to the inhabitants of Tontine Street to lose the house, which was largely used
for supper beer.
Folkestone Chronicle
11-3-1905
Adjourned Licensing Sessions
Monday, March 6th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Lieut.
Colonel Hamilton, Lieut. Colonel Fynmore, W.C. Carpenter, C.J. Pursey, and W.G.
Herbert Esqs.
Six licences were objected to by the Chief Constable, acting
under the instructions of the licensing authority. These were: The Victoria
Inn, South Street, tenant Mr. Alfred Skinner; Mr. Minter representing the
brewers, Messrs. Mackeson and Co.
The Cinque Ports Arms, tenant Samuel Robert Webster; Mr.
W.R. Mowll for the brewers, Messrs. Leney and Co.
The Duke of Edinburgh, Mr. Ralph tenant; The Perseverance,
tenant Robert Henry Tracey, and The Providence. The brewers, Messrs. Flint and
Co., were in these three cases represented by Mr. Horace Avory, K.C.,
instructed by Messrs. Nicholson and Graham.
The Star, Radnor Street; In this, the last of the six houses
objected to, Mr. Haines appeared for the brewers and the tenant.
In all six cases both brewers and tenants objected to their
licences being taken away simply on the grounds of redundancy.
Mr. Avory`s objections were practically the same as those
which has been urged throughout the Kentish district, and were on all fours
with the advocates` objections who represented the other houses.
Chief Constable Reeve did not in any single case object on
the ground of misconduct on the part of the licensee, but purely on the grounds
of redundancy.
Mr. Avory K.C. submitted that the congested area in which
the six licences objected to was an unfair one. If the boundary on the map were
extended a mile, then it would be found that the houses were spread over and
serving a large population. It was not a suffcicient ground to take away a
man`s licence on the grounds of redundancy without comparing the threatened
house with other houses. He seriously submitted that it was worthy of the
Magistrates` consideration as to whether any practical result could follow a
reference to Quarter Sessions of these cases. So many licences in Kent had
already been referred to Quarter Sessions that he doubted whether sufficient
funds would be available for compensation purposes. The result would be a
deadlock when these cases came to be considered; the Quarter Sessions would
either be obliged to hold their hands, or there would be a gross injustice by
the reduction of compensation below the proper amount.
After a long hearing the whole of the six licences were sent
back to Quarter Sessions for reference.
Folkestone Express
11-3-1905
Adjourned Licensing Sessions
Monday, March 6th: Before E.T. Ward Esq., Lieut.
Col. Fynmore, Lieut. Col. Hamilton, W.G. Herbert, W.C. Carpenter, and C.J.
Pursey Esqs.
The licence of the Duke of Edinburgh was then considered.
Mr. H. Avory K.C., instructed by Messrs. Nicholson and Graham, appeared for
Messrs. Flint and Co., the owners of the house.
The Chief Constable said he first of all put in a map
showing the congested area. The whole of the “on” licensed premises were marked
in red. The area he had marked was from the bottom of the steps leading to The
Bayle, across the top of High Street, Rendezvous Street, Grace Hill, Dover
Road, along Radnor Bridge Road, to the sea. Within that area there were 916
houses for a population approximately of 4,580. That included 46 “on” licensed
houses, giving a proportion of one “on” licence to about every 313 inhabitants.
There were also within the area six “off” licence holders. He should also like
to point out that within the borough during the past year they had 171 charges
of drunkenness. He had found that 94 of those charges arose within that
particular area.
The Chief Constable said the Duke of Edinburgh was an ante
1869 beer “on”, and was situate in Tontine Street. He put in the same figures
of the number of houses, etc., in the area marked on the map. The licensee, Mr.
Frederick Ralph, obtained the transfer on April 22nd, 1891. The
registered owners were Messrs. Flint and Co., Ltd., Canterbury. The rateable
value was £24.The house adjoined the Clarendon Hotel, which was a fully
licensed house. Within a radius of 100 yards there were 17 other “on” licensed
houses, within 150 yards there were 33, and within 200 yards there were 39. The
accommodation provided for the public was very small, consisting of two small
compartments or bars in the front, and also a small room at times used at the
back of the bar. The urinal provided for the customers opened directly out of
the small left hand side of the bar. In February of last year an order for
structural alterations was made by the licensing justices with regard to the
urinal, and also to stop up a back entrance which led from the house into Dover
Street. It appeared to him there was very little trade at the house. The
present licensee was a bricklayer, and worked at his trade, but at present was
out of employment. In his opinion the house was quite unnecessary for the
requirements of the neighbourhood.
Cross-examined, the Chief Constable said he drew the area
shown on the map on his own responsibility. He thought it was a natural
boundary and would be a fair average. There was no complaint against the
tenant. The order of last year in regard to certain alterations was duly
carried out. He should not think that there was quite so much as three and a
half barrels sold in the house in a week. For a smaller house that amount would
be a fair trade.
Det. Sergt. Burniston said there were very few customers at
the house, and the majority of those who did use it were women who walked the
streets. For the past several months he had visited the house almost every day
and found it almost empty. The licensee was a bricklayer, and worked when he
had an opportunity.
Cross-examined, witness said Mr. Ralph had told him that if
he did not go to work he could not pay the brewers.
Mr. Avory said he proposed to call Mr. Ralph. Messrs. Flint
and Co. were concerned in three cases, so he proposed to make only one speech.
Mr. Ralph went into the box. He said he had been the tenant
of the house for 14 years. He had always paid his way in the house. He did on
average three and a quarter barrels a week. He only worked occasionally at his
trade, and he depended upon the beer-house for his living. His wife had been to
the residents in Tontine Street, and 36 of them had signed a petition
(produced) in favour of the licence being continued.
In answer to the Chief Constable, Mr. Ralph said the class
of people using his house were fishing people generally. He sometimes sold more
than three and a half barrels in the summer. People wanted the house when there
were only 10,000 people in Folkestone, and now there were more people they
wanted to take the licence away. He thought the house was absolutely necessary
for the requirements of the neighbourhood.
Mr. J. Jones said he was a member of the Borough Council and
the Watch Committee. The Watch Committee had given no sanction to the police to
oppose that licence because it had never been brought before them. He had known
the house for many years, and it had always been well-conducted. In his opinion
the house was doing a legitimate and fair trade, and was a great convenience to
the street. He should like to see more of that kind of house in Folkestone.
The Chairman said the Magistrates thought they were bound to
refer the case to the Quarter Sessions.
Folkestone Herald
11-3-1905
Adjourned Licensing Sessions
Monday, March 6th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Alderman
W.G. Herbert, Councillor Fynmore, Lieut. Colonel Hamilton, Mr. W.C. Carpenter,
and Mr. C.J. Pursey.
It will be remembered that at the February Sessions the
Bench instructed the Chief Constable (Mr. H. Reeve) to oppose the renewal of
six licences on the grounds that they were not required for the districts in
which they were situated.
The next house which was brought before the Court was the
Duke of Edinburgh, of which Mr. Frederick Ralph is the landlord. Mr. Horace
Avory, K.C., appeared for the owners of the house.
The Chief Constable put in a large plan showing the
congested area, the map being on a scale of 1 inch in 500, and the public
houses being marked in red. Taking the area from the Bayle Steps, South Street,
High Street, Rendezvous Street, Dover Road to the Raglan Hotel, and thence to
the sea, there were 916 houses, with a population, approximately, of 4,580.
That included 46 on-licensed houses, which meant one on-licensed house to
nearly every 100 inhabitants, though for the borough at large there was one
house for every 131 inhabitants. There were six off-licence holders in the area
under notice. Chief Constable Reeve said that this house was an ante 1869 beer
on-licence, and was situated in Tontine Street. The holder obtained the
transfer of the licence in April, 1891. The registered owners were Messrs.
Flint and Co., of Canterbury, and the rateable value was £24. The house
adjoined the Clarendon Hotel, which was a fully-licensed house. Within a radius
of 100 yards there were 15 licensed houses, within 150 yards there were 33
houses, and within 200 yards there were 39 houses. The public accommodation was
very small, and consisted of two compartments in the front, and a small room,
used sometimes, at the back of the house. In February of last year an order for
structural alterations was made as to the urinals, and also to stop up a back
entrance. The present licensee was a bricklayer, and very often worked at his
trade. In his opinion the licence was quite unnecessary for the requirements of
the neighbourhood. Very little trade was done.
Cross-examined by Mr. Avory: Witness himself had settled
upon the area, and prepared the statistics submitted to the Bench. There was no
opposition to the house other than it was unnecessary, nor had there been any
complaint against the tenant since he had been in occupation. The class of
customers served at the Clarendon Hotel, next door, was quite different to that
of the Duke of Edinburgh`s customers. If 3½ barrels per week were sold at the
house in question that would be a fair trade. There was no other beerhouse
going north in the street.
Detective Sergeant Burniston asserted that very few
customers used the house, and the majority of those who used it were women
hawking flowers. There were not very often many people in the house in the
evening, and in the daytime he had seen it empty. Mr. Ralph had told him that
if he didn`t go to work he could not pay the brewer.
Mr. Avory: Yet he is out of work, and does pay the brewer.
(Laughter)
Mr. Ralph, the tenant of the house, said that for 14 years
he had held the licence under the same brewers, and had always paid his way. On
average he did about 3½ barrels of trade per week. He had brought up a family
in the house, and had seven children still living. He was a bricklayer, but
worked very little at his trade. He depended upon the beerhouse for a living.
Thirty six residents in Tontine Street had signed a petition (produced) in
favour of the licence being continued. The petition prayed for the
reconsideration by the Bench of the licence of the house, and bore testimony to
the good conduct of the house. One of the petitioners was a member of the
Borough Council.
Cross-examined by the Chief Constable: Witness had not gone
out to work during the greater part of the time he had occupied the house. The
people who frequented the house were mostly fishermen. Witness could not give
the names of the Tontine Street people who patronised his establishment. He did
not consider that there were sufficient houses in Tontine Street for the
accommodation of the public.
Councillor Jones, who was next called, described himself as
a fruiterer, greengrocer, and a man of several occupations, and said that he
was well-known in the town. (Laughter) He was a member of the Watch Committee,
and the question of opposing licensed houses had not been brought before the
Committee. He had known the house ever since it had been opened, and it had
always been well-conducted. He used the house very frequently years ago, and
his girl and boy very often went there for the supper beer, which was very good
beer. The house was very handy, and was of much convenience to the public.
Cross-examined by the Chief Constable: He had not sampled the beer himself; he only
knew that his people made no complaint against it. He would like to see a great
many of that kind in the neighbourhood, and he should think that two or three
of that kind were necessary. He was a teetotaller – and all the Bench knew it –
from physical incapacity to drink it.
Mr. Avory postponed his address until other cases with which
he was connected had been dealt with.
The Bench decided to refer the case to Quarter Sessions.
Southeastern Gazette
14-3-1905
The adjourned
licensing sessions for Folkestone were held on Monday, before E.T. Ward Esq.
(in the chair).
Mr. Minter applied
for the renewal of the Victoria Inn, South Street, on behalf of the owners,
Messrs. Mackeson and Co., Ltd. The police objected on the grounds that the
house was excessive. In that district there was one “on” licensed house to every 100 inhabitants. The Bench
unanimously decided to refer the house to the Quarter Sessions, granting the tenant
a provisional license in the meantime.
Mr. Mowll next
applied on behalf of the owners, Messrs. Leney and Co., for the renewal of the Cinque Port Arms, held by Samuel Robert Webster.
After hearing the evidence,
the Bench came to a similar decision.
They also referred
the following licenses to Quarter Sessions:—The Duke of Edinburgh, Messrs.
Flint and Co., owners; the Providence Inn., Henry Green, licensee; the
Perseverance Inn, Robert Henry Tracey, licensee; and the Star, held by Ticknor
Else.
Folkestone Daily News
11-5-1905
Local News
We learn that the Compensation Committee at Canterbury
appointed by the Quarter Sessions only intend to deal with 11 cases out of the
15 that were sent to them. There were six from Folkestone, five from Hythe, and
four from Elham.
The six from Folkestone were The Providence, The
Perseverance, The Cinque Ports, The Victoria, The Edinburgh Castle (sic), The
Star.
The Committee have decided that there is no need to
interfere with the Providence. The objection to that has been thrown without
asking for further evidence. The other five will be dealt with shortly.
Folkestone Chronicle
13-5-1905
East Kent Licensing Authority
Lord Harris presided at the preliminary meeting of the East
Kent Licensing Authority, held at the Sessions House, Canterbury, on Friday,
when cases from Ramsgate, Folkestone, Hythe, and Elham were reported.
It was decided that the principal meeting to be held
pursuant to the Licensing Rules, 1904, by the Compensation Authority for the
East Kent Area should be fixed to take place at the Sessions House, Longport,
Canterbury, on the 26th May, at 10.15 a.m. At that meeting the
Authority will be prepared to hear, with reference to the renewal of the
licences of the following premises, all those persons to whom, under the
Licensing Act, 1904, they are bound to give an opportunity of being heard:
Victoria Inn, South Street, Folkestone; Star Inn, Radnor Street, Folkestone;
Cinque Ports Arms, Seagate Street, Folkestone; Duke of Edinburgh, Tontine
Street, Folkestone; Perseverance, Dover Street, Folkestone; Rose and Crown,
High Street, Hythe; Old Portland, Market Square, Hythe; Walmer Castle, Adelaide
Gardens, Ramsgate; Kent Inn, Camden Road, Ramsgate; Bricklayers Arms, King
Street, Ramsgate; and Albert Inn, High Street, Ramsgate.
Folkestone Daily News
26-5-1905
East Kent Licensing Authority
At the Canterbury Quarter Sessions this morning, before
Judge Selfe and the licensing Magistrates, the cases of renewing the licences
of the Duke of Edinburgh in Tontine Street, the Victoria in South Street, the
Star in Radnor Street, the Perseverance in Dover Street, and the Cinque Ports
in Seagate Street came up for hearing.
Mr. Pitman, instructed by Mr. Bradley, appeared for the
Folkestone Justices; Mr. Hohler appeared for the Star; Mr. Bodkin for Messrs.
Flint and Sons and Messrs. Mackeson; Mr. G.W. Haines for the tenant of the
Perseverance; and Mr. Mowll for the Cinque Ports.
Mr. Bodkin raised a point of law as to whether the justices
had investigated the matter before remitting it to Quarter Sessions.
Sir L. Selfe, however, decided against him, and the cases
were proceeded with on their merits.
Mr. H. Reeve, the Chief Constable, recapitulated his
evidence given before the Folkestone Justices. He was severely cross-examined
by Mr. Bodkin and Mr. Hohler, but they failed to shake his evidence.
Mr. Tiddy and Mr. Jones, of Tontine Street, gave evidence in
favour of the Duke of Edinburgh.
The Magistrates retired to consider the matter, and on their
return into court Sir W.L. Selfe announced that they had come to the decision
to do away with the licences of the Star, the Victoria, the Cinque Ports, and
the Duke of Edinburgh.
These houses will be closed as soon as the question of compensation
is settled.
The Perseverance, in Dover Street, was not interfered with
at present.
Folkestone Chronicle
27-5-1905
East Kent Licensing Authority
The principal meeting of the Compensation Authority for East
Kent was held at the Sessions House, Canterbury, on Friday, before Judge Sir
W.L. Selfe.
The Folkestone licensed houses under consideration were:
Victoria Inn, South Street, licensee Alfred Skinner; Star and Garter (sic),
Radnor Street, licensee Henry T.T. Else; Cinque Ports Arms, Seagate Street,
licensee Samuel R. Webster; Duke of Edinburgh, Tontine Street, licensee
Frederic Ralph; and the Perseverance, Dover Street, licensee Robert H. Tracy.
Mr. Bodkin and Mr. Hohler appeared for the brewers, Mr.
Pittman for the Justices of Folkestone, Mr. Haines and Mr. Rutley Mowll for the
tenants.
Mr. Pittman having opened the case for the Justices of
Folkestone, formal evidence as to the trade done by the various houses and
their general character was given by Chief Constable H. Reeve and Detective
Sergt. Burniston.
Mr. Bodkin said there was nothing against the five houses
except the statement of two police officers that the trade done in two of them
was small. The Victoria had been held by Mr. Skinner for about six years, and
was used for a particular class of trade. It is used by sailors, fishermen, and
railway men. It had a good steady trade, which had been fairly maintained for
the last few years.
As to the Perseverance, Mr. Tracy went in last November and
paid £180 for it. He had done a fairly good trade, and if now the licence would
be taken away the compensation would be very small, and although he had
conducted it with perfect respectability, he would be fined the difference
between £180 and the small quantum of compensation that the Committee could
award. He would ask on what possible basis the Justices selected the house,
when close by was the Welcome, against which a conviction was obtained this
year and one last year?
As to the Duke of Edinburgh, where the tenant, Mr. Ralph,
had been 14 years, and had maintained himself and was satisfied, although it
was next door to a fully-licensed house, it attracted a different class of
trade, and was of use to the locality.
Mr. G.L. Mackeson, Managing Director of Mackeson Limited,
and Alfred Skinner, the tenant, gave evidence as to the Victoria,
Eventually a licence was granted in the case of the
Perseverance, but refused in all the other Folkestone cases.
Folkestone Herald
27-5-1905
East Kent Licensing Authority
Yesterday the Special Committee of Licensing Justices of
East Kent, to whom the local authorities had referred the licences of five
Folkestone houses, under the licensing Act of 1904, sat at the Canterbury
Sessions Hall, and considered the reports which had been presented to them, as
well as the reasons advanced in favour and against the renewal of the
respective licences. Sir William Lucius Selfe was the Chairman of the
Committee.
The houses in question were the Victoria, South Street, the
Perseverance Inn, Dover Street, the Star Inn, Radnor Street, the Duke of
Edinburgh, Tontine Street, and the Cinque Port Arms, Seagate Street.
Mr. Pitkin, barrister, appeared for the Licensing Justices,
Mr. H.C. Bodkin, barrister, for the owners of the Victoria, the Perseverance,
and the Duke of Edinburgh (Messrs. Flint and Co.), Mr. Hohler was for the
owners of the Star (Messrs. Ash and Co.), Mr. G.W. Haines represented the
tenant of the Perseverance, and Mr. Rutley Mowll (Dover) appeared for the
owners of the Cinque Ports Arms (Messrs. Leney and Co.).
Mr. Pitkin said that at the annual licensing meeting this
year the Chief Constable gave notice that he intended to oppose the renewal of
the five licences named, and one other, that of the Providence. The notices
were served on the people who required notices under the Act, and at the
adjourned meeting the Chief Constable and his Detective Sergeant gave evidence,
while evidence was also called on behalf of the licensees of the houses. At
that meeting it was proved that in the area which the Chief Constable had
marked out on the map, namely, from South Street, up High Street, down Grace Hill,
to the railway arches, and across to the sae, there were in all 916 houses to a
population of 4,580. Of these 46 were on-licensed and 6 were off- licensed.
That was one licence to rather more than every hundred of the population, and
if that was so there could be no doubt that that was a case in which some
reduction was necessary. The renewal authority were unanimous in referring the
whole of the five licences under discussion. At the preliminary meeting it was
decided that the case of the Providence should not be proceeded with. The Chief
Constable would tell them that in selecting those five houses he was guided by
the fact that the houses were those which were doing the least trade, and that
he had selected in each case one out of a cluster of houses, and that which
appeared to be the worst of each cluster.
Mr. Harry Reeve, the Chief Constable, repeated the figures
as to population, etc. He said in the whole borough there was one on-licence to
every 313 people. During the year 1904 there were 171 cases of drunkenness in
the borough, and 94 of those arose within the specified area. The Victoria was
in South Street, which was merely a paved passageway from the High Street to
the Lower Sandgate Road. The owners were Messrs. Mackeson, of Hythe, and the present
holder of the licence was Mr. Alfred Skinner. The rateable value was £24. In
South Street there were two houses on one side, and on the other three were
adjoining. The accommodation in the Victoria Inn for the public was described
by witness, and also that of the landlord. Within a radius of 100 yards of the
Victoria there were 18 other on-licensed houses, and within 200 yards there
were 34. Witness considered that the landlord did very little trade. There had
been four tenants since April, 1894, though the present tenant had been in the
house since the 2nd August, 1899. In selecting that house he had
been guided by the principles that it was the house in the vicinity doing the
least trade, and was the least suitable for a public house. Dealing with the
Perseverance, in Dover Street, witness said that that was an ante 1869
beerhouse, and the registered owners were Messrs. Flint and Co., of Canterbury.
The present holder of the licence was Robt. Tracey, who obtained it in
December, 1904. In eight years there had been five tenants. The rateable value
was £27 per annum. Within a radius of 100 yards there were 17 on-licensed
houses, within 150 yards there 29 houses, and within 200 yards there were 39
houses. There seemed to him to be very little trade done at the house. He was
past he house a few evenings ago, and saw one of the bars in total darkness, so
that it did not appear that they were doing much trade. As to the Duke of
Edinburgh in Tontine Street, the owners of which were Messrs. Flint and Co., that
was an ante 1869 beer on-licence. The present licensee had been there since
1891. The rateable value of the house was £24. It was a very small
establishment. There were 17 other on-licensed houses within 100 yards, 33
within 150, and 39 within 200 yards. Very little business was done at the
house, and the holder of the licence went out working a great deal of his time.
The Star Inn was in Radnor Street, and there were 63 houses in the street, of
which seven were fully licensed houses. The registered owners were Messrs. Ash,
and the present tenant was Mr. Else, who had held it since May of last year,
being the seventh tenant since 1881. The rateable value was £20. Witness
considered that the trade at the Star Inn was very little, the chief business
being that of letting lodgings to those of the tramping class. Within one
hundred yards there were four other licensed houses, within 150 yards there
were eight, and within 200 yards there were 15 other on-licensed houses. With
regard to the Cinque Ports Arms, it was one of a block of three licensed houses
in Seagate Street. The owners were Messrs. Leney and Co., of Dover, and the
tenant was Samuel Webster, who had held it since August, 1901. The rateable
value was £24. Seagate Street was 43 yards long, and on one side of the street
was a dead wall, and on the other there were four houses, the first of which
was a boot shop. Then came the Cinque Ports house, with a stable, the Chequers
public house, and the South Foreland. Within a radius of 100 yards there were
21 houses, within 150 yards there were 32 houses, and within 200 yards there
were 39 houses, all of which were on-licensed. The tenant was a basket maker,
and very often worked at his trade. Very little trade was done at that house.
Cross-examined by Mr. Bodkin: It was from the whole of the
Licensing Justices that he received instructions. With regard to the Victoria
Inn, South Street, he had no definite knowledge of the state of trade, his
opinion being gathered from what he saw as he went by. The licensee had been in
occupation for six years, and while the population might not have altered in
eight years, the population generally of the borough had increased very
considerably. In 1881 there were 18,000, in 1891, 24,000, until last year it
was 31,200. It had not increased much of late years, though it had not gone
back much. As to the Perseverance, the tenant went in last year, having paid
about £180 to go in. He could not say for certain what the trade was, and he
had no complaint at all as to the conduct of the premises. No objection had
been given to the renewal of the Welcome. He would not consider that the
Welcome, during the past few months, was a well-conducted house, and there had
been two convictions against it in twelve months, though the tenants in each
case were different people. The last conviction was since the last Licensing
day. The present landlord of the Perseverance was a very respectable man. There
was no complaint against the landlord of the Duke of Edinburgh. The Victoria
had been repaired during the last few months, and he believed it was in an
excellent state of repair.
Cross-examined by Mr. Haines: The last tenant of the
Perseverance was a Mr. Morgan. He had been there for three years, and the
previous tenant to that was a Mr. Riddalls, who had been there four years, as
had a tenant before him. In the season the population greatly increased in
Folkestone.
Cross-examined by Mr. Hohler: The Star Inn was
well-conducted, and he had no complaint against it. He could not say that any
of the 171 cases were traced to the Star Inn, for, unfortunately, he could not
often trace the origin of the cases of drunkenness.
Cross-examined by Mr. Mowll: In 1903 the Magistrates called
for plans of the Cinque Ports Arms, and no order was made. The tenant had conducted
the house properly.
Re-examined by Mr. Pitkin: Witness had based his opinion
that the trade was small at the five houses from his observations. The
statistics as to the growth of the town applied to houses outside the congested
area. Before the Justices a petition was presented in favour of the renewal of
the licence of the Duke of Edinburgh.
Detective Sergeant Burniston said that he had known the
Victoria Inn for ten years, and also the other houses, which he had had to
visit occasionally when making enquiries. Very few people used the houses. He
had served Skinner with the notice of objection, and he had said “I wish I
could leave this house tomorrow”. He said that on account of the trade being so
bad. The Duke of Edinburgh did a very small trade, the majority of the
customers being hawkers. He had visited the houses many times during the day,
and had usually found the bars empty. Many times the landlord`s wife had said
that she did not make enough money to pay the brewer his rent. Witness knew the
Perseverance, and there a very small trade was done, the customers being
principally fishermen. Tracey, the tenant, when he received the notice of
objection, said that he wished he had not speculated his money in the house,
and on a later date he said that he did not take sufficient money to pay the
rent. As to the Star, that did a very small trade, the landlord depending
chiefly on the lodgers he had. Very few people in the street used the house.
The landlord often spoke to witness, and had remarked that he was sorry he had
taken the house. As to the Cinque Ports, that also did a very small trade,
about one barrel a week. Very few residents used the place. From what he had
seen, he would think that it was almost impossible for the landlords to get a
living. The houses were not necessary for the needs of the neighbourhood.
Cross-examined by Mr. Haines: The tenant Tracey made his
statement after he had been served with a notice.
Cross-examined by Mr. Hohler: The Star was a quiet house,
though badly constructed.
Mr. Bodkin submitted that there was under that particular
provision of the Act upon which the Committee sat, precisely the same powers as
under the old conditions of appeal to Quarter Sessions. He would submit that
there must be as careful and as exhaustive an enquiry in reference to the issue
to each house as there ever had been under the Licensing Act of 1838. The chief
case upon which one must rely in interpreting the duties of the Quarter
Sessions was the well-known Farnham case, and in that case a statement was made
by the Master of the Rolls, which really gave the key to the whole of the
decisions. The Justices in that case formed themselves into a Committee, or
appointed a Committee, and after an exhaustive enquiry, made personally by
themselves, they declined to select from the houses generally within their area
any particular houses which they might oppose prima facie before going round
and making an inspection, and so finding out what they considered to be
absolutely unnecessary for the requirements of the locality. What they did was
decided as being the only possible and fair way of dealing with the question.
Instead of giving notice of objection to individual cases selected out of
Court, if he might so express it, they gave notice of objection to every single
house in their area. What the Master of the Rolls said was “They (the Justices)
were of opinion that the only fair and satisfactory way of dealing with the
question was to cause objections to be served on all the owners of licensed houses,
so that the cases of all of them might be formally inquired into, and for that
purpose authority was given to the Justices` Clerk to object to such renewals
on the general ground that the houses were not required, and also on the
special grounds set out in that notice. That course gave everyone concerned
their opportunity, and the Justices had the opportunity of weighing the merits
and acting judicially in the matter of which public houses should remain and
which licences should be taken. That is one course that might be taken, and it
seems to me the reasonable and proper course”. That procedure had not been
adopted in that case. It was very far from it. The procedure in this instance
apparently had been to adopt the view of a particular official, the Chief
Constable, and to instruct him to serve notices of objection solely on the
houses which he had selected without giving any opportunity to the occupiers of
such houses to show, by way of comparison of trade, accommodation, situation,
the state of repair, and matters of that kind, how discrimination by the
Justices should be made, and which should be referred to Quarter Sessions. In
doing so, he submitted the Folkestone Justices had not followed the proper and
legal course. They might have given just as easily instructions to the Chief
Constable to serve notice on all houses in that selected area. How was a
Quarter Sessions, sitting 50 or 100 miles away from a town, to distinguish
between those and other houses in a selected area? A great many of the compensation
authority would be absolutely ignorant of the locus in quo. Before any legal
decision could be given in reference to any one property, in accordance with
the procedure conducted by the Folkestone Justices, it was essential that there
should be an enquiry into the needs of the neighbourhood. The case of Howard
and King in Parliament was followed by the Raven and Southampton case, in which
it was contended that the procedure adopted in the Farnham case was a
reasonable one so that the course adopted by the Folkestone Justices was not
equivalent.
The Chairman said that he would advise the Committee that
the action of the Committee was sanctioned by an action in the King`s Bench
Division. For the purposes of that day they would not act under the decision of
the King v Tolhurst. If the King`s Bench had considered that the hearing in the
Tolhurst case carried the case any further than the Raven case, they would no
doubt have followed the decision in the Raven case.
Mr. Hohler said that he had acted for the Justices in that
case, and they said that they had not only acted on the police evidence, but
they had also acted upon their own local knowledge. The Lord Chief Justice, in
his judgement, had referred to that.
The Chairman said the Tolhurst case had decided that the
evidence must be sufficient to justify the Magistrates referring the matter to
that Court.
Mr. Bodkin asked the Committee to state a case on that
decision.
The Chairman: No, certainly not.
Mr. Bodkin said that he had no authority to say so, but he
had every reason to believe that that decision was to be appealed against.
The Chairman replied that the Committee could not stay their
hands on the possibility of an appeal to the Court of Appeal.
Mr. Bodkin then addressed the Committee on behalf of his
clients, and he then called his evidences.
The Duke of Edinburgh
Mr. Frederick Ralph, the landlord, said that he had been the
tenant since 5th March, 1891, and lived there with his wife and
children. By trade he was a bricklayer, and since he had been in occupation he
had had to work occasionally at his trade. He had had 15 children, of whom 7
had died. He did not work continuously at his trade. Witness and his wife
looked after the business. The actual trade was about 3 or 3½ barrels a week,
and he paid 34s. per barrel. He made a profit upon that from which he could
live. He was quite willing to remain in the house. Thirty or forty residents in
Tontine Street had petitioned the Justices, asking that the licence should be
renewed. Witness had a jug trade at his house from the residents in Tontine
Street and thereabout. Fishermen, tradesmen, and labourers came into his house,
and sometimes women came in, for he supposed they liked beer as well as anybody
else. There was not more trade done at the house next door to him (the
Clarendon). They were soldiers, and girls, and tradesmen; respectable people.
Sometimes soldiers came to his house.
Cross-examined by Mr. Pitkin: Witness denied that he told
the Detective Sergeant that he did not do much trade.
Councillor J. Jones said that people sent to that house
mostly for supper beer. Old-established people always liked Flint`s beer in
Folkestone. One could always send a boy or a girl there, for there was not much
chance of their being interfered with, the house being a quiet one. He should
have thought that the house did as fair a trade as any house of its class in
England. He would be sorry to see that house taken away from the street, and he
thought that it was the last house that should be interfered with.
Mr. Horace Offen, a baker and confectioner, of Dover Road,
stated that he had used the Duke of Edinburgh nearly every day for the last
seven or eight years. The middle class of people used the house. They were
working people, and he did not know of any people in Tontine Street who visited
it. He had always found people in the house.
Mr. Wm. Tiddy, photographer, of 60, Tontine Street, said he
had gone in the house sometimes in the evening, and had always found it very
quiet indeed. It was used by the mechanic class.
After retiring to consider their verdict, the Committee,
through their Chairman, announced their decision. Sir William Selfe said that
in the course of Mr. Bodkin`s arguments on the question of law, it had been
said that the procedure of the Justices below in referring the licences for the
consideration of that Court was not in accordance with the law. He (the
Chairman) expressed the opinion that it was. The Committee had considered each
case separately, without regard to any of the other cases that had been heard,
and they had decided to refuse the renewal of all the licences except that of the
Perseverance, which they would renew.
Southeastern Gazette
30-5-1905
East Kent Licensing Committee
The principal
meeting of the East Kent Licensing Committee was held at the Sessions House,
Canterbury, on Friday and Saturday. At the first day’s sitting, Judge Sir W. L.
Selfe presided.
There were five
applications from Folkestone, viz., in respect of the Victoria, the
Perseverance, the Duke of Edinburgh, the Star, and the Cinque Port Arms. The
licensees were represented by Mr. Bodkin, K.C., Mr. Hohler, Mr. Rutley Mowll
and Mr. Haines, while Mr. Pitman appeared for the justices of Folkestone, and
Detective Sergt. Bumiston having given evidence, Mr. Bodkin contended that the
fact that compensation was now to be given did not affect the question, as to
whether a license should be renewed or not, and the onus upon those who came
there to prove that a license should be refused on the ground that it was not
required was just as great as if
they were acting last year instead of in the present year, and he thought it
was necessary to bear this in mind because one heard in various quarters views
expressed that now compensation was payable, these licensing cases might be got
through in as short, and, if he might say so, as perfunctory a way as possible,
without any enquiry of any sort, or careful attention given to the interests
involved. Mr. Bodkin further argued that the primary duty of the Licensing Justices
was that laid down in the Farnham case, viz., that they should personally
select the houses which they deemed were not required, instead of leaving such
selection to the discretion of the Chief Constable.
All the licenses
were refused, with the exception of that of the Perseverance.
Folkestone Express
3-6-1905
East Kent Licensing
The Special Committee of Licensing Justices of East Kent
considered on Friday, at the Canterbury Sessions Hall, five Folkestone licences
which had been referred to them under the Licensing Act of 1904. The Chairman
was Sir William Lucius Selfe. Mr. Pitman, barrister, appeared for the licensing
justices, and Mr. H.C. Bodkin, barrister, for the owners of the Victoria
(Messrs. Mackeson and Co.), the Perseverance and the Duke of Edinburgh (Messrs.
Flint and Co.); Mr. Hohler for the owners of the Star (Messrs. Ash and Co.);
Mr. G.W. Haines for the tenant of the Perseverance, and Mr. R. Mowll (Dover)
for the owners of the Cinque Ports Arms (Messrs. Leney and Co.).
Mr. Pitman said that in 1903 the licensing justices
announced their intention of exercising the power which they then had of
reducing the number of licensed houses in the area of Folkestone, and
especially in the neighbourhood of the Harbour district. In the beginning of
1904, in the King`s Speech, there was mentioned a prospect of the present
Licensing Act coming into force, and the justices determined therefore to hold
their hand, and nothing was done in 1904. At the annual meeting that year, the
Chief Constable gave notice that he intended to oppose the renewal of the five
licensed houses which had been mentioned, and one other, the Providence. At the
adjourned meeting the Chief Constable and the detective who assisted him in the
enquiries made gave evidence, in which they stated that the area which the
Chief Constable had marked off was a congested area, there being 915 houses for
a population of 4,580. There were 46 on-licensed houses and 6 off-licensed
houses, so there was rather more than one licence to every 100 of the
population. He did not think that there could be any doubt that in such
circumstances some reduction was necessary. The renewal authority recommended
that the renewal of the six houses mentioned should be considered, but at a
preliminary meeting it was decided that the Providence should not be proceeded
against. He might mention that the Chief Constable, in selecting those houses
for his opposition, was guided by the fact that they were the houses doing the
least trade, and that he had selected in each case one out of a cluster of
houses, and that which appeared the worst of each cluster.
Mr. H. Reeve, the Chief Constable, was the first witness,
and he repeated his evidence given before the local licensing justices. In
cross-examination by Mr. Bodkin, he said he received his instructions with
regard to the houses from the whole of the Licensing Justices. With regard to
the Victoria Inn, South Street, he had no definite knowledge of the state of
trade, his opinion being gathered by what he saw as he went by. The licensee
had been in occupation for six years, and while the population might not have
altered in eight years, the population of the borough had increased very
considerably. In 1881 there were 18,000, in 1891, 24,000, until in 1901 it was
31,200. It had not increased much of late years, though it had not gone back
much. As to the Perseverance, the tenant went in last year, having paid about
£180 to go in. He could not say for certain what the trade was, and he had no
complaint as to the conduct of the premises. No objection had been given to the
renewal of the Welcome. He would not consider the Welcome, during the past few
months, was a well-conducted house, and there had been two convictions against
it in twelve months, though the tenants in each case were different people. The
last conviction was since the licensing day. The present landlord of the Perseverance
was a very respectable man. There was no complaint against the landlord of the
Duke of Edinburgh. The Victoria had been repaired during the last few months,
and he believed it was in an excellent state of repair.
In answer to Mr. Hohler, he said he had no complaint to make
against the Star, which was well-conducted. He could not say that any of the
171 cases of drunkenness were traced to the Star Inn. Unfortunately they could
not very often trace the origin of the cases of drunkenness.
Det. Sergt. Burniston also gave similar evidence to that
given before the licensing justices.
Mr. Bodkin said he submitted under that particular
jurisdiction precisely the same duty fell upon that tribunal as was upon the
Court of Quarter Sessions in deciding whether or not the licences should be
renewed. He submitted there must be as careful and as exhaustive an enquiry as
to each house as there had been under the Licensing Act of 1868. Therefore it
was necessary to say what the law was with regard to those cases, and whether
there had been any difference of distinction made between the procedure under
that Act to what there was under the earlier legislation. The chief case upon
which one must rely as interpreting the duties of the Quarter Sessions was the
well-known Farnham case. In that case there was a statement made by the Master
of the Rolls which really gave the key to the whole position. The justices in
that case formed themselves into a committee, or rather appointed a committee,
and after an exhaustive enquiry made personally by themselves, they declined to
select from the houses generally within their area any particular house which
they might oppose prima facie before going round on their tour of inspection
and trying to find out what was unnecessary for the requirements of the
locality. What they did was described as the only possible and fair way of
dealing with the question, which was just as difficult as it ever had been.
Instead of giving a notice of objection to individual houses selected out of court,
they gave notice of objection to every single house in the division. The Master
of the Rolls then said that the justices were of the opinion that the only fair
and satisfactory way of dealing with the question was to cause objections to be
served on all the owners of licensed houses, so that the cases of all might be
formally inquired into. That course gave the justices an opportunity of
weighing the merits and acting judicially in the matter of which public houses
should remain and which licences should be taken. That was the one course which
might be taken, and it was a most authoritative statement. It was the statement
which was made, and it seemed to him (the Master of the Rolls) the reasonable
and proper course. That was a procedure which was described as a fair,
reasonable, and satisfactory procedure. It was not adopted in that case; far
from it. The procedure apparently had been to adopt the view of the Chief
Constable, and to instruct him to serve notice of objection solely on houses
which he had selected without giving any opportunity to the occupiers of such
houses to show by way of comparison of their trade, accommodation, situation,
state of repair, or matters of that kind, how discrimination should be made by
the justices as to the houses to be retained and which ought to be referred to
the Quarter Sessions. In not doing so, he submitted that the Folkestone
Justices had not followed the proper legal course. They might have given just
as easily instructions to the Chief Constable to serve notices on all the
houses in the selected area. How was a Quarter Sessions sitting 20 or 100 miles
away from a town to differentiate between those and other houses in a selected
area? Before any decision was come to, it was essential that there should be an
enquiry into the needs of the neighbourhood and the pros and cons of the other
houses by the justices below.
The Chairman: I should certainly say that the course had
been sanctioned by the King`s Bench Division in the case The King v Tolhurst.
After further argument by Mr. Bodkin, the Chairman said it
was suggested that the course in the Farnham way was a proper way, but not the
only way. He ruled Mr. Bodkin`s contention out, so far as he was concerned. The
justices below had made a prima facie case out against the houses, and it was
for them to answer the case.
Mr. Bodkin asked if the Committee would state a case upon
that point.
The Chairman said they could not stay their hands on the
possibility of an appeal.
Mr. Bodkin then addressed the Committee on behalf of the
Perseverance, the Victoria, and the Duke of Edinburgh.
The Duke of Edinburgh
Frederick Ralph, the landlord of the Duke of Edinburgh, said
he had been the tenant at the house since March 5th, 1891. He lived
there with his wife and children, and paid £16 a year for rent. The house was rated
at £25. He was a bricklayer by trade. Since he had been in the house he had to
work at times because he had a large family. He had worked a few months in the
summer, and a few months in the winter. His trade was from three to three and a
half barrels per week. He paid 34s. per barrel for beer. He was satisfied with
the trade, and was willing to remain in the house. His wife had got out a
petition in favour of the licence being retained, which was signed by some
thirty or forty residents in Tontine Street. Fishermen and tradesmen used his
house. He had never had the least complaint made against him. The next door
house did no more trade than he did.
Mr. J. Jones gave evidence in support of the licence being
retained. He said he would be sorry to see it taken away.
Horace Offen and William Tiddy were also called on behalf of
the owners.
The Committee retired, and on their return the Chairman said
he still held that the procedure of the justices below was in accordance with
the law. The Committee had considered each case separately without regard to
any of the other cases which had been heard, and they decided to refuse the
renewal of the licences except that of the Perseverance, which they would
renew.
Southeastern Gazette
5-12-1905
East Kent Licensing Committee
This Committee sat at the Sessions House, Canterbury, on
Wednesday, to award compensation in the cases of those licenses which had not
been renewed. Lord Harris presided.
In the case of the Duke of Edinburgh, Folkestone, Mr.
Prosser (Clerk to the Committee) stated that Messrs. Flint and Co., the owners
of this house had at first declined to deposit any agreement, electing to leave
the question of the compensation to the Inland Revenue. They had, however,
decided at the last moment, to bring it before that Committee. Mr. Prosser
observed that the claim put in by Mr. Hayward, the owner`s valuer, was £924, the tenant`s, interest £97,
and fixtures £77. Mr. R.M. Mercer represented the owners, and Mr. Rutley Mowll,
the tenant. It appeared in evidence that the house was an ante ’69 beer-house.
The trade for the past year had been just over 100 barrels and 65 dozen of
bottled beer. This gave a total barrelage of 103 barrels, which yielded to the
brewer a net profit of 13s. per barrel, amounting to £67. He had valued the
property as an ante ’69 beer-house, rented at £16 per year, at £400, which gave
a total altogether of £1,304. The premises unlicensed he might put at a rental
of £30, and he would take off £5 for repairs, giving a net rent of £25. If they
multiplied that by 18 years’ purchase, it gave £450. In order to get that £30
rent they would have to spend £70 in altering the premises. Thus a net sum of
£380 had to come off the £1,304, which gave the sum for which he was asking.
Mr. Ben Tyman gave evidence far the tenant, and eventually
his case was settled, but that of the owners would be further considered and
compensation awarded in January.
Folkestone Herald
6-1-1906
Local News
The East Kent Compensation Authority, sitting at the
Sessions House, Canterbury, on Tuesday last, Lord Harris presiding, considered
the agreement deposited by Messrs. Flint and Co., owners of the Duke of
Edinburgh, Folkestone, and by the tenant. Mr. R.M. Mercer appeared for the
owners.
It will be remembered that at the regular sittings of this
Authority Messrs. Flint refused to allow the Compensation Authority to deal
with the matter, and expressed their intentions of going to the Inland Revenue
Authorities. At the last moment, however, they presented an agreement, which
Mr. Coble, the advisory to the Authority, was unable to accept, he having had
no facilities for making a valuation of his own.
The Clerk (Mr. Prosser) said that the agreement now
deposited was for a sum of £867, which were the figures suggested by Mr. Coble
himself, the amount being divided as follows:- To the owners £737; to the
tenant £70; to fixtures (belonging to the tenant) £60.
The Committee accepted the figures and the division.
Southeastern Gazette
9-1-1906
Local News
The East Kent Quarter Sessions were held at the Sessions
House, Canterbury, on Tuesday, Lord Harris presiding.
A meeting of the Compensation Authority was held prior to
the ordinary Sessions to consider the compensation to be awarded hi the case of
the Duke of Edinburgh, Folkestone. Mr. Prosser stated that the owners and tenants
of this house had deposited an agreement for £867, the same figures as
suggested by Mr. Cobb, the advisers of the authority. The money was allocated
as follows: — Owners £737, tenant’s fixtures £60, and the tenant £70. The
tenant agreed to this division.
Folkestone Herald
4-9-1920
Obituary
We regret to announce the death of Mrs. Edith Ralph, aged 62
years, which took place after a long illness, on August 28th, at the
residence of her daughter, 1, London Street, Folkestone. Deceased will be
remembered as being the licensee of the old Duke of Edinburgh Inn, in Tontine
Street, before the licence of the house expired. The funeral took place on
Wednesday.
Folkestone Herald
25-3-1944
Obituary
We
regret to record the death of Mrs. Margaret Annie Bridge, of “Coombe Warren”,
Capel-le-Ferne, which occurred recently at the age of 87.
Mrs.
Bridge was the widow of Mr. Albert William Bridge, who died nearly two years
ago.
Mr.
Bridge was the licensee of the Martello Hotel, Dover Road, Folkestone, for 23
years, and licensee of the White Horse, Hawkinge, for a similar period. He had
also held the licences of the Duke of Edinburgh, Tontine Street, Folkestone,
and the New Inn, Elham.
Mrs. Bridge`s father, Mr. John
Whittingham Boorn was also connected with the licensed trade for many years,
and was at different times landlord of the Royal Oak, on the Folkestone – Dover
road, and the now extinct Packet Boat and Channel, in Folkestone.
Mrs. Bridge, who is survived by
one son and three daughters, was buried at the Folkestone borough cemetery,
Hawkinge, on Thursday last week.
Folkestone Herald 25-3-1972
Local News
Alterations to a shop in Tontine Street, Folkestone,
have revealed that the premises at one time were a public house. From 1938 the
premises have been used as a newsagent’s and tobacconist’s shop. But in 1896
they were the Duke' of Edinburgh public house. The sign, which has been
uncovered, reads “Flint and Co. Ltd., fine ales and porter”. Early records show that the building was a refreshment
room before it became a pub. After several
years as a public house, the premises became a women’s and men’s outfitters.
Another sign relating to the outfitters has been
found. It bears the name of Mrs. E. Carpenter. The shop is at present owned by
Mr. and Mrs. B. Limmer, who have had a new shop front put in.
No comments:
Post a Comment