Rendezvous 1905 - 1909

Folkestone Daily News 30-5-1906

Wednesday, May 30^th: Before Messrs. Herbert, Pursey, Stainer, Leggett, Hamilton, Swoffer, and Linton.

An application for the transfer of the licence of the Rendezvous Hotel to Mrs. Culpeck was objected to by the Chief Constable on the grounds of the applicant being a married woman. Mr. Godfrey, the present licensee, was only manager.

The case was adjourned till the next licensing meeting, July 11^th, for enquiries to be made and fresh notices to be served.

Folkestone Express 2-6-1906

Wednesday, May 30^th: Before W.G. Herbert Esq., Lieut. Colonel Hamilton, Major Leggett, J. Stainer, C.J. Pursey, G.I. Swoffer and R.J. Linton Esqs.

Mr. De Wet made an application for the transfer of the licence of the Rendezvous Hotel from Mr. A. Godfrey to Mrs. Colbeck, who, he stated, was the sister of the licensee and had been in the house ever since he had held the licence. He then handed in the references.

The Chief Constable said so far he had not been able to make the necessary enquiries with regard to the references. He noticed that in the notice served upon him the name was given as Mrs. Culpeck, whilst in the references was Mrs. Colbeck. Then he considered the house was not altogether a desirable one for a woman to keep.

Mr. De Wet said Mr. Godfrey had really been the manager of the house for Mrs. Colbeck. It was her money that had paid the brewers ever since he had occupied the house. Mrs. Colbeck`s husband also lived on the premises, but as it was her own money that was put in the house, she wished the licence to be in her name.

The Chief Constable said he thought  it was a case which should stand over until he had received replies to the enquiries he had made with regard to the references.

The Magistrates therefore adjourned the application until the next licensing meeting and ordered fresh notices to be served.

Folkestone Herald 2-6-1906

Wednesday, May 30^th: Before Alderman W.G. Herbert, Lieut. Colonel Hamilton, Major Leggett, Messrs. J. Stainer, R.J. Linton, G.I. Swoffer, and C.J. Pursey.

Mr. De Wet appeared for the transfer of the licence of the Rendezvous Hotel from Albert Godfrey to Mrs. Colpeck.

The Chief Constable stated that he did not see why this house should be held by a lady when her husband was living.

Mr. De Wet said it was the lady`s money that paid the brewers. Her husband lived on the premises, and was always in charge there. Her outgoing tenant had been acting as manager for her.

As Mrs. Colpeck had first been notified as Mrs. Baines, the matter was adjourned until the next licensing day, the Magistrates ordering fresh notices to be served.

Folkestone Daily News 11-7-1906

Before Messrs. Hamilton, Fynmore, and Linton.

Licence Transfer

Rendezvous Hotel from R.F. Godfrey to Mrs. Colbeck. It was stated that her husband would always reside on the premises.

   

Folkestone Express 14-7-1906

Wednesday, July 11^th: Before Lieut. Col. Fynmore, Alderman Vaughan, and R.J. Linton Esq.

This being the day fixed for the special licensing sessions, the following licence was transferred: The Rendezvous Hotel, from Mr. G.H. Godfrey to Mrs. Culpeck.

Folkestone Herald 14-7-1906

Wednesday, July 11^th: Before Councillor R.J. Fynmore, Lieut. Colonel Hamilton, and Mr. Linton.

Licence was transferred as follows: The Rendezvous Hotel (adjourned from June 12^th), from Mr. Godfrey to Mrs. Culpeck

Folkestone Express 24-11-1906

Inquest

At the Town Hall on Monday, the Borough Coroner (Mr. G.W. Haines) conducted an enquiry relative to the death of Edgar William Haizell Colbeck, who died on Saturday as the result of severe burns.

William E. Colbeck said he lived at the Rendezvous Hotel, and was a licensed victualler. He identified the body as that of his son, Edgar William Colbeck. He was two years and four months old. He was the only child. On Thursday morning, at half past seven, witness, who was in bed with his wife, heard a call of “Fire” by his step-daughter. Witness`s son and step-daughter slept together in a bedroom opposite. Witness and his wife immediately ran into the bedroom. Witness saw deceased standing on the floor with his nightshirt in flames. The shirt was of flanellette, and was alight at the bottom and was flaring up. Witness, with the assistance of his wife, put the flames out. There was no fire in the room, and witness the previous night had taken the light out of the room. Witness was not aware that there were any matches in the room. Deceased did not play with matches, but he had occasionally picked one up and burnt it. A box of matches was found on the floor. The box, which was full, was closed. Witness found a burnt match on the floor. Deceased was only able to say a few words.

Mrs. Colbeck, who was greatly distressed, corroborated.

Maud Barnes said Mrs. Colbeck was her mother. She had been in the habit of sleeping with her brother. She went to bed on the night in question at half past ten. She was awoke in the morning by deceased screaming. When she saw he was in flames she called out for her mother. Witness had never seen deceased strike a match. She thought he must have got out of bed and taken the matches from the spare room.

Mr. Colbeck, re-called, said the two children were affectionate.

Dr. Barrett said he was sent for on Thursday morning about eight o`clock. On examining deceased he found extensive burns on the lower parts of the abdomen, and all round the loins, buttocks and thighs. The child was very much agitated. He immediately fetched a nurse and had the burns dressed. He saw deceased from time to time, but he never rallied at all. In the evening Mrs. Colbeck sent for him, as she did not think he was so well. The next morning he was unconscious. He remained so and gradually got worse, and at three o`clock on Saturday morning he died. Death was caused by shock from the burns received.

A verdict of Accidental Death was returned.

Folkestone Herald 24-11-1906

Inquest

The Borough Coroner (Mr. G.W. Haines) held an inquest at the Town Hall on Monday evening on the body of Edgar William Haizell Colbeck, who died on Saturday last from the effects of burns.

Mr. William Edgar Colbeck, licensee of the Rendezvous Hotel, Folkestone, identified the body as that of his son, aged two years and four months. On Thursday morning (15^th inst.), at half past seven, he was in bed, and heard a cry of “Fire” uttered by his step-daughter, who slept with the deceased in a bedroom immediately opposite to his own. His wife, who slept nearest to the door, was first to get out, and he (witness) immediately followed. He saw his son standing in the room, with his flannelette nightshirt alight. The flames were then only at the bottom of the nightshirt. With his wife`s assistance he put out the flames. There was no fire in the room, extra precaution having been taken the previous night by removing the candle from the boy`s room. There were no matches in the room that he (witness) was aware of. Witness had seen the boy pick burnt matches off the floor. He (witness) found a box of matches on the floor of the room after the occurrence. The box was closed, but was full of matches. He picked a burnt match up from the floor. Deceased could only speak a little. The last words he spoke to witness were on Friday morning, when he said “Dada”.

Mrs. Mary Adelaide Colbeck corroborated her husband`s statement.

Maud Barnes said she had been in the habit of sleeping with her step-brother. She woke up on Thursday morning hearing the deceased screaming. He was just going to stand up in bed. His nightshirt was in flames. She pilled him onto the floor. She had never had any reason to light the candle of a night. The candle was always gone from the room when she awake in the morning. She thought deceased must have got out of bed and taken the matches from another room.

Mr. Colbeck, re-called, said the two children were very affectionate.

Dr. Barrett deposed that at 8 o`clock on Thursday morning he was called to the Rendezvous Hotel, where a child had been burnt. On arrival he found the mother with the child in her arms. There were very extensive burns on the lower part of the abdomen, all round the loins, and on the thighs. He fetched in a nurse, and gave directions. He went in again afterwards, and the child was much quieter than before, but the boy never really rallied, and seemed to lose colour. He also lost consciousness, and died on Saturday morning at three o`clock from the shock. The doctor added that if the step-sister had had the presence of mind to put the clothes over the child, the result might not have been so serious. Dr. Barrett concluded with a reference to the inflammable nature of flannelette.

The jury returned a verdict of “Accidental death, caused through burns”.

Folkestone Daily News 4-4-1907

Thursday, April 4^th: Before The Mayor, Messrs. Stainer and Hawksley.

Robert Walker, a respectably dressed young man, with a face badly bruised, appeared in the dock charged with being drunk and incapable.

Mr. De Wet appeared for the accused, having been instructed by Mrs. Colbeck, the licence holder of the Rendezvous Hotel.

When the accused was called upon to plead, Mr. De Wet asked permission to consult him, as he had only just been instructed.

His Worship courteously informed prisoner`s advocate that they might retire into the Justices` room, and the Bench would wait.

He thanked His Worship, and said that was not necessary, as the accused, under his advice, would plead guilty, and he would content himself by cross-examining the witnesses with a view to showing that Mrs. Colbeck was not a party to their drinking on her premises at that hour of the night.

Mr. Bradley pointed out that that was not the charge before the Bench.

P.C. Ashby deposed that at about 12.45 just after midnight on Wednesday, he was called to the Rendezvous Hotel by the servant, who was very much frightened and distressed. She told him that if he did not come in murder would be done. He entered the house and found the accused, Walker, and the landlord, Mr. Colbeck, both very drunk and fighting. They were very violent and he tried to part them. He then came outside and Walker followed him into the street, attempted to mount his bicycle, and fell off. In his (the constable`s) opinion he was incapable of taking care of himself.

Mr. De Wet: Were you called by Mrs. Colbeck? – No.

Did the servant tell you that she had sent for you? – No.

Mr. De Wet then addressed the Bench, saying that the prisoner`s condition was caused by Mr. Colbeck, who, although the husband, had nothing to do with the licence of the Rendezvous Hotel. That was in Mrs. Colbeck`s name, and he should have a further application to make after this case was settled.

The Bench fined Walker 5s. 6d. and 4s. 6d. costs.

Mr. De Wet applied for a warrant on behalf of Mrs. Colbeck to arrest her husband, whom she alleged was drunk at the Rendezvous Hotel, and had driven her out of the house with a stick.

Mr. Bradley: Apply by summons.

Mr. De Wet: This case is so serious I ask for a warrant.

Mr. Bradley: Then lay your information in the usual way.

At this juncture Mr. Colbeck appeared in the police court in a state of intoxication.

The Chief Constable asked him to come into Court. He declined to do so. The Chief Constable then went out of Court and talked to him a bit, and he then went away.

Folkestone Herald 6-4-1907

Thursday, April 4^th: Before the Mayor, and Messrs. J. Stainer and G. Hawksley.

Arthur Walker, a very respectably dressed man, was charged with being drunk and incapable in Rendezvous Street that morning. His face was horribly scarred. Mr. De Wet appeared for prisoner, who leaded Guilty.

P.C. Ashby deposed that that morning at 12.15 he was called to the Rendezvous Hotel by a maid, who said “Do come quick, or there will be a murder here”. He went into the saloon bar, where he saw prisoner fighting with the landlord. They were both very drunk, and struggled together. He tried to part them, and was struck in the face. Shortly afterwards prisoner went into Rendezvous Street, and fell on the ground. He was drunk and incapable. With the assistance of Detective Sergeant Burniston he took the prisoner to the police station, where, on being charged, he became very violent.

Cross-examined: It was Mr. Colobeck with whom the prisoner was fighting. Mrs. Colbeck was the licensee, and she informed witness that the prisoner came in about half past ten, and she had refused to serve him.

Fined 5s. and 4s. 6d. costs.

Mrs. Colbeck, of 1, Rendezvous Street, applied through Mr. De Wet for a warrant against her husband, who, she said, was at home threatening to injure her. He had assaulted her on several occasions, including that morning.

The Court directed that information should be laid for a summons.

Folkestone Express 10-4-1907

Thursday, April 4^th:

Robert Walker was fined 5s. and 4s. 6d. costs for being drunk and incapable.

P.C. Ashby said he saw the prisoner fighting with the landlord in the bar of the Rendezvous Hotel, both being drunk. Prisoner struck witness and then went out and tried to mount his bicycle, but fell, and was taken to the police station.

Mr. De Wet, who appeared for prisoner, made an application for a warrant against the landlord for assaulting his wife, who is the licence holder, saying she dared not go into the house.

Folkestone Daily News 10-4-1907

Wednesday, April 10^th: Before Messrs. E.T. Ward, Lieut. Col. Fynmore and T.J. Vaughan.

The Magistrates had their time fully occupied in adjudicating upon summonses issued against the landlady of the Rendezvous Hotel, Mrs. Mary Emily Colbeck, for permitting drunkenness, and her husband, William Edward Colbeck, for being drunk on licensed premises. From the evidence it will be seen that the cases form a sequel to a little fracas which preceded a police court charge on Thursday in last week. The first summons heard was that against Mary Emily Colbeck, who, the Chief Constable said, was charged with permitting drunkenness on her licensed premises, the Rendezvous Hotel. Mr. Douglas De Wet defended, and tendered a plea of Not Guilty.

P.C. Ashby said: On the night of April 3^rd I was on duty in High Street shortly after midnight. About 12.15, on reaching the Rendezvous Hotel, I tried the front doors, and found them locked. As I left the last door, the third, I heard the door of the saloon open.

The Chief Constable: What happened?

Witness: A young girl came out and made a communication to me.

And what did you do? – In consequence of that communication I went inside the hotel, to the saloon bar, 15 ft. from the front entrance.

Tell the Magistrates exactly what you saw. – I saw the landlady`s husband fighting with a man named Walker. In the struggle, Walker turned and deliberately struck me in the face. The man was very violent, but I managed to get him on the ground. Then Detective Burniston arrived.

The Chief Constable: What condition were these two men in? – They were both drunk.

What was the condition of the room? – Glass was strewn on the floor and chairs were overturned.

Did either of the two men bear any signs of ill-usage? – Both were marked; blood was coming from Walker`s mouth.

Walker having got up, what occurred? – Sergeant Burniston had arrived, and said to Mrs. Colbeck “What is this man doing here?” Mrs. Colbeck said “He came in at 10.30 with Mr. Colbeck. He has no business here, and I won`t have him here”. Walker refused his name and address.

What occurred then? – Detective Sergeant Burniston and I left the house. Shortly after Walker came out; he was wheeling a bicycle and was so drunk that he fell over it. He then assisted the man (Walker).

The Chief Constable: Have you any doubt as to the condition of Mr. Colbeck as well as the other man? – None whatever.

Did you tell Mrs. Colbeck you would report her? – Yes, and she made no reply.

Cross-examined by Mr. De Wet: Beyond the statement of Mrs. Colbeck I have no reason to know what time the man entered the bar.

Was Mrs. Colbeck very much worried? – She seemed so, sir, she was crying.

Was she doing her best to part the men? – I should think she was, sir.

Det. Sergt. Burniston corroborated the last witness by describing the condition of the room and the men after the fracas.

The Chief Constable: Did you say anything to defendant?

Witness: Yes. I said “Is this man a lodger or a visitor?” Mrs. Colbeck replied “The man has no business here; he came in at 10.30”.

The Chief Constable: What happened to Walker?

Witness: Subsequently Walker was locked up on a charge of being drunk and incapable.

What was the state of Mrs. Colbeck? – She seemed much upset.

Thoroughly agitated? – That is so.

You noticed great confusion in the bar? – Yes.

Was there any shortage of bottles on the counter? – There might have been.

Did the maid also appear to be agitated? – Yes, she did.

Did Mrs. Colbeck say “He has no right here, and I won`t have him”? – I did not hear that.

Sergeant Lawrence said: I was present at the station when Walker was charged. Subsequently Colbeck came up to the office. Colbeck was drunk at the time.

Mary Emily Colbeck, sworn, said: I am the licensee of the Rendezvous Hotel. On the 3^rd of April, about 7 o`clock, I, after taking some air, returned home and found my husband and Walker in the bar. Both men were then quite sober. They went out to have a game of billiards, came in again again about 8 o`clock. They were perfectly sober then and went out to get a fish supper. They came back about 10.30. Mr. Walker took his cycle from the saloon bar as if going home. Mr. Colbeck and he went out together. On that occasion neither of them had any drink. The next occasion I saw them was at five minutes to eleven. Both were then very “boozed”. Mr. Colbeck said to Mr. Walker “Are you not going to have a drink?” A whisky and soda was asked for, and I refused it, saying “You do not want any more; you have had enough”.

Mr. De Wet: What happened?

Witness: Mr. Colbeck took up his stick and cleared the counter. Mr. Walker said “Look here, old man, you are going a little bit too far”. Mr. Colbeck said “What has that got to do with you?; you know as much about my wife as I”.

That annoyed Mr. Walker? – Naturally.

What did you do? – I was frightened, and went upstairs to fetch the maid. That was about 11.15.

Mr. De Wet: Well! What then happened?

Witness: Mr. Colbeck asked for drink. I refused to serve him. He pushed me by the shoulders on to a small table, and then went round to the bar and served himself.

Mr. De Wet: Had you any occasion to go upstairs just then?

Witness: Yes, to shut my child`s door, as I wished to prevent the child hearing the noise.

Mr. De Wet: What happened on your return?

Witness: My maid said Mr. Colbeck had drawn more drink. I took it and threw it down the sink.

What caused the blows? – Why, the insult of Mr. Colbeck to Mr. Walker.

What effect did this have on Walker? – Walker became very violent. He got Mr. Colbeck on the ground, and said something like “I`ll kill you, you ----“. My strength was giving out, and I asked Mary to go and fetch someone.

From 8 o`clock, when you served Walker with a bitter, did you serve either Walker or Colbeck with any intoxicating liquor? – I did not.

And in consequence of the refusal did you suffer an assault? – I did.

What was the argument between the men? – Education.

The Chief Constable: How many minutes was it before the first blow was struck and the constable arrived? – A few minutes.

When your husband helped himself to drink in the bar, did he also give Walker any? – Yes, he did.

Did you take any steps at all to turn these men off the premises? – My husband had invited Walker to stay all night, so I advised them to go to bed.

Why? – I thought it might pacify Mr. Colbeck.

Why did you not send for assistance? – What could I do with two mad men?

You knew where the police station was? – Yes.

Mary Ramsley said: I am a maid at the Rendezvous Hotel. On ednesday, April 3^rd, I was in the bar. Just before I went upstairs at 8 o`clock I saw Walker and Mr. Colbeck, both of whom were then sober. The next time I saw the two was about 11.15 when I came down and found both very quarrelsome, and some broken glass on the floor. Mr. Colbeck called for drink, and mistress refused to serve him. He then took hold of her shoulders and pushed her back, saying “Shut up”, and drew drink for himself and Walker. Mistress had occasion to go upstairs, and while she was gone Mr. Colbeck obtained more drink. Later I saw Mr. Colbeck strike Walker with a stick. The two closed, and we tried to separate them. Walker wanted to go home, and Mr. Colbeck wanted him to stay the night. I begged them to go to bed, but Mr. Colbeck would not do so.

Chief Constable: Walker and Colbeck have been very friendly of late? – Yes.

Very much together, eh? – Yes.

Has Walker stayed all night before? – No.

The man Walker was called by Mr. De Wet, and swore that after leaving the Rendezvous at 10.30 he returned at something to 11, and Mrs. Colbeck did not serve him with any drink.

Chief Constable: Do you really remember that? – I remember that. It was after the blow that I felt bad. It was on the temple.

Were you not drunk before the blow? – I was, but not very. I think it was the blow on the temple.

Mr. De Wet, addressing the Bench, said the case was a sad one, and also an important one, but he submitted there was no case to answer. There was no evidence of “permitting”.

The Chief Constable: What about the case of the licence holder found drunk in bed at three o`clock in the morning?

Mr. De Wet (continuing) held that the prosecution had not made out their case. The word “permitting” always assumed some power to prevent. In this case what power had the poor licence holder to prevent that which occurred? At very considerable length and with exceptional care Mr. De Wet dissected the evidence of the prosecution and the experience of the defendant which led up to a very regrettable fracas.

Mr. Bradley: Mrs. Colbeck did everything but the right thing – she omitted to send for the police to eject Walker.

When the time arrived for the Bench to consider the case there was only the Chairman (Mr. E.T. Ward) and Lieut. Col. Fynmore left to adjudicate. The Chairman, after a short consultation with the Clerk, made the following announcement: Well, Mrs. Colbeck, we have a good deal of sympathy with you. There is no doubt there was a breach of the law – you ought to have sent for the police and got rid of these men. In considering all the facts we intend to deal leniently with you; you are liable to a fine of £10. The fine will be £2 and 15s. costs.

The fine was immediately paid.

The next summons, that of drunkenness against the last defendant`s husband was then proceeded with, William Edgar Colbeck first pleading that he was not very drunk, and then that he was drunk, without a qualification, at midday on the day following the midnight fracas.

P.C. Leonard Johnson, in proving the case, said on the day in question he was called to the Rendezvous Hotel by defendant`s wife, who told him that defendant had been knocking her about. The man was then on the pavement, and drunk.

Defendant was fined 10s. and 9s. costs, or 7 days` hard labour.

Folkestone Express 13-4-1907

 

Local News

At the Folkestone Police Court on Wednesday, Mary Emily Colbeck was summoned for permitting drunkenness on licensed premises – the Rendezvous Hotel. Mr. De Wet appeared on behalf of defendant and pleaded Not Guilty.

P.C. Ashby said on the 3^rd of April, shortly after midnight, he was on duty in High Street, and about 12.15 he walked towards the Rendezvous Hotel. As he came along he tried the three dors and found they were locked. As he was leaving the last one, which was nearest the Rose Hotel, he heard the door of the saloon bar open, and a young woman came out. She came running up to witness and made a communication to him, in consequence of which he accompanied her to the Hotel, and entered by the door from which she came out. There was a passageway inside the door, which extended about 15 or 16 feet from the door. Witness went into the saloon bar, and when he got there he saw a man named Walker fighting with Mr. Colbeck, the husband of the licence holder. They struggled together and witness tried to part them. Walker then turned round and deliberately struck witness in the face. Witness caught hold of him and pulled him away from Mr. Colbeck. He was very violent, but he got him to the ground, and held him until Detective Sergt. Burniston came. Both Walker and Colbeck were drunk. Mrs. Colbeck was present. There were glasses strewed about the floor, and some pots had been knocked off the mantelpiece. Several chairs were also knocked down. Both men were injured in their faces. Witness let Walker get up after Sergt. Burniston came. Burniston asked what Walker was doing there, and if he was a friend. Defendant said “No. He came in here at 10.30 with Mr. Colbeck. He had no business here, and I won`t have him here”. Witness asked Walker his name and address, and he refused to give it. Mrs. Colbeck then told Walker to get out of the house, and he said “If that`s it, I`ll go”. He then left the house. Walker had a bicycle with him, and he struggled as far as High Street, and then fell over it. Walker was arrested and charged with being drunk and incapable to take care of himself. Before he left the premises he told Mrs. Colbeck he should report her for permitting drunkenness on licensed premises.

Cross-examined, witness said defendant was excited and scarcely knew what to do with herself. She was crying.

Detective Sergt. Burniston said on the morning of the 4^th April he was called to the Rendezvous Hotel. He entered by the door leading to the saloon bar. When he got there he saw P.C. Ashby struggling with a man named Robert Walker, who resided in Alexandra Gardens. Walker was very drunk, and standing opposite was Mrs. Colbeck`s husband, who was also very drunk. Standing a little further away was defendant and one of her maids. There were signs of disorder having taken place. Both men had fresh marks on their faces, as if they had been fighting. Witness asked Mrs. Colbeck the reason of the disturbance, and she made no reply. Then witness said “Is this man (meaning Walker) a guest or a lodger?” Defendant replied “Neither. He has been here since 10.30, and has no business here”. Witness told defendant he should report her for allowing Walker to remain on licensed premises during prohibited hours, and also for permitting drunkenness. Witness was quite clear about Walker and Colbeck being drunk.

Cross-examined: Defendant was excited and thoroughly agitated.

Sergt. Lawrence said he was on duty at the police station whan Walker was brought in. Mr. Colbeck afterwards came to the station, and he was drunk.

Defendant then went into the witness box. She said she was the licence holder of the Rendezvous Hotel. On April the 3^rd she returned to the Hotel about seven o`clock. She saw her husband and Walker in the saloon bar. They were quite sober. They had a drink and went out to have a game of billiards. The next time witness saw them was, as near as she could say, eight o`clock. Then they went out to have some supper. They were perfectly sober then. They came in about 10.30, and Mr. Walker took his cycle from the saloon bar as though he was going home. Mr. Colbeck came in with him, and they both went out together. They did not have any drink. The next time witness saw them was about five minutes to eleven. They were very “boozed”, both of them. Witness was just thinking of closing the Hotel. Mr. Colbeck said to Walker “Aren`t you going to have a drink?”, and a whisky and soda was asked for. Witness walked into the four-ale bar and shut the doors. When witness came back again, Mr. Colbeck said “You have asked for a drink and been refused”. Witness said they did not want any more; they had had enough. Mr. Colbeck then knocked three or four bottles and two glasses off the counter with his stick. Walker said “You are going a bit too far”. Mr. Colbeck asked what it had got to do with him, and that was the start of the quarrelling. Witness then went upstairs to wake her maid, and when she came down again the two men were still quarrelling. Mr. Colbeck asked to be served with a whisky and soda, and as defendant would not serve him, he helped himself. Witness had occasion to go upstairs, and when she came down the maid told her that Mr. Colbeck had had some more whisky. He had not drunk it, and witness threw it down the sink. Witness then described the fight and what followed.

Cross-examined, witness said she allowed Walker to stay because her husband had asked him to stay the night. She thought if Walker stayed it might pacify Mr. Colbeck.

Mary Ransley, the maid, corroborated.

Robert Walker also gave evidence. He stated that Mrs. Colbeck did not serve him with any drink.

Mr. De Wet, in addressing the Bench, said the only evidence of the prosecution was that those men were found on the premises after closing hours. He submitted that the licensee could not be convicted of permitting drunkenness after closing hours. He also urged that the word “permitting” always assumed some power to prevent. In that case what power had the poor licence holder to prevent?

The Chairman said they were taking a lenient view. Defendant was liable to a penalty of £10, but they would fine her £2 and 15s. costs.

William E. Colbeck, the husband, was summoned for being drunk on licensed premises. He pleaded Guilty.

P.C. Johnson said at 12.45 on the 4^th April he went to the Rendezvous Hotel. Defendant`s wife had informed him that he had been knocking her about, and she wanted him removed from the premises.

Defendant was fined 10s. and 9s. costs.

Folkestone Herald 13-4-1907

Wednesday, April 10^th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Councillor W.C. Carpenter, Messrs. R.J. Fynmore and C.J. Pursey.

Mary Emily Colbeck was summoned for permitting drunkenness on her licensed premises, the Rendezvous Hotel, on 4^th April. Mr. De Wet appeared for the defendant.

P.C. Ashby deposed that shortly after midnight on the 3^rd inst., he went to the Rendezvous Hotel at 12.15, as he came round on his beat. There were three doors opening direct from the street. He tried them to see if they were secure. As he was leaving the last one, that was the third, he heard the door of the saloon open. A woman came running out and said something to him, and in consequence he accompanied her and entered by the first door. There was a passage inside, which extended for 15 or 16 feet from the front door. He went into the saloon, where he saw a man named Walker fighting with the landlord, Mr. Colbeck, husband of the defendant. They were struggling together, and he (witness) tried to part them. The man Walker turned round and struck him (witness) in the face. Witness then got hold of Walker and held him apart from Mr. Colbeck. He became very violent, and witness had to get him on the ground and hold him there till Detective Sergt. Burniston came down. Both men were drunk. When witness went into the saloon there was only Mrs. Colbeck present. There were scenes of disorder. The glasses were strewn about the floor, and the chairs were knocked down. Both men were marked about the face, and blood was flowing from Mr. Colbeck`s mouth. Some conversation took place afterwards when Detective Sergt. Burniston was present. Detective Sergt. Burniston said to Mrs. Colbeck “What is he doing here?”, referring to Walker. “Is he a friend?” Mrs. Colbeck replied in the negative, and said “Walker came in at about 10.30 with Mr. Colbeck and he has no business here, and I don`t want him here”. Witness then asked Walker his name, but he refused to give it. Mr. Colbeck then asked Walker to get out of the house, to which Walker said “That`s it; I will go”. Detective Segt. Burniston and himself left the house, followed by Walker. Walker had a bicycle with him, and brought it out, but he was too drunk to wheel it, and fell over it. He was arrested and charged with being drunk and incapable of taking care of himself. Before leaving the house witness told Mrs. Colbeck that he should report her for permitting drunkenness one her licensed premises. Defendant made no reply. Witness could see that Mrs. Colbeck tried to persuade them to be quiet, but she was excited and very agitated, and scarcely knew what to do. She seemed as though she had had a lot of trouble with them; there was no doubt that she had done her best.

Detective Sergt. Burniston stated that at 12.20 on the 4^th April he was called to the Rendezvous Hotel. He entered by the hotel entrance, and saw P.C. Ashby struggling with Walker, of 23, Alexandra Gardens. Walker was very drunk, and standing opposite he saw Mr. Colbeck, who was very drunk. He saw the defendant, and went to her and asked the reason for the disorder, for there were scenes of disorder, chairs being knocked down and glasses broken. Both Walker and Colbeck were marked about the face, and seemed as though they had been fighting. Mrs. Colbeck made no reply as to the disorder. He asked her if Walker was a friend or a lodger, and she replied “Neither”, and said that Walker had been there since 10.30, and had no business there. Witness told her he would report her for allowing him to remain on the premises during prohibited hours, and for permitting drunkenness. Defendant made no reply. Witness then left the house, followed by Walker, and in Rendezvous Street he found that Walker was too drunk to take care of himself. He was then taken to the police station, but was released. Mrs. Colbeck made no explanation, but was excited and agitated.

Sergt. Lawrence deposed that he was on duty at the police station on the 4^th April when the man Walker was brought in. There was no doubt that he was drunk.

Mrs. Mary Emily Colbeck deposed that she was the licence holder of the Rendezvous Hotel. On the 3^rd April she returned to her house at 7 o`clock, and saw her husband there with Walker in the bar. They were quite sober then. They had a drink and went out to have a game of billiards. They came in again at 8 o`clock, afterwards going out to have some supper. They were sober at that time. They returned again at 10.30, and Mr. Walker took his bicycle from the saloon as though he was going home. Mr. Colbeck came in, and they both went out together. They did not have a drink, nor did they ask for one. She saw them again at 10.55, and at that time they were “very boozed”. She was in the act of closing the house. Mr. Colbeck asked Walker to have a drink, and they asked for a whisky and soda. She was behind the bar. She walked into the four-ale bar, and shut the door behind her. When she came back she told them they did not want any more drink, for they had had enough. Colbeck thereupon knocked the bottles and glasses off the counter, and Mr. Walker said “You are going a bit too far”. Mr. Colbeck said “What is that to do with you? Do you know as much about my wife as I do?” Mr. Walker was very much annoyed, and this was the start of the quarrelling. She then went upstairs and called the maid at about 11.15, and when she came down they were both “jangling”. Mr. Colbeck asked to be served, but she would not serve him. He pushed her away, taking hold of her by the shoulder, and served himself to a whisky and soda. He went round the counter again and drank it. The men went on quarrelling about education. She again went upstairs to shut the door of her child`s room, for she did not want her to hear the noise. She came down again, and the maid said that Mr. Colbeck had had some more drink. She (witness) got hold of a glass on the counter and threw the contents down the sink. A little later Mr. Colbeck “threw an insult” to Mr. Walker, and they came to blows. Mr. Colbeck struck Mr. Walker first, and Walker then became very violent and half mad. He “went for” Mr. Colbeck, and she (witness) “went for” Walker, and held him as long as possible. Mr. Walker got Mr. Colbeck on the floor eventually, and said he would kill him. She then sent for someone. The maid rushed out and brought in P.C. Ashby. That was nearly 1 o`clock. She closed the house at 11 o`clock, and sometimes she closed a few minutes before. She had given instructions that no-one should be served if they were drunk, and had often refused a customer. She had not served them with any drink, and she did her best to stop them going into the bar, and, as she said before, poured a whisky and soda down the sink. Her husband was a man of some strength, and until the police came she did not know what to do. Mr. Colbeck asked Mr. Walker to stay the night; she did not ask him to stop. Until they began fighting she took no steps to obtain help.

Mary Ransley, maid at the Rendezvous Hotel, corroborated the last witness`s statements, and she said she entreated the men not to drink.

A witness deposed that he saw Walker at Belvedere, The Parade, between 10.55 and 11 p.m.

Mr. De Wet said that the case was a sad one. On the evidence before them there was no caser to answer. What power had the poor lady to prevent the two men in this case? There was no doubt it was a breach of the law.

The Chief Constable said the house was quite close to the police station.

Mr. De Wet: People often forget to do the right thing in a state of excitement, for it is admitted that Mrs. Colbeck was excited and agitated.

The Chairman said that defendant`s house was close to the police station, and she could have sent there. She was liable to a penalty of £10, but taking the circumstances of the case into consideration, she would be fined £2 and 15s. costs.

Wm. Edward Colbeck was summoned for being drunk on licensed premises.

P.C. Johnson said at 12.45 midday on the 4^th April he went to the Rendezvous Hotel, and saw defendant, who was drunk. Mrs. Colbeck said that he had been knocking her about.

Defendant was fined 10s. and 9s. costs, or 7 days.

Folkestone Daily News 6-7-1907

Quarter Sessions

Saturday, July 6^th: Before J.C. Lewis Coward Esq.

It will be within the recollection of some of our readers that some time since Mrs. Colbeck, of the Rendezvous Hotel, was convicted by the borough justices and fined £2 for the alleged offence of permitting drunkenness. The conviction at the time seemed to be somewhat doubtful. However, Mrs. Colbeck appealed, and the case was re-heard by the learned Recorder, who quashed the conviction and gave costs against the borough justices.

Although the case took a long time the facts were extremely simple. Mr. Colbeck met a friend, Mr. Walker, an engineer, and after dining the returned home to the Rendezvous Hotel just before closing time.

Both husband and friend were intoxicated, and the husband invited his friend to stay all night. Mrs. Colbeck wanted them to go to bed, but they quarrelled, eventually fought, and the police were called in. Walker left, and on going outside he fell down, was taken into custody, pleaded Guilty to being drunk and incapable, and was fined 5s. and costs on the following morning. Proceedings were then taken against Mrs. Colbeck, the justices convicted, and the Recorder quashed the conviction.

Folkestone Express 13-7-1907

Quarter Sessions

Saturday, July 6^th: Before J.C. Lewis Coward Esq.

The only case to come before the Recorder was an appeal by Mrs. Mary Emily Colbeck, the licensee of the Rendezvous Hotel, against a conviction for permitting drunkenness on the premises. Mr. Dickens (instructed by Mr. A.F. Kidson) appeared in support of the Magistrates` decision, and Mr. T. Matthew (instructed by Mr. De Wet) represented the appellant.

Mr. Dickens, in opening, said Mrs. Colbeck was fined £2 and 15s. costs for permitting drunkenness at the Rendezvous Hotel under Section 13 of the Act of 1872. He would like to refer the Recorder to Section 4 of the Act of 1902, which said that where a licensed person was charged with permitting drunkenness on his or her premises, it rested on the licensed person to prove that he, or she, as it was in that case, and the persons employed by the licence holder, took all reasonable steps to prevent drunkenness on the premises. It would lie, therefore, on the appellant to prove that she took all reasonable steps to prevent drunkenness. The rateable value of the house was £110 gross, £88 net.

P.C. Ashley said at 12.15 on the night of April 3^rd he was trying the doors of the Rendezvous Hotel, when a girl came out of the house and said to him “Come quick, or else there will be a murder done” He went into the saloon bar and saw the landlady`s husband fighting with a man named Walker. They were both very drunk and he succeeded in separating them. Detective Sergt. Burniston came in about five minutes after and had a conversation with Mrs. Colbeck. Walker left the house with Burniston and himself. He had a bicycle with him, and when he reached Rendezvous Street he fell over it. They therefore took him into custody, and the next morning he was fined for drunkenness.

Cross-examined, he said he had seen Mr. Colbeck more often drunk than sober. He was certainly violent when in drink. There were signs of great disorder when he went into the saloon bar. The landlady, who was agitated, might have said that Walker was going to stay the night.

Detective Sergt. Burniston said when he went into the bar it was in great disorder. He said to Mrs. Colbeck “Is this man a guest or a lodger?”. And she replied “He is neither. He has been here since half past ten. He has no business here. I want him to leave”. She made no reply when he told her he should report her for permitting drunkenness. The landlady was very excited and agitated.

Cross-examined, he said he thought Mrs. Colbeck was in such a condition as to be able to judge what should be done. If she thought the man Walker was staying in the house she could not get rid of him.

P.S. Lawrence gave evidence as to the state of the man, Walker, when he was brought in.

Mr. Matthew first argued on a point of law that it was a case of coercion on the part of the husband, therefore the landlady should not have been prosecuted.

Mr. Dickens contended that there was no evidence that the woman was coerced into committing that offence.

Mrs. Colbeck in her evidence said her husband and Walker were in the house until eight o`clock on April 3^rd. They went out for a walk, and were sober at the time. The next time they came in was at half past ten. They immediately went out, Mr. Walker taking his bicycle. They returned at about five minutes to eleven. A few minutes after Mr. Colbeck asked her for a drink, but she told him he did not want it as he had had enough. Her husband told her that he had asked Walker to stay the night when she informed him it was just on closing time. She later took a drink from her husband, who had drawn it for himself, and threw it down the sink.

Cross-examined, she said she knew Walker lived in Alexandra Gardens, which was only a short distance away. The man had never stayed in the house for a night. A few minutes after eleven she understood he was going to stay the night. She had never spoken to Walker about staying the night. Walker left his bicycle in the porch.

Mary Ransley, a maid at the Hotel, corroborated what Mrs. Colbeck had said.

Robert Walker, the man who was on the premises, said he was not served with any drink after he went into the house at five minutes to eleven. Mr. Colbeck asked him to stay the night and he understood he was going to do so.

P.C. Prebble also gave evidence of the husband keeping the landlady out of the house on the night in question until two o`clock.

The Recorder promised to state a case if necessary on the question of coercion.

Mr. Matthew, addressing the Recorder, said he thought he had proved that the landlady took all reasonable steps to prevent drunkenness. As to the facts, there was no disputing that no drink was served to either of the men after they came in at five minutes to eleven, and it was abundantly clear from the evidence of Mrs. Colbeck and Walker that Colbeck did ask Walker to stay the night.

The Recorder asked what he had to say with regard to taking reasonable steps.

Mr. Matthew said after Colbeck had asked Walker to stay the night, Mrs. Colbeck was not entitled to turn him out. As a matter of law, a man having a bed in a licensed house, as an inmate or a lodger paying rent, or whether he was invited there, was entitled to be there.

The Recorder: Supposing a man was a friend of the husband, and the husband, considering the man was drunk, said he had better sleep on the premises, would it be in accordance with the Statute that the landlady took all reasonable steps to prevent drunkenness?

Mr. Matthew said there were two obligations. They might permit drunkenness. At the same time, the landlady was the wife of the husband, and she had to act as such. It was a difficult position for a woman to be in. His submission was that under the circumstances she was not entitled to eject the man, and that did not amount to a permission of drunkenness.

Mr. Dickens, in addressing the Recorder, said the woman never took a single step at all to eject the man. The only means of preventing drunkenness was to turn the man out, and it was the landlady`s business to decide whether the man should stay in the house. If she consented to him doing so, then she was permitting drunkenness. With regard to the argument of coercion, he contended it did not apply to a case of that description.

The Recorder said that was an appeal brought from a decision of the Justices of the Borough on April 10^th last by the licensee of the Rendezvous Hotel, who was convicted for unlawfully permitting drunkenness to take place on those licensed premises, contrary to Section 13 of the Licensing Act, 1872. That Section had to be read with Section 4 of the Licensing Act, 1902, because where a person was now charged with permitting drunkenness, and it was proved that any person was drunk on the premises, it rested on the licensed person to prove that he, or she in that case, or persons employed by her, took all reasonable steps for preventing drunkenness on the premises. He agreed that if a licensed person or his servant found a person drunk and turned him off the premises that would rebut the prima facie presumption at once. If, on the other hand, they found the person did supply drink, or that he lived on the premises, then it did not do away with the prima facie presumption. He had given the most careful consideration to the facts of the case, which, though coming before him in the nature of an appeal, was really a re-hearing, and he was not satisfied upon the evidence before him that Mrs. Colbeck did not take all reasonable steps for preventing drunkenness. P.C. Ashby admitted in the first instance that Mrs. Colbeck might have said that Walker was going to stay the night. He agreed with both Mr. Dickens and Mr. Matthew it turned on the question aye or no did Mrs. Colbeck believe she had reasonable grounds for supposing Walker was going to stay the night. Burniston, under cross-examination, specifically said he put it to Mrs. Colbeck “Is he a guest or a lodger?” She said “Neither. He has been here since 10.30. He had no business here. I want him to leave”. It seemed to him the reply to that question put by Burniston was by no means or manner inconsistent with what she had sworn that day. He had given the most careful consideration to the whole of the facts, and he had come to the conclusion that the conviction could not stand. It seemed to him the licensee had reasonable grounds for supposing under all the circumstances that the man was going to stay. If she believed it, how could he say her failure to communicate to the police was a failure which showed that she had not taken reasonable steps to prevent drunkenness on the premises? He had come to the conclusion that the conviction could not stand, and he quashed it with costs.

Mr. Matthew asked for the costs to be taxed out of the settlement, and the Recorder allowed the application.

Folkestone Herald 13-7-1907

Quarter Sessions

Saturday, July 6^th: Before J.C. Lewis Coward Esq.

The only business was an appeal against the decision of the Justices given on the 10^th April last, by Mrs. Mary Emily Colbeck, the licensee of the Rendezvous Hotel, who was convicted for having unlawfully permitted drunkenness on those licensed premises, contrary to Section 13 of the Licensing Act of 1872.

Mr. Matthew appeared in support of the appeal, and Mr. Dickens for the prosecution.

Mr. Dickens briefly outlined the case. He referred the Recorder to Section 4 of the Licensing Act of 1902, which said that where a licensed person was charged with permitting drunkenness of his premises, and it was proved that any person was drunk on the premises, it should lie with the licensed person that he, or the person employed, took all reasonable steps to prevent drunkenness on the premises. It would rest with the appellant to prove that she took all reasonable steps to prevent drunkenness on the premises.

The rateable value of the Rendezvous Hotel was stated to be £110.

P.C. Ashby deposed that on the 4^th April, 1907, at a quarter past twelve, he was in High Street, and went to the Rendezvous Hotel to try the door. A maid attached to the hotel came out of the house, and said “Do come quick, or there will be a murder here”. He then went into the saloon bar, and saw the landlady`s husband fighting with a man named Walker. They were both very drunk; they fell on the floor together. He tried to part them, and eventually he did so, but Walker struck him in the face violently. Detective Sergeant Burniston came in about five minutes afterwards, and said to the landlady “Is he (Walker) a friend?” She said “No, he has no business here, and I won`t have him here. He came in at half past ten with Mr. Colbeck”. Sergt. Burniston said he should report her for permitting drunkenness on licensed premises, and she made no reply. Sergt. Burniston, Walker, and witness then left the house. Walker staggered from High Street to Rendezvous Street, and fell over a bicycle which he had with him. The same morning he was convicted for being drunk, and fined by the Magistrates.

Cross-examined: He had seen Mr. Colbeck more often drunk than sober. Mrs. Colbeck was standing by, very excited and crying. There were signs of disorder in the bar. A glass was broken, and tables were overturned, etc. Both the men`s faces were bleeding.

The Recorder complimented P.C. Ashby on the way in which he had given his evidence, remarking that he had done so very well.

Detective Sergeant Burniston stated that he was called to the Rendezvous Hotel, High Street, about twenty minutes past twelve on the night of the 4^th April. He went into the saloon bar, and found P.C. Ashby struggling with a man named Walker, a local resident. Walker was very drunk, as also was Mr. Colbeck. He saw the landlady and her maid a few yards away. He said to Mrs. Colbeck “Is this man Walker a guest or a lodger?” She said “Neither. He has been here since half past ten; he has no business here. I want him to leave”. He told her he should report her for permitting drunkenness on licensed premises, to which she made no reply. Mrs. Colbeck was very excited and upset. Detective Burniston corroborated the evidence as to Walker falling over the bicycle.

Cross-examined: He thought Mrs. Colbeck was in a condition to form a reasonable judgement about anything. She could not very well get rid of her husband, and if she thought Walker was staying in the house she could not very well get rid of him. She let bedrooms to visitors, but this man resided in the borough.

P.S. Lawrence deposed to being on duty at the police station on the night in question, when Walker was brought in very drunk and incapapble.

Mr. Matthew thought there was a short answer to the case. Of course the position was very vague, because here was a woman holding a licence with her husband living on the premises. One saw what enormous difficulties might be created by the situation. It enabled him, he thought, to raise a very old point, that a woman who had committed an offence in the presence of her husband, and under the coercion of her husband, was not answerable at law for the consequences.

Mr. Dickens suggested that that was a maxim of law that applied only to indictable offences under the old common law. It was not conceivable that it could apply to a case of that kind, because coercion applied to making a woman do anything.

Mrs. Mary Emily Colbeck said she was the licensee of the Rendezvous Inn. On the night of April 3^rd she got back to the house at 7 o`clock, having been for a walk. Her husband and Mr. Walker were in the bar. They were quite sober. She saw them again at 8 o`clock, when they were still sober. She would have held the licence four years by next February. The house included four or five guests` bedrooms. They had visitors staying there nearly every week. Her husband and Mr. Walker came in again at half past ten, and went straight away again. They were both excited. They returned at five minutes to eleven. She said it was just on closing time, and Mr. Colbeck said he had asked Walker to stay the night. Very shortly afterwards they commenced to quarrel. She sent upstairs for the maid because she did not want to be left alone, as her husband was very violent when in drink. All that time she thought Walker was going to stay the night.

Cross-examined: Walker had never stayed the night before. She had not spoken to him about staying the night.

Mary Ransley, maid at the Rendezvous Hotel on the 4^th April, stated that Mrs. Colbeck came to her room and woke her. She dressed quickly and went for the police.

Robert Walker said he was an engineer, and was lately employed in London. Mr. Colbeck asked him, in the presence of Mrs. Colbeck, to stay the night, and he said he would.

P.C. Prebble said he was outside the Rendezvous on the night in question shortly after one o`clock. Mrs. Colbeck, her daughter, and the maid were outside, and Mrs. Colbeck said her husband would not let her come in. Mr. Colbeck was outside.

The Recorder (to Mr. Matthew): Isn`t it for you to satisfy me that this lady took all reasonable steps to prevent this?

Mr. Matthew: Yes, sir. Continuing, Mr. Matthew said it was abundantly clear from the evidence of the police constable that Mr. Colbeck asked Walker to stay the night in Mrs. Colbeck`s presence, and that Mrs. Colbeck thought Walker was staying the night. Therefore she was not entitled to turn him out at all as a matter of law, because a man who was staying in a licensed house as an inmate or lodger, paying rent or invited, was entitled to be there drunk.

The Recorder: Supposing a friend of the husband was there drunk, would that be permitted by the law?

Mr. Matthew: I think so.

The Recorder: Is that taking all reasonable steps to prevent drunkenness?

Mr. Matthew: No, it is not quite that. There are two obligations. You must not permit drunkenness, but at the same time you are the wife of your husband, and you have to act as such, and it is a difficult position for a woman to be in. But my submission is that, in these circumstances, she is not entitled to eject him, and it does not amount to drunkenness, because in the statute it is made clear that that man ought to be regarded as a drunken person within the meaning of the statute who has to be ejected. Again, she had reasonable grounds for thinking that the man Walker was going to stay the night. She had to take reasonable steps, having regard to what a reasonable person would do in the circumstances. That it was reasonable to think that Walker was going to stay the night, he put it, was beyond question. The husband said so, and Walker was very drunk. If the husband said so, and Walker was clearly not in a condition to get home, it would be eminently reasonable for her to suppose that he was going to stay. He submitted that, apart from all that, under the circumstances, she did that which was reasonable.

Mr. Dickens contended that Mrs. Colbeck did not take a single step of any kind to prevent drunkenness. It was her business to decide whether the man was going to stay in the house, and if she consented to it she was permitting drunkenness. He submitted that Walker was not going to stay the night, and that Mrs. Colbeck could not have thought so, especially when his house was only just round the corner.

The Court then adjourned, the Recorder withholding his decision until after lunch.

Upon the Court reassembling, the Recorder said the proceedings were taken under Section 13 of the Licensing Act, 1872. Now, Section 13 of the Licensing Act, 1872 had to be read by Section 4 of the Licensing Act, 1902, because when a person was now charged with permitting drunkenness, or was, under the Act of 1872, on his premises, and it was proved that any person was drunk on the premises, it now lay on the licensee to prove that he or she, or the person employed by him or her, took all reasonable steps to prevent drunkenness on the premises. He had given the most careful consideration to the facts of the case, which, though coming before him in the nature of an appeal, was a re-hearing, and he was not satisfied, upon the evidence before him, that Mrs. Colbeck did not take all reasonable steps for preventing drunkenness on those premises. The evidence of Police Constable Ashby was the first evidence that was laid before him, and Ashby admitted that in the first instance Mrs. Colbeck might have said that Walker was going to stay for the night. He agreed with both Mr. Dickens and Mr. Matthew that much did turn on the question of aye or nay did Mrs. Colbeck believe, or have reasonable grounds for supposing that Walker was going to stay the night? Now, Burniston, when cross-examined by Mr. Matthew, specifically said that he put this to Mrs. Colbeck: “Is Walker a guest or a lodger?” She said “Neither. He has been here since 10.30; he has no business here; I want him to leave”. It seemed to him that that question put by Burniston was by no manner of means inconsistent with what she had sworn there that day. Walker was neither a guest nor a lodger in that sense, but he believed Mrs. Colbeck, in that instance, did believe that that man, when he came there at 11 o`clock, was going to stay the night. It seemed to him, therefore, that the onus was discharged by that woman under Section 4 of the Licensing Act, 1902. He had given the most careful consideration to the whole of the facts of the case, and he had come to the conclusion that that conviction could not stand. It seemed to him that the licensee had reasonable grounds for supposing, in all the circumstances, that Walker was going to stay the night, not in the sense they understood staying the night themselves in an hotel, registering a bedroom, etc., but the man`s condition was such that she believed he was going to stay the night. And if she believed that, then how could he say that he failure to communicate with the police was a failure which would show that she had not taken all reasonable steps for preventing drunkenness? He had come to the conclusion that the conviction could not stand, and he quashed the conviction, with costs.

Folkestone Express 2-11-1907

Saturday, October 26^th: Before Aldermen Penfold, Vaughan, and Spurgen, Lieut. Col. Fynmore, W.C. Carpenter, and R.G. Wood Esqs.

The licence of the Rendezvous Hotel was temporarily transferred from Mrs. Colbeck to Mr. Hensing.

Folkestone Express 7-12-1907

Wednesday, December 4^th: Before E.T. Ward Esq., Lieut. Col. Fynmore, W.C. Carpenter, W.G. Herbert, R.J. Linton, and G. Boyd Esqs.

The following transfer of alehouse licence, for which temporary authority had been granted, was confirmed: Rendezvous Hotel, from Mrs. Colbeck to Mr. G. Kemsing

Folkestone Herald 7-12-1907

Wednesday, December 4^th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Lieut. Col. Fynmore, Councillors W.C. Carpenter and G. Boyd, Messrs. W.G. Herbert and R.J. Linton.

It was a special session for the transfer of licences. That of the Rendezvous Hotel was transferred from Mrs. Colbeck to Mr. G. Hensing 

 

Folkestone Express 29-2-1908

Saturday, February 22^nd: Before E.T. Ward Esq., Alderman Vaughan, and R.G. Wood Esq.

Beatrice Kemp was charged with being drunk and disorderly in Rendezvous Street the previous evening. When asked to plead, she said she would say nothing, but leave it to the policeman – his word went before hers.

P.C. Kettle said at about 10.30 the previous evening he was in Rendezvous Street, where he saw prisoner outside the Rendezvous Hotel. She was drunk and making use of obscene language, surrounded by a crowd of people. With the assistance of P.C. Toms he brought her to the police station.

P.S. Lawrence, who was on duty at the police station, said prisoner was drunk when brought in.

Kemp was fined 10s. and 5s. 6d. costs, or fourteen days`.

Folkestone Express 6-2-1909

Annual Licensing Sessions

Wednesday, February 3^rd: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Major Leggett, Lieut. Col. Fynmore, Lieut. Col. Hamilton, Messrs. J. Stainer, W.C. Carpenter, W.G. Herbert, C. Jenner, R.J. Linton, and G. Boyd.

Plans were submitted for alterations to the interior of the Rendezvous Hotel, and approved of.

Folkestone Herald 6-2-1909

Annual Licensing Sessions

Wednesday, February 3^rd: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Lieut. Colonel Hamilton, Major Leggett, Councillor C. Jenner, Messrs. J. Stainer, W.C. Carpenter, W.G. Herbert, G. Boyd, R.J. Linton, and R.J. Fynmore. Messrs. Boyd, Stainer and Jenner did not adjudicate.

The Bench agreed plans that were produced for extensive interior alterations to the Rendezvous Hotel, on the condition that they were carried out within six months.

Folkestone Herald 11-9-1909

Wednesday, September 6^th: Before Messrs. W.G. Herbert, G.I. Swoffer, and J. Stainer.

An application was made by Mr. Ensink for an occasional licence to sell at the Drill Hall from 9 till 3 on Wednesday. Granted.