Folkestone
Daily News 7-2-1906
Annual Licensing Sessions
Wednesday, February 7th: Before Messrs.
Ward, Hamilton, Pursey, Ames, Herbert, Fynmore, and Leggett.
The Chief Constable presented his report (for details
see Folkestone Chronicle)
Mr. Ward called attention to the increase of 12 cases
of drunkenness, and asked the licensed victuallers to assist the police in
carrying out their duties.
The Welcome public house was objected to on the ground
of misconduct. The Hope, the Channel, the Providence, the Tramway and the Blue
Anchor were objected to on the ground that they were nor required. All the
other licences were granted.
Folkestone Chronicle 10-2-1906
Annual Licensing Sessions
Wednesday, February 7th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward,
Alderman W.G. Herbert, Col. Fynmore, Lt. Col. Hamilton, Mr. C.J. Pursey, Mr. C.
Carpenter, Mr. C. Ames, and Mr. Linton.
On the Court being opened the Chief Constable read his
annual report, which was as follows:-
“Gentlemen, I have the honour to report that there are at
present within your jurisdiction 136 premises licensed for the sale of
intoxicating liquors, viz.:- Full licences 85, Beer “on” 9, Beer “off” 6, Beer
and Spirit Dealers 16, Grocers 12, Chemists 5, Confectioners 3.
This gives an average, according to the Census of 1901, of
one licence to every 225 persons, or one “on” licence to every 326 persons.
Three of the “off” licences (two held by spirit dealers and
one by a chemist) will not be renewed, as the premises are no longer used for
the sale of drink, thus reducing the number of licensed premises to 133, or one
to every 230 persons.
At the Adjourned Licensing Meeting, held in March last, the
renewal of six licences was referred to the Compensation Committee for East
Kent on the ground of redundancy, with the result that four of the licences
were refused and two renewed,
The licences which were refuse were:- the Victoria Inn,
South Street; Star Inn, Radnor Street; Duke of Edinburgh, Tontine Street; and
Cinque Port Arms, Seagate Street. Compensation was paid in each case and the
houses closed.
Since the last Annual Licensing Meeting 24 of the licences
have been transferred, viz:- Full Licences 17, Beer “on” 2, Off licences 5.
During the year 13 occasional licences have been granted by
the justices for the sale of intoxicating liquor on premises not ordinarily
licensed for such sale, and 25 extensions of the ordinary time of closing have
been granted to licence holders when balls, dinners, etc., were being held on
their premises.
During the year ended 31st December last 183
persons (135 males and 48 females) were proceeded against for drunkenness; 164
were convicted and 19 discharged. This is an increase of 12 persons proceeded
against, and eight convicted, as compared with the previous year.
Only one licence holder has been convicted during the year,
viz., the licensee of the Welcome Inn, Dover Street, who was fined £5 and costs
for permitting drunkenness on his licensed premises. He has since transferred
the licence and left the house.
Eleven clubs where intoxicating liquors are sold are
registered in accordance with the Act of 1902.
There are 16 places licensed for music and dancing, and
three for public billiard playing.
With very few exceptions, the licensed houses have been
conducted in a satisfactory manner during the year. The only licence to which I
offer objection on the ground of misconduct is that of the Welcome Inn, Dover
Street, and I would ask that the consideration of the renewal of this licence
be deferred until the Adjourned Licensing Meeting.
I would respectfully suggest that the Committee again avail
themselves of the powers given by the Licensing Act, 1904, and refer the
renewal of some of the licences in the congested area to the Compensation
Committee for consideration, on the ground that there are within the area more
licensed houses than are necessary for the requirements of the neighbourhood.
I beg to submit a plan on which I have marked out the
congested area, also the public houses within the area.
Within this area there is a population approximately of
4,600, with 42 “on” licensed houses, giving a proportion of one licensed house
to every 109 persons.
There are also situate within the area six premises licensed
for sale off the premises, one confectioner with a licence to sell wine on the
premises, and four registered clubs, with a total membership of 898”.
The Chairman said with regard to the report just read by
Chief Constable Reeve the Bench were pleased to hear that the houses had been
so well conducted, but he must point out that over the preceding year there had
been 12 more cases of drunkenness. The Bench earnestly asked the licence
holders to do their utmost to stop excessive drinking on their licensed
premises. It was a curious circumstance that although there were many
convictions there was no information where the drink was obtained.
The whole of the licences, with the exception of six, were
then renewed. The six licences objected to were the Welcome, Dover Street, in
which case the Chief Constable was instructed to serve notice of opposition on
the ground of misconduct. In the five other instances the Chief Constable was
instructed to serve notices of objection on the grounds that the licences were
not required, the houses opposed being the Channel, High Street; Hope,
Fenchurch Street; Blue Anchor, Beach Street; and Tramway, Radnor Street.
Folkestone Express
10-2-1906
Annual Licensing Sessions
Wednesday, February 7th: Before E.T. Ward Esq.,
Major Leggett, Lieut. Col. Fynmore, Lieut. Col. Hamilton, W.G. Herbert, C.J.
Pursey, W.C. Carpenter, and R.J. Linton Esqs.
The Chief Constable presented his annual report. (See
Folkestone Chronicle for details)
The Chairman said they were pleased to see that the whole of
the licensed houses had been well conducted. There had only been one conviction
during the year. He wanted to point out that that year there was an increase of
twelve cases of drunkenness in the borough. They earnestly asked the licence
holders to help the police as much as possible to prevent drunkenness. It was
always a curious thing where those people got their drink, and they must ask
the licence holders to try and do their utmost to stop drunkenness on their
premises.
All the licences were granted with the exception of six. The
Chief Constable was instructed to serve notices upon the tenants and owners of
the following public houses on the ground that they were not necessary; The
Channel Inn, High Street; the Hope, Fenchurch Street; the Providence, Beach
Street; Blue Anchor, Beach Street; and the Tramway, Radnor Street. He was also
instructed to serve notices with regard to the Welcome Inn on the ground of
misconduct.
The adjourned licensing sessions, when the six licences will
be considered, were fixed for March 5th.
Folkestone Herald
10-2-1906
Annual Licensing Sessions
The annual licensing sessions were held on Wednesday
morning. The Police Court was crowded with those interested in the trade and
the general public. The Magistrates present were Mr. E.T. Ward, Lieut. Colonel
Hamilton, Mr. C.J. Pursey, Alderman W.G. Herbert, and Mr. R.J. Linton.
The Chief Constable presented his report. (For details see
Folkestone Chronicle)
It was intimated that at the adjourned licensing sessions
the licences of the Blue Anchor, the Providence, the Welcome, the Tramway, the
Channel, and the Hope would be opposed, on the ground that they were in excess
of the requirements of the neighbourhood. The licence holders of those houses
received this information as they stepped forward to ask for their renewals.
Southeastern Gazette
13-2-190
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 5th: Before Messrs. E.T. Ward,
W.G. Herbert, C.J. Pursey, R.J. Linton, T. Ames, Lieut. Col. Fynmore, and
Lieut. Col. Hamilton.
The Channel Inn
The licence was opposed on grounds of redundancy.
Mr. John Minter appeared for Messrs. Mackeson and Co.,
the owners, and elicited in cross-examination that the house had been well
conducted by the present tenant, Mrs. Ashford, and her former husband.
Mr. Minter was asking a few more questions when the
Chairman, addressing him, said they would not trouble him further, as they had
unanimously decided to grant the licence.
Folkestone Chronicle
10-3-1906
Adjourned Licensing Meeting.
The Adjourned Annual General Licensing Sessions were held at
the Town Hall on Monday, when the Chief Constable opposed the renewal of five
licences on the ground of redundancy, and one on the ground of misconduct. The
evidence was of the usual technical order, where a whole host of police
witnesses testified to an extraordinary state of things which had apparently
gone on for years. The sitting lasted from 11 a.m. until 4.30 p.m., and was
only relieved by one little light episode when Mr. Mercer on two occasions
quoted the Folkestone Herald as bearing upon a case heard at the Court, and on
each occasion the Chairman saying that the report was wrong, whereupon Mr.
Mercer intimated that he should give up taking the Herald.
The Bench sitting on Monday morning were Mr. E.T. Ward,
Alderman W.G. Herbert, Lt. Col. Fynmore, Lt. Col. Hamilton, Mr. C.J. Pursey,
Mr. W. Linton, and Major Leggett.
The Channel Inn
The Channel Inn was also opposed on the ground of
redundancy. Mr. Minter appeared for the tenant, Mrs. Ashford, and the brewers,
Messrs. Mackeson, of Hythe.
The Chief Constable`s opposition to the renewal was on the
same grounds as in the other cases – that the licence was not required for the
needs of the neighbourhood. The licence was transferred to the present tenant
on the 15th March, 1903, her husband (deceased) having previously
held the licence. The house was rated at £32, and was formerly known as the
Fountain. There were three licensed houses in High Street, two full and one
beerhouse. From High Street there were two entrances to the house, one serving
bar with four different compartments. Within a radius of 100 yards there were
seven other licensed houses, 150 yards 24 licensed houses, and 200 yards 34
licensed houses. In 1904 an order was made by the Magistrates for a wall to be
built, cutting off a back entrance by a passage to High Street. There had been
six transfers in 12 years. The lady (Mrs. Ashford) and her former husband had
held possession for seven years.
Mr. Minter: What has been the conduct of the house?
The Chief Constable: Satisfactory to me.
Mr. Minter: There is a house opposite. Why did you not
select that?
The Chief Constable: The beerhouse has no back way to it.
The Chairman said the Bench would not trouble Mr. Minter any
further, as they had decided to renew the licence.
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 Channel Inn
The Channel Inn was the next one to be considered. Mr.
Minter appeared for the owners and tenant.
The Chief Constable said he would first put in a plan on
which he had marked the whole of the public houses in a congested area, which
was formed by a line from the Harbour, up High Street, along the Dover Road to
the Raglan Hotel, and then over Radnor Bridge to the sea. Within that area there
were 920 houses, with a population approximately of 4,500, five to a house.
There were 42 on-licensed houses within the area, being 36 fully-licensed and
six beer “on”, giving a proportion of one on licence to every 109 inhabitants
within that area, whilst for the borough at large the number was one to every
326 inhabitants. There were also situate within the area six licences for the
sale of beer, liquor, and spirits off the premises, one refreshment house with
a licence, and one off licence, making a total of 50 houses for the sale of
drink by retail, being one licence for every 92 persons within that area,
against one to every 230 in the borough. There were also four registered clubs
for the sale of drink, with a membership of 898, within the area. During the
year 1905, out of 183 charges of drunkenness, 93 arose within that congested
area. The Chief Constable said the present tenant was Mrs. Ashford, who
obtained the transfer on March 5th, 1902. The registered owners were
Messrs. Mackeson and Company, of Hythe. The rateable value was £32. There were
three on licensed houses in High Street, two of them being fully licensed.
There were two entrances from High Street, and there was one serving bar with
four different compartments. Within a radius of 100 yards there were seven
other on licensed houses, within 150 yards there were 24, and within 200 yards
there were 34. The trade he considered a very small one indeed. There was a
right of way to two houses and through into Tontine Street through the house.
Without calling upon Mr. Minter, the Chairman said they need
not trouble any further as the licence would be granted.
This concluded the business.
Folkestone Herald
10-3-1906
Adjourned Licensing Sessions
Monday, March 5th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Alderman
W.G. Herbert, Mr. R.J. Linton, Mr. C.J. Pursey, and Mr. T. Ames.
Channel Inn
Mr. J. Minter represented the owners in this case.
The Chief Constable said the present tenant was Alice
Ashford, who obtained the transfer of the licence on 5th March,
1902. The registered owners were Messrs. Mackeson and Co., Hythe. The rateable
value of the house was £32. There were three on-licensed houses in High Street,
two full and one beerhouse. There were two entrances to this house from High
Street. There was one serving bar between four compartments.
Within a radius of 100 yards there were 7 other on licensed
houses; within a radius of 150 yards there were 24; and within a radius of 200
yards there were 34. The trade he considered a very small one indeed, and the
licence unnecessary for the requirements of the neighbourhood. There was also
one thing to which he must draw the special attention of the Bench, that was to
a right of way that existed from the house through a passage into Tontine
Street. There was a right of way to this house, also to the houses adjoining,
one on the right and the other on the left. In 1904 an order was made to build
a wall across a flight of steps leading from the public bars of this house down
to the passage at the back; that was done. There had been six transfers in
twelve years.
Cross-examined by Mr. Minter: The present tenant had
conducted the house in a satisfactory manner. There was a beerhouse opposite.
He did not select that one because there was no back way.
The Chairman said that the case need not be proceeded with
further, as the Bench had decided to grant the licence.
Folkestone
Daily News 5-12-1906
Wednesday, December 5th: Before Messrs. W.J.
Herbert, Fymore, Hamilton, Linton, Leggett, Ames, Stainer, and Pursey.
Mrs. Ashford, of the Channel Inn, was charged with
serving children with intoxicating liquors. Mr. Haines appeared for the
defence.
Detective Burniston deposed that at 11.15 a.m. on the
27th November he saw a boy leave, carrying a pint bottle containing
half a pint of beer. He asked the boy his age, and from what he said he took
him to defendant in the bar. She said she had served him, but did not ask his
age as he looked fourteen, so she did not trouble.
Louisa Venner, wife of J.G. Venner, of 8, Mill Bay, said
the child was born on the 27th May, 1895.
In reply to Mr. Haines, she said she had not sent her
boy to the Channel Inn for beer.
Mrs. Ashford deposed that the boy came in and asked for
half a pint of beer. She served him, but did not ask him his age. She thought
he was 14. She had never seen him before.
In reply to the Chief Constable, she said that she knew
the law, and honestly believed the boy was 14. She did not do much jug trade.
Defendant was fined 5s. and 14s. 6d. costs.
Elizabeth Davis, of Mill Bay, was summoned for sending
the boy for the beer, and pleaded Guilty.
Inspector Burniston deposed that he saw defendant, who
admitted the offence, saying her daughter was out.
Fined 2s. 6d. and 9s. costs, and allowed a week to pay.
Folkestone Express
8-12-1906
Wednesday, December 5th: Before W.G. Herbert
Esq., Lieut. Colonels Hamilton and Fynmore, J. Stainer, C.J. Pursey, T. Ames,
and R.J. Linton Esqs., and Major Leggett.
Alice Ashford was summoned for a breach of the Intoxicating
Liquors (Sale to Children) Act. Mr. G.W. Haines appeared on behalf of
defendant, and pleaded Not Guilty so far as the word “knowingly” was concerned.
Detective Sergeant Burniston said at a quarter past eleven
on Tuesday morning, 27th November, he was in High Street, where he
saw a boy, Thomas Henry Venner, leaving the Channel Inn. He was carrying a pint
bottle, containing half a pint of beer. The bottle had no cork or seal. He
stopped the boy and questioned him as to his age, and from what he told witness
he took him back to the private bar, where he saw defendant behind the counter.
Witness asked her if she served the boy with the half pint of beer, and she
replied “Yes”. Defendant said she did not ask his age; as he looked fourteen
she did not trouble. Witness told her he should report her.
Mrs. Louisa Venner said she was the wife of Joseph George
Venner, and lived at 8, Mill Bay. The boy, Thomas Henry Venner, was her son. He
was born 27th May, 1895.
The Chief Constable put in the certificate of birth.
Mrs. Ashford then went into the witness box. She said she
remembered the boy coming in on the day in question. He asked for half a pint
of beer and produced a bottle. She never asked the boy his age. She thought he
was fourteen. She knew the law as to serving children under fourteen.
Mr. Haines, in addressing the Bench, said it was not the
continuous practice of defendant, and asked them to deal with the case on its
merits.
Defendant was fined 5s. and 14s. 7d. costs.
Elizabeth Harris was summoned for unlawfully sending the boy
to fetch the beer in an unsealed vessel. She pleaded Guilty.
Detective Sergeant Burniston said at 11.30 on 27th
November, on leaving the Channel Inn, he accompanied the boy to No. 14, Mill
Bay, and there saw defendant. In answer to witness, she said she sent the boy
for half a pint of beer. She knew she was liable to be prosecuted.
Defendant was fined 2s. 6d. and 9s. costs. She was given a
week to pay in.
Folkestone Herald
8-12-1906
Wednesday, December 5th: Before Alderman W.G.
Herbert, Lieut. Colonel Hamilton, Major Leggett, Councillor R.J. Fynmore, and
Messrs. T. Ames, J. Stainer, C.J. Pursey, and R.J. Linton.
Alice Ashford was summoned for selling beer in an unsealed
bottle to a child under 14 years of age, on 27th November last. Mr.
Haines appeared for defendant, and pleaded Not Guilty.
D.S. Burniston deposed that at 11.15 on the morning of the
27th November he saw the boy, Thomas Henry Venner, leave the public
bar of the Channel Inn, carrying a pint bottle containing half a pint of beer.
The bottle (produced) had no cork or seal. Witness stopped the boy, and
questioned him as to his age, and from what he told witness he took him back
into the private bar, where he saw defendant behind the bar, serving customers.
He said to her “Did you serve this boy (meaning Venner) with this half pint of
beer?” She said “Yes”. Witness then said “Did you ask his age?”, and she
replied “No, as he looked 14 I did not trouble”.
Mrs. Louisa Venner, wife of George Joseph Venner, of 8, Mill
Bay, said that the boy (her son) was born on May 27th, 1895.
Cross-examined by Mr. Haines: She did not allow her boy to
go for beer for the neighbours. He had gone occasionally to get a bottle, but
it had always been sealed. Previously he had got it from the Eagle, and he had
never been to the Channel before.
Mrs. Ashford, defendant, examined by Mr. Haines on oath,
said the boy asked for half a pint of beer, and produced a bottle. She never
saw him before in her life. She did not ask him his age because she thought he
was 14. She did not do any jug trade in the house scarcely. In future she would
know what to do, and could assure the Bench she would be particular in that
way.
Mr. Haines briefly addressed the Bench on the case, urging
that it was a question of common sense as to whether the boy appeared to be
under 14 or not. He regretted that the law on the subject did not go far
enough. It provided that children under 14 years of age, if served with beer,
must be served with the liquor in sealed receptacles. The Act did not,
unfortunately, keep the children from the contamination of public houses.
The Chairman said the Bench were unanimously of the opinion
could not have thought the boy was over 14. She would be fined 5s. and 14s. 7d.
costs, in default 14 days`.
Eilizabeth Harris pleaded Guilty to sending the boy Venner.
D.S. Burniston gave evidence.
Defendant said she was very sorry. She sent the child with
never a thought that she was doing wrong.
Fined 2s. 6d. and 9s. costs, or 14 days`. A week was allowed
for payment.
Folkestone
Daily News 5-2-1907
Annual Licensing Sessions
Tuesday, February 5th: Before Messrs. Ward,
Hamilton, Linton, Fynmore, Herbert, Pursey, and Carpenter. Mr. Stainer, Mr.
Wells, and Mr. Boyd, the two latter being the new Magistrates, occupied seats
on the Bench, but did not adjudicate.
The Chief Constable read his report as to the number of
houses and convictions, which showed a decrease last year. He recommended that
the Bench should still continue to take advantage of the Act and refer some of
the licences to the Compensation Committee at the Canterbury Quarter Sessions.
He then went on to say that although he did not oppose the renewal of any
licences on the ground of misconduct, there had been five convictions during
the last year, and he had had to warn one licence holder against allowing
betting and taking in slips. He also wished to caution all licence holders that
these practices would not be allowed on any occasion, and after giving this
public warning he should take steps to detect and prosecute for any such
offences.
The Chairman, before commencing, stated that the
Licensing Bench had visited a large number of houses, and they had seen in
various places automatic machines, into which people put pennies, and in some
instances got their penny back or a cigar, &c. The having of these machines
was practically permitting gambling, and it had been decided that they were
illegal. Every licence hiolder must understand that they were to be immediately
removed, otherwise they would be prosecuted for having them. As regards the
automatic musical boxes, gramophones, &c., if licensed victuallers had them
on their premises, they were to be used in such a way as not to be a nuisance
to the neighbourhood, and if complaints were made they would have to be
removed.
The renewal licences for the Black Bull Hotel, the
Railway Inn, the Chequers, Queen`s Head, Channel Inn, Alexandra Tavern,
Perseverance, and Railway Hotel at Shorncliffe, were adjourned till the 4th March, some on
account of convictions, and some for the consideration of closing them under
the Licensing Act. The other applications were granted, a full report of which
will appear in our next issue.
Folkestone
Express 9-2-1907
Annual Licensing Sessions
Wednesday, February 6th: Before E.T. Ward
Esq., W.G. Herbert, R.J. Linton, C.J. Pursey and W.C. Carpenter Esqs., Lieut.
Col. Fynmore, and Lieut. Col. Hamilton.
The Chief Constable read his report as follows:
Chief Constable`s Office, Folkestone, 6th
February, 1907.
Gentlemen, I have the honour to report that there are
at present within your jurisdiction 128 places licensed for the sale by retail
of intoxicating liquors, viz.:- Full licences, 80; beer “on”, 9; beer “off”, 6;
beer and spirit dealers, 14; grocers, 12; chemists, 4; confectioners, 3; total
128. This gives an average, according to the census of 1901, of one licence to
every 239 persons, or one “on” licence to every 344 persons. This is a
reduction of 8 licences as compared with the return presented to you last year,
as the renewal of 3 “off” licences was not applied for at the last annual
licensing meeting, and at the adjourned licensing meeting the renewal of one
full licence was refused on the ground that the premises had been
ill-conducted, and four other full licences were referred to the Compensation
Committee for East Kent on the ground of redundancy. These four licences were
subsequently refused by the Compensation Committee, and after payment of
compensation, the premises were closed on 31st December last. Since
the last annual licensing meeting 22 of the licences have been transferred,
viz:- Full licences, 15; beer “on”, 5; off licences, 2; total 22. During the
year three occasional licences have been granted by the justices for the sale
of intoxicating liquors on premises not ordinarily licensed for such sale, and
thirty extensions of the ordinary time of closing have been granted to licence
holders when balls, dinners, etc., were being held on their premises. During
the year ended 31st December last, 131 persons (106 males and 25
females) were proceeded against for drunkenness. 114 were convicted and 17
discharged. This, it is most satisfactory to find, is a decrease of no less
than 52 persons proceeded against as compared with the preceding year, when 164
were convicted and 19 discharged. Six of the licence holders have been
proceeded against, and five of them convicted, for the following offences:
Selling adulterated whiskey, 1; permitting drunkenness, 1; delivering beer to a
child in unsealed vessels, 2; supplying drink to a constable when on duty, 1;
total, 5. In the latter case notice of appeal against the conviction has been
given by the licensee. Eleven clubs where intoxicating liquor is sold are
registered in accordance with the Act of 1902. There are 16 places licensed for
music and dancing, and two for public billiard playing. I offer no objection to
the renewal of any of the present licences on the ground of misconduct, the
houses generally having been conducted during the past year in a satisfactory
manner, but on one occasion one of the licence holders was cautioned (as the
evidence was insufficient to justify a prosecution) for receiving slips and
money relating to betting, which practice he immediately discontinued, bit I
desire to intimate to all the licence holders that if in future any such
practice is allowed, or any illegal gaming whatever is permitted on their
premises, I shall take such steps as may be necessary to detect and prosecute
the offenders. I beg to submit a plan showing the situation of all “on”
licensed premises within the congested area, which I have marked on the plan,
and 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 within this area to the Compensation Committee to deal with under the
Act. Within this area there are 920 houses, with a population approximately of
4,600, with 37 “on” licensed houses and 8 other licences, giving a proportion
of one licence to every 20 houses or every 102 persons, and one “on” licence to
every 24 houses or every 124 persons. This number of licences I consider
excessive for the requirements of the neighbourhood. I have received notices
from eight persons of their intention to apply at these sessions for the
following new licences, viz.,:- Full licence 1; beer off 1; cider and sweets
off 1; wine off 3; music, etc., 2; total 8.
I am, Gentlemen, your obedient servant, H. Reeve, Chief
Constable.
The Chairman said the report seemed to be highly
satisfactory. The Magistrates were very pleased to see the diminution in the
number of cases of drunkenness brought before the Bench. One point about the report
he wanted to make a remark upon, and that was the prevalence of gaming in
public houses. In several houses the Committee visited they saw automatic
machines, in which customers placed pennies and pulled a trigger. Occasionally
they got something out for their pennies. That was gaming. It had been decided
to be illegal, and they warned all licence holders that they would be watched,
and that the machines would not be allowed, and proceedings would be taken
against the offending publicans, whose licences would be jeopardised next year.
There was one other point of a similar nature with regard to musical
instruments, which were reported to be a great nuisance. They warned all
licence holders to be careful not to create a nuisance with those pianos and other
instruments, which were now very common indeed in public houses.
The following houses were ordered to be opposed as not
required: The Channel Inn, High Street; the Queen`s Head, Beach Street; the
Railway Tavern (sic), Beach Street; the Chequers, Seagate Street; and the
Perseverance, Dover Street.
Folkestone
Herald 9-2-1907
Annual Licensing Sessions
Wednesday, February 6th: Before Mr. E.T.
Ward, Alderman W.G. Herbert, Lieut. Colonel Hamilton, Major Leggett, Councillor
W.C. Carpenter, and Messrs. R.J. Fynmore, R.J. Linton, and C.J. Pursey
The Chief Constable presented his annual report (for
details see Folkestone Express report).
The Chairman: The report seems to be very satisfactory,
and we are very glad to see the diminution in the number of cases of
drunkenness brought before the Bench. One point about the report I should like
to make a remark upon, and that is about gambling in public houses. In every
house we have visited we saw automatic machines in which you put a penny,
pulled a trigger, and occasionally you get something out, either your penny
back, or a card for a cigar. That is gaming, and it has been decided as
illegal, and we warn all licence holders who have these machines that they must
be removed or otherwise proceedings will be taken against them for gaming, and
their licences may be in jeopardy next year. There is another thing. In the
same way, with regard to these musical instruments, which have been reported to
the Bench as a great nuisance, we warn all the licence holders to be careful,
and not create nuisances with these machines.
The licences of the Channel, High Street, the Queen`s
Head, Beach Street, the Railway Inn, Beach Street, the Chequers, Seagate Street,
and the Perseverance, Dover Street, were not renewed, notice of opposition
being given on the ground of redundancy.
Folkestone
Daily News 4-3-1907
Adjourned Licensing Sessions
Monday, March 4th: Before Messrs. Ward,
Fynmore, Linton, Boyd, Herbert, Pursey, Carpenter, Leggett, and Hamilton.
There were seven licences to be considered: The Black
Bull, Railway Tavern (sic), Railway Hotel, Perseverance, Chequers, Channel Inn,
and Queen`s Head.
The Channel Inn
Mr. Haines appeared for the tenant, Mrs. Ashford, and
Mr. Minter for the owners, Messrs. Mackeson and Co.
The Chief Constable put in a plan in which he had
marked out the area, showing the number of public houses. Within that area
there were 920 houses, with a population of 4,600. There were 37 on-licensed
houses, and eight other premises licensed also, making a total of 45 houses
licensed for the sale of drink in that area. This gave a proportion of one
licence for 20 houses, or every 102 persons, and one on-licence to every 24
persons (sic). For the whole borough there were 89 on-licensed houses, and 42
other houses licensed, making a total of 131 licensed for the sale of drink by
retail. This gave a proportion of a licence for 233 persons, or one on-licence
to every 344 persons. This was according to the census of 1891, when the
population was given as 31,160. There were also within that congested area
three registered clubs, with a total membership of 830. During the past year,
1906, there were 131 cases of drunkenness dealt with by the Borough
Magistrates, and of these 53 were from this congested area.
With reference to the Channel Inn, he proposed to
oppose the renewal of the licence on the ground that the licence was not
required for the area. The Channel In was situated in High Street, and the
present tenant was Mrs. Ashford, who obtained a transfer of licence in 1902,
the owners being Mackeson and Co., of Hythe. The rateable value was £22. There
were three on-licensed houses in High Street. The trade was small, and the
residents did not appear to use the house. The present licensee was convicted
for serving a child under fourteen years of age, and fined 5s. and costs.
Beyond that he had no complaint to make against the house. In his opinion the
licence was quite unnecessary for the requirements of the neighbourhood.
Mr. Haines: Do I understand you make no complaint?
The Chief Constable: I do not object to the house on
this conviction.
Mr. Haines: With regard to those other houses, they are
outside this area? – Yes.
If we took another area, say near the Town Hall, that
would not be a congested area? – Well, no.
When you speak of the requirements of the neighbourhood,
you speak simply of the residents? – I rarely see any of the residents go into
the house.
If you were asked to give evidence as to the trade
done, you could not estimate it by simply passing the house? – Well, no. It is
impossible to tell the amount of trade done by simply passing the house.
When you said this house did little business, on what
do you base your opinion? – By the number I see going in as I pass.
Mr. Minter did not cross-examine.
Detective Burniston corroborated the Chief Constable in
the main facts, and said the remaining two houses were quite sufficient.
Mr. Haines cross-examined – The only business was the
supplying of soldiers in the evening, which he arrived at by passing and also
visiting. He had no dates, although he had visited it more than a dozen times
during the year, at all times of the day. His visits were on business as a
detective, and had nothing to do with the opposing of the licence.
Mr. Haines addressed the Bench on the question of the
opposition. The owners had complied in every way with the orders of the Bench.
The Chief Constable said the house was well conducted. The tenant had put the
whole of her money into the business, and his client would tell them that there
had been a great demand for eating as well as drinking, and she hoped to
improve the trade. He asked the Bench to consider whether it was necessary to
take away the licence, as they had already taken away several licences in this
particular area.
The tenant, Mrs. Ashford, gave evidence as to the trade
of the house. The trade in the winter was about £6 or £7, and from £10 to £12
in the summer. She had spent a lot on improvements, and managed to get a
living. The backway was never used by customers, and she was quite content to
remain there. She had often sold food to visitors, and had sometimes sent them
away. She had £150 in going in. There had been an increase in the trade.
Mrs. Ashford could not give the names of her customers
who came to her. She did not set out any tables for visitors who wanted
something to eat.
Mr. Minter, on behalf of the owners, said he thought it
was a most unjustifiable attempt to get rid of the licences, and was an
injustice to the owners. He said it was an attempt to evade the Act of
Parliament which said that if certain things were done, nothing should be done
for another five years. This meant that that house was safe for five years,
provided that nothing occurred against the house. The same Bench two years ago
gave notice that certain alterations should be made, and the alterations had
been examined by the Bench. What fresh facts had arisen since then? Nothing.
Then why should an attack be made on this particular house? The backway
referred to was absurd, for there was no entry to the premises by the back,
except for coals. The whole facts were in the knowledge of the Magistrates, who
knew that everything had been done which they had ordered. Then, according to
the Act, the Magistrates could not condemn the house. But why should they take
away their licence? It seemed somewhat of an anomaly that the Chief Constable
should pitch upon them he did not know, but he supposed the Chief Constable
must do his duty. The owners had complied in every way with the orders of the
Bench, and he therefore contended that the Magistrates had no right to take
away the licence of the Channel Inn, and he asked them to grant the renewal.
The Bench retired to consider their decision, and on
their return the Chairman announced that the licence would be referred to the
Licensing Committee.
Folkestone
Express 9-3-1907
Adjourned Licensing Sessions
The adjourned licensing sessions were held on Monday at
the Police Court, when the principal business to be considered was whether or
not the five licences should be referred to the East Kent Licensing Committee
for compensation. The Licensing Justices on the Bench were E.T. Ward Esq.,
Lieut. Col. Fynmore, Lieut. Col. Hamilton, W.G. Herbert, C.J. Pursey, R.J.
Linton and W.C. Carpenter Esqs., while other justices present were Major
Leggett, Mr. G. Boyd, and Mr. J. Stainer.
The Chief Constable said the next business was to
consider the opposition to five licences. The first on the list was the Channel
Inn, High Street.
Mr. Haines represented Mrs. Ashford, the tenant, and
Mr. Minter represented Messrs. Mackeson, and the Chief Constable said he first
of all put in a plan, on which he had marked the congested area, which embraced
really the whole of the older portion of the borough, commencing at the
harbour, going along by the Pavilion Hotel, South Street, up the Bayle Steps,
across the top of High Street, Rendezvous Street, Dover Road, up to the Raglan
Hotel, and then turning into Dover Street, and along Radnor Bridge Road to the
sea. Within that area there were 920 houses, with a population approximately of
4,620, which was reckoning five per house. There were 37 on licensed houses and
eight other premises licensed, making a total of 45 licensed houses for the
sale of drink within that area. That gave a proportion of one licence to every
20 houses or every 102 persons, or one on licence to every 24 houses, or every
124 persons. For the borough at large there were 89 on licences and 32 other
licensed premises, making a total of 121 licences for the sale of drink by
retail. That gave a proportion of one licence to every 344 people. According to
the Census of 1901 the population was given at 30,750. There were also within
the congested area three registered clubs, with a total membership of 830.
During the past year there had been 131 charges of drunkenness dealt with by
the Magistrates, and of that number he found 53 were from the small congested
area.
Dealing with the Channel Inn, he put in a copy of the
notice of his objection to the licence on the ground that the said licence was
not needed for the requirements of the neighbourhood. He also produced the
register of the house. The Channel Inn was situate in High Street and the
present licensee was Alice Ashford, who obtained a transfer of the licence on
March 5th, 1902. The registered owners were Messrs. Mackeson and Co.
Ltd. The rateable value of the house was £32. He put in a plan showing the
premises.
Mr. Minter: I have not seen it. Who is it prepared by?
The Chief Constable: It is the one you put in yourself to
the Justices two years ago.
Mr. Minter: I will admit it then.
The Chief Constable, continuing, said there were three
on licensed houses in High Street, two fully licensed and one beerhouse. The
Eagle beerhouse was on the opposite side of the street to the Channel Inn,
about twelve yards away. There were two entrances to the Channel Inn from High
Street. There was one bar, which was divided into four compartments, the centre
one being small and dark. Within a radius of 200 yards of that house there were
29 other on licensed houses. There was also a right of way to the back of the
premises from Tontine Street. The trade appeared to him to be a small one and
very few, if any, of the residents of the street used the house. The present
licensee was convicted on December 3rd last for delivering beer in
an unsealed vessel to a child under 14 years of age, and was fined 5s. and
costs. Beyond that, he had no complaint to make as to the conduct of the house.
In his opinion the licence was quite unnecessary for the requirements of the
neighbourhood.
Cross-examined by Mr. Haines, Mr. Reeve said beyond the
conviction that was the only complaint he had to make about the house. He had
taken the Channel as the centre of his 200 yards radius. When he spoke of the
requirements of the neighbourhood, he referred to the residents. He passed up
and down the High Street several times a day, and he very rarely saw the
residents of that neighbourhood either going in or coming out of the house. He
quite agreed that it was not possible for a passer-by to judge accurately the
trade of a house. Mrs. Ashford`s husband obtained the licence of the house on
March 8th, 1899, and it was transferred to her on his death in 1902.
With regard to the right of way at the back of the house, the Bench three years
ago decided that certain alterations should be made. The Justices ordered that
a small brick wall should be built at the top of a staircase because it led out
of the public bar into the back yard. The requirements were carried out by Messrs.
Mackeson. The Licensing Justices instructed him to select that house, and his
opinion was that it was inferior to the other three houses from a police point
of view. He felt there were too many houses down there and also that the
Channel Inn was the least suitable to be allowed to continue. He was directed
to oppose the renewal of the licence last year, but when it came up the licence
was renewed.
Det. Sergt. Burniston said in the course of his duty he
visited the house. From what he had seen he did not consider the licence to be
necessary for the requirements of the neighbourhood. It appeared to him that a
very small trade was done there. In the event of the licence being refused he
considered there would be ample and sufficient accommodation in the remaining
houses for customers to be supplied.
Cross-examined by Mr. Haines, Burniston said very few
people visited the house during the day. He had visited the house a good many
times during the past year.
Mr. Minter addressed the Justices on behalf of his client,
and then asked them to allow the licence to continue.
Mrs. Ashford then went into the box. She said the
takings of the house varied. In the winter they were £7 or £8 a week, while in
the summer they were from £10 to £12 a week. She would not have been in the
house so long if she had not got a living out of it. Since she had been there
she had spent £100 in various fitting and fixtures. The back way was not used
by customers. She would remain in the house if they would let her. In the
summer she had found a considerable demand for food, and she would cultivate
that trade even more than she had done. She paid £150 in valuation. In 1905 she
paid £262 to the brewers, and £300 in 1906.
Mr. Minter, on behalf of the owners, said he thought
that was a most unjustifiable attempt to get rid of that house, and it was not
doing justice to the landlords. It was an attempt to give the go-by to the Act
of Parliament, inasmuch as they would
find on reference to the section that once a house had been brought
before the Bench and alterations had been ordered, no further alterations could
be ordered for another five years, therefore that licence was safe for five
years, provided there was no offence against the licensing laws. Two years ago
they ordered certain alterations to be done to that house, and they were done.
Therefore the house should be safe for five years. With regard to the back way
from Tontine Street, there was no entry from that to the premises except for
coal being taken in. In seemed to him somewhat of an anomaly that the
Superintendent should object to that house and not to some of the others in the
street.
The Chief Constable said the alterations referred to by
Mr. Minter were done in 1904.
The Chairman: That was before the Act came into force.
The Justices retired, and on their return into Court,
the Chairman said they were of opinion that the house should be referred to the
East Kent Licensing Sessions.
Folkestone
Herald 9-3-1907
Adjourned Licensing Sessions
Monday, March 4th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward,
Alderman W.G. Herbert, Lieut. Colonel Hamilton, Councillors W.C. Carpenter and
G. Boyd, and Messrs. R.J. Fynmore, C.J. Pursey, R.J. Linton, and J. Stainer.
Channel Inn
The first of the opposed licences to be considered was
that of the Channel Inn. Mr. Haines appeared for the tenant, and Mr. J. Minter
for the owners.
Chief Constable Reeve put in an ordnance plan, on which
he had marked out an area which embraced the old part of the borough, round
from Radnor Bridge Road, Dover Road, High Street, and the Harbour. In that area
there were 920 houses with a population approximately of 4,600 (that was
reckoning five per house). There were 37 on-licensed houses and 8 other
premises licensed, making a total of 45 houses licensed for the sale of drink
in that area. That gave a proportion of one licence to every 20 houses or every
102 persons, or one on-licence to every 24 houses or every 124 persons. For the
borough at large there were 89 on-licensed houses, and 42 other premises
licensed, making a total of 131 licences for the sale of drink by retail. That
gave a proportion of one licence to every 233 persons, or one on licence to
every 344 persons. That was according to the census of 1901, when the
population of the borough was given as 30,650. There were also within the
congested area 3 registered clubs, with a total membership of 830. During the
past year, 1906, there were 131 charges of drunkenness dealt with by the
borough Magistrates, and of these 53 were from the small congested area shown
on the plan.
Coming to the house in question, witness produced the
notice of intention to oppose the licence on the ground that it was not
necessary.
The Channel Inn was situated in High Street, the
present licensee being Alice Ashford, who obtained a transfer of the licence on
5th March, 1902. The registered owners were Messrs. Mackeson and
Co., Ltd., of Hythe. The rateable value of the house was £32. Witness handed in
a plan of the house.
Mr. Minter: I have not seen it. Who is it prepared by?
Witness: It is a plan you deposited with the Justices
two years ago, sir. (Laughter)
Mr. Minter: All right.
Continuing, witness said there were three on licensed
houses in High Street, two fully licensed and one beerhouse. The Eagle
beerhouse was on the opposite side of the street to the Channel, and was about
twelve yards away. There were two entrances to the Channel from High Street,
and one bar, which was divided into four compartments. The centre one was small
and dark. Within a radius of 200 yards of the house there were 29 other on
licensed houses. There was also a right of way to the back of the premises from
Tontine Street. The trade appeared to be a small one, and very few, if any,
residents of the street used the house. The present licensee was convicted in
December for delivering beer unsealed to a child under 14 years of age. Beyond
that witness had no complaint as to the conduct of the house. In his opinion
the licence was quite unnecessary for the requirements of the neighbourhood.
Cross-examined by Mr. Haines: He did not object to the
house on the ground of the conviction. The area he had alluded to was formed in
his mind. The house was not quite in the congested area. The area as one came
further west was not so congested, but he had taken the Channel Inn as the
centre of a 200 yards radius. It was impossible for an outsider to accurately
judge the trade of the house. In 1899 the present tenant`s husband took the
house, and it was transferred to Alice Ashford on his death. Two years ago the
Bench considered the question of the right of way, and the only alteration was
the making of a brick wall. The requirements of the justices were carried out.
His opinion was that the Channel Inn was inferior to the other houses for
police supervision. Neither of the other two had a back right of way. The
Channel Inn was put back last year for opposition, but it was renewed without
the case being gone into. The only fresh fact since that was the conviction. He
could not suggest that any of the 53 drunks came from that house. He could not
say what trade a house should do; he judged by the people going in and out.
Detective ergeant Burniston stated that in the course
of his duties he visited a great many licensed houses in the town. He would say
that the Channel Inn was unnecessary for the requirements of the neighbourhood,
and a very small trade appeared to be done there. In the case of the licence
being refused, there would be sufficient accommodation for the customers in teh
remaining two houses.
Cross-examined by Mr. Haines: He had visited the house a good many times,
in the morning, afternoon, and evening, having gone there on duty. When he went
in he had no idea that the licence was to be opposed. He would say that the
house did about two barrels of beer a week.
Mr. Haines referred to the actions of the owners in the
past in carrying out the desire of the Bench as to structural alterations. He
pointed out that the Bench had already refused the renewals of eight licences
in the district, and that made a difference.
Alice Ashford, the licensee, stated that in the winter
she took from £8 to £10 a week, and in the summer from £10 to £12. She got a
living, and she had spent already more than £100 out of her profits. The back
way was never used by her customers. She would be content to remain there. She
had often thought of cultivating the eating trade in that house, for she often
had people wanting refreshment of that kind. When she went into the house she
paid £150 on valuation. She did not get a great many residents in the house.
Last year she paid £260 to her brewers, and this year she had paid £300.
Cross-examined by Chief Constable Reeve: She could not
give the name of a resident in the neighbourhood who used the house. It was in
the summer that her own food was eaten up, but she did not set out any tables.
There would be sufficient accommodation in the other 29 houses in the 200 yards
area to supply the wants of her customers.
Mr. Minter contended that it was an unjustifiable
attempt to get rid of the house, and was not doing justice to the house. It was
an attempt to give the Act of Parliament the “go-by”, as the Section said that
once the Licensing Committee had called upon an owner to remedy certain
structural defects, if that was done no further alteration should be required
from the owners for another five years. Two years ago the Bench ordered certain
structural alterations, and these were carried out.
In reply to the Bench, the Chief Constable said that
the alterations were made in 1904.
Mr. Ward:That was before the Act came into force.
The Bench decided to refer the licence to the East Kent
Licensing Committee.
Folkestone
Daily News 12-7-1907
Local News
Our readers will remember that at the recent Folkestone
Licensing Sessions the Justices decided to refer the licences of the Channel
Inn, High Street, the Queen`s Head, Beach Street, the Railway Inn, Beach
Street, and the Perseverance, Dover Street, to the County Licensing Authority.
At a meeting of this body on Thursday the question came up for consideration,
and eventually it was decided to withdraw the licences of the Channel Inn, the
Perseverance, and the Queen`s Head. The licence of the Railway Inn was renewed.
Compensation will, of course, be granted to the owners and tenants of the
closed houses.
Folkestone
Express 13-7-1907
Local News
At the Folkestone Licensing Sessions the Justices
decided to refer four licences to the County Licensing Authority with a view to
the houses being closed and compensation given.
The Committee held a meeting on Thursday, and decided
to withdraw the licences from the Channel Inn, High Street; the Queen`s Head,
Beach Street; and the Perseverance, Dover Street. The fourth licence, that of
the Railway Inn, Beach Street, was renewed. The owners and tenants of the
others will be compensated.
Folkestone
Herald 13-7-1907
Local News
Lord Harris presided at the principal meeting of the
East Kent Compensation Authority at Canterbury on Thursday.
The Committee had referred to them twenty four houses,
including four from Folkestone, viz., the Channel, High Street; the Railway
Inn, Beach Street; the Perseverance, Dover Street; and the Queen`s Head, Beach
Street.
The Channel Inn
Mr. Matthew appeared to support the action of the
Licensing Justices, and Mr. Bodkin was for the owners, Messrs. Mackeson and Co.
Chief Constable Reeve gave evidence as to the congested
area in the old part of Folkestone. In this area there were altogether 45
licences. From the High Street district they had more charges of drunkenness
than from any other part of Folkestone. Witin 200 yards of the Channel Inn
there were 29 other on-licences. The house was used chiefly by soldiers and
girls.
In reply to Mr. Bodkin, witness said there had been an
improvement effected at the back of the premises, at the request of the
Justices. He was not suggesting that an illegitimate trade was done at the back
premises. Since the congested area had been dealt with ten licensed houses had
disappeared, eight with compensation, and two without. This house was
considered last year by the Justices, and renewed.
Detective Sergeant Burniston gave corroborative
evidence, and said that very few residents used the house.
Mr. Bodkin contended that the Justices, having required
structural alterations to be carried out at the premises, which had at once
been done by the brewers at an expense of about £50, ought not to require the
house to go within nine months of doing such improvements. It seemed that
because the Justices had been successful in getting ten houses closed in this
congested area, they were hoping to be as successful in this case, although it
was a house where a lady had been getting a respectable living for the past
eight years. He did not know what the lady would do if the Committee refused
the licence.
The tenant gave evidence as to the house having been
carried on by her husband and herself for eight years. In summer she sold ten
or twelve barrels a week, and in winter seven or eight. It was her sole means
of livelihood. Her husband paid about £160 when they went in.
Mr. Henry Mackeson said his firm were the freeholders
of the premises, and long before they knew the house was to be referred to that
Committee they had made arrangements to have it rebuilt and made into a large
licensed restaurant.
The Decision
The Committee decided to renew the Railway Inn, but to
refuse those of the Channel, Perseverance, and Queen`s Head.
No comments:
Post a Comment