Folkestone
Daily News 9-2-1910
Annual Licensing Sessions
Wednesday, February 9th: Before The Mayor,
Messrs. Ward, Fynmore, Linton, Hamilton, Stainer, and Leggett.
The Chief Constable read his annual report (for details
see Folkestone Express).
All the licences were renewed, except the Wellington,
Chequers, and Rose Hotel. These were adjourned till the adjourned licensing
sessions.
Folkestone
Express 12-2-1910
Annual Licensing Sessions
Wednesday, February 9th: Before The Mayor,
Lieut. Col. Hamilton, Major Leggett, Lieut. Col. Fynmore, Messrs. E.T. Ward, J.
Stainer, and R.J. Linton.
The Chief Constable (Mr. H. Reeve) submitted his annual
report as follows:- Gentlemen, I have the honour to report that there are at
present within your jurisdiction 125 premises for the sale by retail of
intoxicating liquors, viz: Full licences, 76; beer “on”, 7; beer “off”, 6; beer
and spirit dealers, 15; grocers, etc., 11; chemists, 7; confectioners, 3;
total, 125.
This gives an average, according to the Census of 1901,
of one licence to every 245 persons, or one “on” licence to every 369 persons.
There are two other houses licensed by the Inland Revenue
for the sale of beer, wine and spirits off the premises, under the provisions
of the Excise Acts, for which no Magistrates` certificate is required.
Since the last annual licensing meeting ten of the
licences have been transferred.
Five occasional licences have been granted for the sale
of drink on premises not ordinarily licensed for such sale, and 45 extensions
of the usual 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 93
persons (73 males and 20 females) were proceeded against for drunkenness.
Ninety were convicted and three discharged.
This, I am pleased to report, is a decrease of 14
persons proceeded against as compared with the preceding year, and a decrease
of 32 persons proceeded against when compared with 1907.
Of those proceeded against 38 were residents of the
borough, 10 residents of other districts, 36 of no fixed abode, and 9 soldiers.
Since the last annual meeting two licence holders have
been convicted, namely: One permitting gambling – fined £5 and costs; one
permitting drunkenness – fined 40/- and costs. In the latter case notice of
appeal against the conviction has been given, and will be dealt with by the
Recorder at the next Quarter Sessions.
Fourteen clubs where intoxicating liquor is sold are
registered in accordance with the Act of 1902. These clubs have a total
membership of 3,063, an increase of three clubs and an increase of 1,261
members, as compared with 1903, the year in which clubs were first registered.
There are 17 places licensed for music and dancing, and
three for public billiard playing.
I am pleased to report that with very few exceptions
the licensed houses during the past year have been conducted in a satisfactory
manner.
I have received notice of two applications to be made
at these sessions to sell beer off the premises.
I am, gentlemen, your obedient servant.
The licences were then renewed, with the exception of
the Chequers Inn, Seagate Street (Walter Howlett), Rose Hotel, Rendezvous
Street (Percy William John Hunt), and the Wellington (Charles William Copping
Skinner), which were deferred to the adjourned licensing sessions on March 7th.
Folkestone
Herald 12-2-1910
Annual Licensing Sessions
Wednesday, February 9th: Before The Mayor,
Lieut. Col. Hamilton, Lieut. Col. Fynmore, Major Leggett, Messrs. R.J. Linton,
E.T. Ward, and J. Stainer.
The Chief Constable (Mr. Harry Reeve) presented his
report. (For details see Folkestone Express)
The licences were then renewed, with the following
exceptions, the consideration of which was referred to the Adjourned Licensing
Sessions on March 7th next; The Chequers Inn, 3, Seagate Street;
full licence; licensee Mr. Howlett; opposed by the Chief Constable on the
ground of redundancy. The Wellington Tavern, 1, Beach Street; beer licence;
licensee Mr. Skinner; opposed by the Chief Constable on the ground of
redundancy.
Folkestone
Daily News 7-3-1910
Adjourned Licensing Sessions
Monday, March 7th: Before The Mayor, Messrs.
Ward, Hamilton, Linton, Herbert, Stainer, Leggett, and Boyd.
The Chequers
The Chief Constable asked that this house should be
closed on the grounds of redundancy. The house was not needed for the public
requirements. He produced the usual boundaries, figures and statistics.
Mr. Rutley Mowll appeared for the owners, Messrs. Leney
and Co., of Dover. The tenant was a Mr. Howlett.
The Chief Constable instanced that out of 93 charges of
drunkenness, 37 were in that neighbourhood. There were two clubs in the area,
with a membership of 1,252. The licence had been refused by the Folkestone
Licensing Bench in 1907, but was granted at the Quarter Sessions at Canterbury
in April, 1907. There were no complaints as to the conduct of the house, which
is well conducted.
Mr. Mowll addressed the Bench as to the value of the
house, and said of the many similar cases in which he had been engaged he had
never had one so well conducted or one so unnecessary to close. The trade had
increased since 1907.
Walter Howlett, the tenant, deposed that he had been in
the Chequers since December, 1908. The valuation was £123, which he paid
himself. He was a retired sea captain, and did not want to go to sea any
longer. He took the house to make a living. He had a family to keep, and it was
his only means of livelihood. He did a good trade. Last year he did six barrels
a week, 4½ gallons of spirits per week, 156 lbs. of tobacco, 160 boxes of
cigarettes (50 in a box), 30 boxes of cigars, 260 lbs. of cheese, besides
biscuits and minerals. His customers were sailors and the labouring classes.
Cross-examined: He opened at 6 a.m. and closed at 11
p.m.
Mr. Alfred Leney deposed to being the chairman of the
firm of Leney and Co. Ltd., the owners of the house. The trade of the house for
1903 was 327 barrels; 1904, 300; 1905, 280; 1906, 288; 1907, 188; 1908, 192;
1909, 299. This worked out at an average of five barrels per week, while it
averaged six barrel per week for last year. It was a good house, and had not
fluctuated since 1859, when his firm bought the house. There was a sick club of
80 members held there, which paid 6s. per week.
The licence was granted, with a recommendation to close
the back entrance.
Comment
Every fair minded citizen will commend the Folkestone
Bench for their action in refusing to close the Chequers Inn, in Seagate
Street. It is preposterous that property and people`s livings should be
jeopardised by these periodical attempts brought about by the fanatical
temperance legislation of 1904.
Six houses have been closed in the neighbourhood, and
compensation awarded, to which Messrs. Leney and Co., and their tenants have
had to contribute. Probably in consequence of this closing the business of the
Chequers Inn has increased, and yet there seems to be no security.
According to the proceedings this morning it seems that
the good and respectable conduct of a house counts for nothing, and that the
convenience of customers counts for nothing, for the harassing and persecution
still goes on, while the unfortunate tenant may be living on tenterhooks,
fearing ruin at any moment.
The Chequers Inn is practically an old landmark amongst
houses in Folkestone, and has always been the resort of the better class
sailors and fishermen in Folkestone. They have lodged there when in harbour,
and the capacious rooms have been used for meetings, conferences, etc., for the
last half century; in fact, there is no house in the whole area of its class
that possesses such accommodation. Then why should these continuous attacks be
made? Three years ago the proprietors had to incur all the cost and trouble of
defending their property. Today the Bench, at which the Mayor presided, seemed
to be actuated by fair minded common sense, and refused to close the house.
Folkestone
Express 12-3-1910
Adjourned Licensing Sessions
Monday, March 7th: Before The Mayor, Lieut.
Col. Hamilton, Major Leggett, Messrs. E.T. Ward, W.G. Herbert, and R.J. Linton.
Three licences had been referred to the justices for
consideration – the Rose Hotel, the Wellington public house, and the Chequers.
The Chequers Inn
The next to be considered was the licence of the
Chequers Inn, which is occupied by Mr. W. Howlett. Mr. Rutley Mowll appeared
for the owners (Messrs. Leney and Co.) and Mr. Howlett.
Det. Sergt. Burniston gave evidence as to serving Mr.
Howlett on February 18th with a notice of opposition to the licence
on the ground that it was not needed for the requirements of the neighbourhood.
Mr. Reeve, the Chief Constable, put in an ordnance plan
on which he had marked out a congested area, shown by a blue line, which
commenced at the Harbour, went up Bayle Steps, the Bayle Parade, across the top
of High Street, along Dover Road to the Raglan Hotel, down Dover Street, and
along Radnor Bridge Road to the sea. Within that area there were 813 houses, with
a population approximately of 4,465 persons. Within the said area there were 31
“on” licensed houses, 27 of them being full licences and four beer houses.
There were seven other licences, making a total of 38 premises licensed for the
sale of drink within the area, which gave a proportion of one licence to every
23 houses, or every 117 persons, or one “on” licence to every 28 houses, or
every 144 persons. For the borough at large there were 83 “on” licences, and 40
other licences, making a total of 123 premises licensed for the sale of liquor
by retail, giving a proportion of one to every 249 persons, or one “on” licence
to every 269 persons. That was according to the Census of 1901, when the
population of the borough was given at 30,650. Within the congested area there
were two registered clubs, with a total membership of 1,252. During the past
year he found that out of 93 charges of drunkenness preferred before the
Borough Justices, 37 of them arose within that small congested area. The ground
of opposition to the Chequers was that the licence was not needed for the
requirements of the neighbourhood. The house was situate in Seagate Street. The
present licensee was Walter Howlett, who obtained a transfer of the licence on
December 2nd, 1908. The registered owners were Messrs. Leney and
Co., Dover. The rateable value of the house was £28. The licence was referred
to the Compensation Committee on March 4th, 1907, but was renewed at
the preliminary meeting of the Committee held on May 15th, 1907. The
house was next door to the South Foreland. Seagate Street was a short street.
The Chequers Inn had a right of way from the back of the house, by the side of
a house into Harbour Street. There were only four houses in Seagate Street, all
on one side of the road. Two of them were fully licensed houses, one being the
Chequers, and the other the South Foreland. The Chequers was an old house and
had two entrances from Seagate Street, one opening into a bar and the other
into a passage which led right through the house to the back yard. Opening upon
that passage on the left hand side were two rooms, one front and one back. The
front was called the parlour and the other the club room. The two rooms were
low-pitched and the back one, particularly, was dark. The South Foreland was
rated at £72, and the Wellington beerhouse, at the back of the Chequers, was
rated at £32. Within a radius of 100 yards there were nine other “on” licensed
houses, and within 150 yards there were 18 other “on” licensed houses, and
within 200 yards there were 24. The customers of the house were men employed
chiefly in and about the Harbour. He had nothing to complain of with regard to
the conduct of the house as he was satisfied the house was well conducted. He
considered the licence unnecessary for the requirements of the neighbourhood,
having regard to the number of houses, and he considered the house to be
structurally inferior to the houses of that particular cluster.
Cross-examined by Mr. Mowll, the Chief Constable said
that since 1907 there had been a reduction of six houses in the area. The
changes of licensee since 1881 he did not regard as being out of the way at
all. He regarded it as a good sign that there were not many changes. When the
case was before the justices the trade was a decreasing one, but he thought it
was a fair trade then. The landlord told him a sick and dividend club was held
on the premises, which were kept very clean.
Mr. Mowll said he did not think he had ever had a case
where licensed premises conducting such a trade as that had been seriously
questioned. That house was brought before the Compensation Authority three
years ago, and without a single word on the part of the advocates the licence
was renewed. If the Magistrates were to schedule that house and send it up to the
Quarter Sessions, he could not help thinking the Quarter Sessions would renew
the licence. He thought they would be doing an injustice to the tenant if they
were, for the time being, to earmark the house, because in such cases there was
a sort of feeling that they did not like remaining on a sinking ship, so the
customers went elsewhere. He asked the justices to renew the licence and to
grant that man, who had conducted his house so well and met with so much
commendation from the Superintendent, that he should be allowed to continue his
trade there.
Mr. Howlett said he held the licence since September 25th,
1908. When he took the house the valuation came to £123, which he provided
himself. He was formerly a master mariner. His living was wholly and solely
dependent upon the house. He was doing a good trade. During the year 1909 the
trade was just on six barrels a week. The spirit trade was nearly 4½ gallons a
week. He also did a little over 3lbs. of tobacco a week, and during the year
sold 160 boxes (50 packets in a box) of cigarettes, 30 boxes of cigars, and
just on 260 lbs. of cheese. He had kept a record of customers daily since
February 14th, and the numbers were as follows:- 105, 207, 182, 206,
303, 345, 125 (a Sunday), 233, 211, 201, 245, 272, 343, 183, 225, 225, 217,
203, 247, 373, and 158 (a Sunday). They had also had about 70 in that morning.
That was a bona fide list. He had not asked anyone to go into the house. As a
rule working class people used his house, and the harbour people, ship owners and
captains of ships went in.
Cross-examined, he did not think there would be
sufficient houses in that neighbourhood on Friday and Saturday nights if his
house was closed.
Mr. A.C. Leney said he was chairman of Messrs, Leney
and Co., who were the owners of the house. He had got out a statement showing
the trade of the house for the past seven years. In 1903 it was 327½ barrels;
1904, 300; 1905, 280; 1906, 288; 1907, 188; 1908, 192; 1909, 294. That worked
out for the seven years an average of over five barrels a week. Last year it
was just under six barrels a week. From his experience he should say that was
what the brewers would call a really good house. The house had not fluctuated
much since it was originally purchased in 1859, except in 1907 and 1908, when
the tenant was not applicable to the trade. They had a sick club, with a
membership of about 80, in connection with the house. In the barrelage given
they had included the bottle trade.
Cross-examined, Mr. Leney said they had four other
houses in the congested area.
The Magistrates retired, and on their return the Mayor
said they had decided to grant the application for the licence that year, but
they had a strong feeling about the back entrance to the premises. If the
proprietors could see their way to the Bench in that respect it would be a step
in the right direction.
Mr. Mowll said the entrance was always closed at
sunset, and he and Mr. Leney then conferred with the Magistrates on the
subject.
Folkestone
Herald 12-3-1910
Adjourned Licensing Sessions
Monday, March 7th: Before The Mayor, Lieut.
Col. C.J. Hamilton, Major Leggett, Messrs. J. Stainer, W.G. Herbert, T. Ames,
R.J. Linton, and G. Boyd.
The Chequers Inn
The granting of the Chequers Inn, 3, Seagate Street,
had been referred to these adjourned sessions.
In giving the reasons for the opposition, the Chief
Constable put in a scale map, showing what he described as the congested area.
This was defined by a blue line commencing at the Harbour, proceeding up the
Bayle Steps, along the Bayle Parade, the top of High Street, then to Dover Road
to the Raglan Hotel corner, down Dover Street, and along Radnor Bridge Roat to
the sea. He said that within that area there were 893 houses, with a population
approximately of 4,465 persons. Within that area there were 31 on licensed
houses; 27 full licences, and four for beer. There were seven other licences,
making a total of 38 premises licensed for the sale of drink in the area. That
gave a proportion of one licence to every 23 houses, or every 117 persons, or
one on licence to every 28 houses, or every 144 persons. In the borough at
large there were 83 on licences, and 40 other licences, a total of 123 premises
licensed for the sale of liquor by retail, giving a proportion of one licence
to every 249 persons, or one on licence to every 369 persons. That was
according to the Census of 1901, when the population of the borough was given
as 30,650. Within the congested area there were two registered clubs, with a
total membership of 1,252. During the past year, 1909, he found that out of 93
charges of drunkenness preferred before the borough justices, 37 arose within
the small congested area. The house in question was known as the Chequers Inn,
situated in Seagate Street, and the ground of opposition was that it was not wanted
for the requirements of the neighbourhood. The present licensee was Mr. Walter
Howlett, who obtained a transfer on December 2nd, 1908. The
registered owners were Messrs. Leney and Co., of Dover. The rateable value of
the house was £28. This licence was referred to the Compensation Committee on
March 5th, 1907, but was renewed at the preliminary meeting of the
Committee on May 15th, 1907. The Chequers Inn had a right of way
from the back of the house to Harbour Street. Seagate Street was a short
street, running from Dover Street to Beach Street. There were only four houses
in the street, all on one side, two of them being fully licensed public houses,
one the Chequers, and the other the South Foreland, which was next door. The
Chequers was an old house, and had two entrances from Seagate Street; one
opened into the bar, and the other into a passage, which led right through the
house into the back yard. Opening from that passage on the left hand side were
two rooms, one front and one back; the front one was called the parlour, and
the back the club room. Both these rooms were low-pitched, and the back room
particularly was dark. The back yard extended down the side of the Wellington
beerhouse, where there was a gate from the yard to the street. The adjoining house,
the South Foreland, was rated at £72 a year; the Wellington beerhouse at the
back was rated at £32. Within a radius of 100 yards of the Chequers there were
nine other on-licensed houses; within a radius of 15o yards there were 18 other
on licensed houses, and within a radius of 200 yards there were 24. The
customers of the house were men employed chiefly in and about the Harbour. He
had nothing to complain of in regard to the conduct of the house; indeed, he
was satisfied that it was well conducted. He considered the licence to be
unnecessary for the requirements of the neighbourhood, bearing in mind the
number of houses remaining, and that The Chequers was structurally inferior to
the other houses of this particular cluster.
In answer to Mr. Mowll, the Chief Constable said that
the evidence he had just given was almost exactly similar to that which he gave
when he opposed the grant of the licence in 1907, except that the number of
licensed houses had altered. There had been a reduction in the number of these
since he gave evidence on the matter in 1907.
Mr. Mowll: Yet this licence was renewed then?
The Chief Constable: It was renewed at the preliminary
meeting of the Compensation Committee, and not on a consideration of its
merits.
In answer to further questions from Mr. Mowll, Mr.
Reeve admitted that the house had not often changed hands. It had as tenant
from 1881 to 1894 a Mr. Friend, then for five years Mr. Kirby, then for seven
years Mr. Dorrell, then for two years Mr. Reeves, and then for fifteen months
to the present time Mr. Howlett. It was considered a good sign in a house if
there were not many changes. He could not say what trade the house did, but in
giving evidence in 1907 Mr. Leney said that the trade was a decreasing one. It
was a very fair trade at that time. The landlord had told him that there was a
sick and dividend club run at the house. The house was always kept very clean.
This concluded the case for the opposition.
In applying for the renewal of the licence, Mr. Mowll
said after the terrible blow that fell upon him in the last case he felt he was
entitled to ask for very special consideration in the case now before the
Bench. In all his experience he had never before come across a case where
licensed premises doing such a trade as this house had been seriously
questioned. When the house was referred three years ago the Compensation
Committee, without hearing a word from the advocates, renewed the licence. He
should say that the reason they did that was because the house was doing such a
large trade that if it were refused a licence it would swallow up a large sum
of money at the disposal of the Committee. Presuming that the Compensation
Committee had to deal with the case again, their valuer, Mr. Cobb, would be
obliged to advise them that a very considerable sum would be wanted to take
away the licence. Then, supposing that the licence was taken away, and the
trade went to other houses in the neighbourhood, were the Magistrates going to
say that they did not want any more houses in the neighbourhood refused
licences? Possibly so, but supposing they were going to schedule another house
in the neighbourhood next year they would have to pay for the trade over again.
That was not what the Act of 1904 was intended to do; the Act of 1904 was
intended to enable them to thin out the licensed houses, always taking the
weakest. Again it was a poor test to say that because there were so many
inhabited houses, and so many licensed houses in the district, therefore there
were too many licensed houses for the locality. If they were dealing with a
working class district they ought to remember that near the Harbour was where
the great majority of the beer-drinking population desired to take their
liquor. Therefore that district was not merely supplied with public houses for
those who lived there, but for nearly the whole of the working class population
of Folkestone. He thought that the way in which the house was conducted spoke
for itself, and owing to the trade that was done, and the way the house was
conducted, the licence ought to be renewed. He then proceeded to call evidence
in support of his case.
Mr. Howlett said that he had been tenant of the
premises since September 25th, 1908. When he took them over the
valuation came to £123 odd, which he provided himself. He had been formerly a
master mariner, and was now wholly and solely dependent on the house for his
living. He had a wife, and a boy at school, and he helped to support a
father-in-law. He was doing a good trade now. During 1909 the trade in beer was
just on six barrels a week; the house was free for spirits, and the trade done
in that amounted to nearly 4½ gallons a week. He did a good trade in cheese,
and odds and ends – in a year he sold 156 lbs. of tobacco, 160 boxes of 50
packets each of cigarettes, 30 boxes of cigars and 260 lbs. of cheese. He had
kept a record of how his customers had been coming in. The number on a weekday
varied from 250 to 350. As a rule the were working class people who used the
house, harbour people, seamen, captains of vessels, and so on.
In answer to the Chief Constable, Mr. Howlett said that
he opened his house at six o`clock in the morning, and kept it open till 11
p.m. He did not think that there would be sufficient houses in the
neighbourhood to supply his customers if his house was closed.
Mr. Alfred Leney said that he was Chairman of Messrs.
Leney and Co., owners of the Chequers. He produced a statement showing the
trade for seven years past, as follows:- 1903, 327½ barrels of beer; 1904, 300; 1905, 280; 1906,
288; 1907, 188 (the year the house was scheduled before); 1908, 192; 1909, 294.
On the seven years average, the amount sold worked out at 5.82 barrels per
week. Witness had been in the trade for 34 years, and considered that the house
was doing a very good trade. His firm had purchased the house in 1859 with the
brewery, and since then the trade had not been a fluctuating one, with the
exception of 1907, when the tenant was unpopular. The back part of the premises
used to be the brewery store. There was a sick club at the house, with a
membership of about 80.
In answer to the Chief Constable, Mr. Leney said that
in 1907 he told the Bench that he thought there were too many licensed houses
in the neighbourhood, but he did not think that there were too many now. Six
houses in the neighbourhood had been refused licences since then, but not one
of those that were refused belonged to Messrs. Leney. His firm owned five other
houses in what the Chief Constable described as the congested area.
The Bench then retired to consider the case. They were
only absent for a few minutes, and on their return the Mayor said: The Bench
have decided to grant the application for the licence this year, but they have
a strong feeling about the existence of a back entrance to these premises, and
if the proprietors could see their way to meet the Bench by closing it, it
would be a step in the right direction.
Mr. Mowll said that the gate leading into Beach Street
was closed at sunset, and only Mr. Leney`s storeman, who lived on the adjoining
premises, had a right of way there. He promised that the remarks of the Bench
should be duly noted.
Folkestone
Daily News 14-5-1910
Saturday, May 14th: Before The Mayor,
Colonel Fynmore, Ald, Penfold, and Ald, Vaughan.
Frederick Stephen Allen, known as “Badger”, was charged
with stealing a till containing 10s. from the Chequers Inn on the 13th
inst.
Walter Howlett, the landlord deposed to seeing accused
at the Chequers at 6.15 a.m. He had two pints of beer and stayed two hours,
when he left, and returned at 9.20. He entered the bar where witness was
serving, and stayed twenty minutes, when he again left. From what witness
heard, he examined the till produced, from which he missed about 18s. and a 2
franc piece.
Mrs. Howlett, wife of the previous witness, deposed to
being in the bar when Allen came in, and served him with a pint of beer, for
which he paid with a shilling. She gave him change from the till, and then went
into the kitchen, leaving prisoner there alone. He left in about five minutes.
No-one else had entered in the meantime. Soon afterwards another customer came
in, whom she served, and she then missed the money and spoke to her husband,
who came and examined the till.
Florence George, an assistant at Gosnold Bros., 56,
Tontine Street, deposed to prisoner coming to the shop and buying three red
handkerchiefs, for which he paid with a two shilling piece. He afterwards came
back and bought three more, paying with a two shilling piece again.
Lilian Porter, manageress of the 6½d. shop in Tontine
Street, deposed to serving prisoner with a saucepan, for which he paid with a
two shilling piece.
R.J. Gurr, butcher, in the employ of Barber and Co.,
deposed to Allen buying two breasts of mutton and two pounds of sausages for
2s. 9d., for which he paid with a two shilling piece and a shilling.
P.C. Waters deposed to arresting Allen, who, on being
charged, replied that he knew nothing about it. On being searched 2s. 11d. was
found on him and the 2 franc piece produced, which Mr. Howlett recognised.
Prisoner said he had carried the 2 franc piece for two months.
He was committed to the Quarter Sessions.
Folkestone
Express 21-5-1910
Saturday, May 14th: Before The Mayor,
Alderman Vaughan, and Lieut. Col. Fynmore.
Frederick Stephen Allen, a labourer, was charged with
stealing 18/- and one two franc piece from the till of the Chequers public
house.
Walter Howlett, landlord of the Chequers Inn, Seagate
Street, said he knew the prisoner as a customer. He came to his house the
previous evening at a quarter past six and he had some beer. Prisoner remained
in the house about two hours, and he had two pints and a half of beer. He left
about twenty minutes past eight, and returned an hour afterwards. He entered
the bar at the front of the house, and there was only one other person in the
bar at the time. Witness was in the kitchen, from which the bar door and a part
of the bar were visible, and he saw the prisoner enter. His wife was in the
bar. Prisoner remained in the bar about twenty minutes. He saw him go out, he
leaving by the front door. About four or five minutes later his barman came to
him and made a statement, and in consequence of what he said witness went
behind the counter and examined two bowls in which he kept the money. The bowls
were placed on a shelf behind the bar. They were in full view of anyone on the
public side of the counter. The bowls contained seven shillings in silver and
two shillings in bronze. At six o`clock that morning one of the bowls contained
five shilling pieces and a two shilling piece. On the top of the bowl was a two
franc piece, a French Republican coin. The other bowl contained ten sixpenny
pieces and three shillings worth of bronze. Witness put in twelve shillings in
silver and bronze prior to prisoner coming into the bar the second time, so
that there was, as near as he could tell, 27/- altogether. Among the 12/- added
were three two shilling pieces. Eighteen shillings in silver and bronze and the
two franc piece were missing. The coin produced resembled the coin which he had
missed, and which he had had for four or five months.
Eliza Ann Howlett, wife of the last witness, said about
a quarter past nine the previous morning she saw the prisoner enter the bar.
She served him with a pint of beer. Another man named Russell was in the bar at
the time. Russell left about two or three minutes after prisoner came in.
Prisoner paid for the beer and she gave him change. Russell had not left then.
The two bowls were on the shelf behind the bar. At the time witness gave
prisoner his change she noticed the two franc piece lying on the top of one of
the bowls. After Russell had left she entered the kitchen, leaving the prisoner
alone in the bar. About five minutes after she heard the door of the bar open,
and getting up, she saw prisoner go out. During that five minutes no-one else
had entered the bar or the house. About eight minutes after another man came
into the bar and witness went into the bar and served him. On going to the till
for the purpose of getting change she missed the two franc piece. She then went
and spoke to her husband, who came and examined the contents of the bowl.
Jessie Florence George, an assistant in the employ of
Messrs. Gosnold Bros., drapers, 56, Tontine Street, said she recognised the
prisoner, who came to the shop the previous morning about ten o`clock. He
purchased the three red handkerchiefs (produced) and he tendered a two shilling
piece and received change. About five minutes after he returned to the shop and
purchased three more of the handkerchiefs. He again yendered a two shilling
piece and received change. The price of the handkerchiefs was 3¾d. each.
Lilian Porter, manageress of the domestic bazaar, 42,
Tontine Street, said she recognised the prisoner, who came to the bazaar the
previous morning about ten o`clock. He purchased the enamel stew pan
(produced). He tendered a two shilling piece, and witness gave him change. The
price of the article was 6½d.
Richard Sidney Gurr, assistant in the employ of Messrs.
Barter and Co., butchers, 33, Tontine Street, said he recognised the prisoner,
who came to the shop the previous day about a quarter past ten. He purchased
two breasts of mutton and two pounds of sausages, which came to 2/9. He paid
for them with a two shilling piece and a shilling.
Inspector Lawrence said from information he received
shortly after 11.30 the previous day he went to the Chequers Inn and examined
the floor on the private side of the bar counter. On the mat were three
footprints, apparently made by someone stepping over from the public side of
the counter, which was covered with sawdust. There were also sawdust marks on
the corner of the seat of the chair standing near the counter on the private
side of the bar. The bowls were placed on a shelf six feet away from the inner
edge of the bar counter. Later he went to 39, Peter Street, where prisoner was
lodging, where he was handed a parcel containing two breasts of mutton, some
sausages, and a stew pan. A quantity of potatoes were tied up in a new red
handkerchief, which had been identified by Miss George.
P.C. Waters said the previous morning, about a quarter
past eleven, he saw the prisoner in Dover Street. He stopped him and said
“Where have you been, Allen?” Prisoner replied “Round about the town”. Witness
then asked him if he had been in the Chequers that morning. Allen said “Yes.
Two or three times”. While he was speaking to prisoner the witness Howlett came
up, and said “That is the man who has stolen my money”. Witness asked Howlett
what the amount was and he replied “About 14/-“. He then told Allen that he
should take him to the police station and charge him with stealing the money. He
replied “I know nothing about it”. Witness took prisoner to the police station
and on searching him he found two two shilling pieces and elevenpence in
coppers, the silver two franc piece (produced), and three new pocket
handkerchiefs. When he took the two franc piece from his pocket Howlett said
“That is my two franc piece”. Prisoner did not make any reply. Witness then
formally charged him, and in reply he said he had had that two franc piece for
six months.
The Chief Constable said that completed the case for
the prosecution, and if the Magistrates were satisfied that a prima facie case
had been made out against the prisoner, he asked them to commit him to the next
Quarter Sessions.
Prisoner, who had nothing to say, was then committed
for trial at the next Quarter Sessions.
Folkestone
Herald 21-5-1910
Saturday, May 14th: Before The Mayor,
Aldermen Vaughan and Penfold, and Lieut. Colonel Fynmore.
Frederick Stephen Allen was charged with stealing money
from the Chequers Inn, Seagate Street.
Walter Howlett, landlord of the Chequers Inn, said
prisoner was a customer. He came into the house on the previous morning at
about 6.15, and was served with some beer, remaining in the house about two
hours. He left about 8.20, as near as witness could say, coming back in about
an hour, and entering by the front door. There was one other man in the bar at
the time. Witness himself was in the kitchen, but was able to see prisoner
enter. Witness` wife was in charge of the bar at the time. Prisoner was in the
bar about twenty minutes, after which witness saw him leave. He left by the
same door as he had entered. About four or five minutes after he had left,
witness`s wife came to him, and from what she said witness went behind the
counter of the bar, and looked into two bowls in which the money taken in the
bar was kept. These bowls were in full view of everyone on the public side of
the bar. There was only 9s. in both of them. He had put in 15s. overnight. The
sum was made up of five shillings, a two shilling piece, ten sixpences, and
three shillings worth of coppers. There was also a two franc piece, which was
placed on top of the bowls. Witness estimated that he had taken 12s. that
morning in the bar, most of which had, to his knowledge, been in two shilling
pieces. He knew positively that there had been three taken. About 18s. in
English money had therefore been stolen, and a twp franc piece of the French
Republic.
Eliza Anne Howlett, wife of the previous witness, said
that she was in the kitchen about 9.15 on the previous day, when she saw
prisoner come into the bar. She served him with a pint of beer. A man named
Russell was in the bar at the time, and she was talking to him. Prisoner paid
her for the beer he had. Russell then left the bar. Witness noticed at the time
she was serving prisoner that the two franc piece was on the bowl, and that
there was a 3d. piece placed on it. She then left the bar and went into the
kitchen. After she had been in the kitchen about five minutes, she heard
prisoner go. There had not been anyone in the bar during the five minutes she
had left it, excepting the prisoner. Seven or eight minutes after accused had
left, witness went into the bar to serve another customer. She went to the
bowls to give him some change, and missed the two franc piece and the 3d. piece
with it. She went to the kitchen and told her husband.
Jessie Florence George, an assistant at Messrs. Gosnold
Bros, 56, Tontine Street, said prisoner came to the shop about 10 o`clock on
the previous morning. He bought three red pocket handkerchiefs (produced)
paying for them with a two shilling piece. He came about five minutes
afterwards and bought three more (produced), tendering another two shilling
piece in payment. The three handkerchiefs were priced at 11¾d.
Lilian Porter, manageress at the Domestic Bazaar, 42,
Tontine Street, said prisoner came to the shop about ten o`clock on the
previous day and bought an enamel saucepan (produced), priced at 6½d., handing
her a two shilling piece in payment.
Richard Sidney Gurr, employed by Messrs. Bartter and
Co., butchers, 33, Tontine Street, deposed that prisoner, who came to the shop
about 10.15 on the previous morning, bought two breasts of mutton and two
pounds of sausage meat (produced). The articles came to 2s. 9d. Prisoner
tendered a two shilling piece and a shilling in payment.
Inspector Lawrence stated that he went to the Chequers
Inn at about 11.30 on the previous morning. On a fibre mat behind the counter
was the imprint of two feet in sawdust. Sawdust was used to cover the public
portion of the bar. There was also the print of a foot on the edge of a chair,
as if someone had stood on it to reach the two bowls. The space between the public
and private portion of the bar was about six feet.
P.C. Waters said that he saw the prisoner in Dover
Street at about 11.15 a.m. on the previous day. He asked him where he had been
to that day. Prisoner replied “About the town”. While they were speaking Mr.
Howlett came up and said “That is the man who stole my money”. Witness then
told accused he would take him to the police station and charge him with
stealing money from the Chequers Inn. Prisoner said “I don`t know anything
about it”. Witness took him to the station and searched him, finding three new
red handkerchiefs, two separate shillings, 11d. in bronze, and a two franc
piece. When asked to account for the possession of the foreign money he said he
had had it for six months.
Prisoner was committed for trial at the next Quarter
Sessions.
Folkestone
Daily News 2-7-1910
Quarter Sessions
Saturday, July 2nd: Before J.C. Lewis Coward
Esq.
Frederick Allen, known as “Badger”, was charged with
stealing money from a till at the Chequers Inn early in the morning.
It will be remembered by our readers that the evidence
given before the Magistrates showed that Allen went into the public house,
purchased some beer, and in the absence of the landlady got over the counter
and emptied the till. He was seen afterwards by the police spending money very
freely.
There were several previous convictions against him,
and the Recorder now asked Mr. Easton if he would take him under probation.
Mr. Easton promised to have a talk with the prisoner to
see if he would consent to go into a home, and Allen was taken to the cells for
that purpose.
On Mr. Easton`s return he told the Recorder that he
would be able to find Allen work on condition that he signed the pledge, and
asked the Recorder to make that a condition when binding him over.
The Recorder then bound Allen over for twelve months.
Folkestone
Express 9-7-1910
Quarter Sessions
Saturday, July 2nd: Before J.C. Lewis Coward
Esq.
Frederick Stephen Allen, 47, a labourer, was charged
with stealing, on May 13th, 18/- in money and a French two franc
piece, the property of Walter Howlett, of the Chequers Inn. Prisoner pleaded
Guilty to stealing 11/-, and also to a previous conviction in April at the
police court.
Mr. Weigall, who prosecuted, said they would accept the
prisoner`s plea. Allen went into the public house, and taking advantage of the
momentary absence of the landlady from the bar, helped himself to the money,
which was put inside a bowl in the bar.
The Chief Constable said he put in a certificate of
conviction against the prisoner on April 8th of that year, to which
he had pleaded Guilty. He was a Folkestonian, and there were several
convictions against him. The first was in 1881, when he received twelve strokes
as a boy for stealing. Then in 1882 he received one month for stealing; in 1889
for being drunk in charge of a horse; on January 5th, 1891, at the
Quarter Sessions, six months` hard labour for stealing rabbits; July 14th,
1894, at the Quarter Sessions, another six months for stealing; June, 1895, at
Maidstone Assizes, 12 months for an attempted unnatural offence; 6th
July, 1896, at Margate, two consecutive terms of three months for stealing. He
kept out of trouble until that year, when on the 8th April he was
convicted summarily for stealing a bag of coalite. For fourteen years he kept
out of prison and ran very straight. He got married, settled down, and went on
with no complaints about him at all. His wife died about eighteen months ago
and he then seemed to have taken to the drink. He had one situation for upwards
of three years and his master gave him a very good character.
Allen had nothing to say.
Mr. Easton, the Police Court Missionary, said he would
try to do something for the prisoner, and the Recorder then asked Mr. Easton to
see Allen in the cells.
On their return into Court, Mr. Easton said he thought
it was possible to get the man work in the town, and Allen had promised to sign
the pledge and not touch any more drink.
The Recorder then bound the prisoner over to be of good
behaviour for twelve months under Mr. Easton`s supervision, expressing the hope
that he would not see Allen there again, and that he was not doing wrong in
that instance.
Folkestone
Herald 9-7-1910
Quarter Sessions
Saturday, July 2nd: Before J.C. Lewis Coward
Esq.
Frederick Stephen Allen, aged 47 years, a labourer, was
indicted for, on the 13th May, 1910, at Folkestone, feloniously
stealing the sum of 18s. in money, and one two franc piece of the French
Republic, the monies of Walter Howlett.
Prisoner pleaded Guilty to stealing 11s., and also
admitted being convicted for felony at Folkestone Petty Sessions in April last.
Mr. Weigall, who prosecuted, said that the prisoner
went into a public house kept by Mr. Walter Howlett, and known as the Chequers
Inn, on the morning of May 13th. He had a pint of beer, and sat
there about two hours. He then went away for a short time, and returned again
in about twenty minutes. Taking advantage of the momentary absence of the
landlady, he took the money that was put out in a bowl for the purpose of
giving change. To do that he had to climb over the bar, but the money was in
his view vefore. He then proceeded with the money to make several purchases of
necessaries. He was arrested with the balance in his possession, and said that
he knew nothing about the theft.
The Chief Constable, in the witness box, said that the
prisoner was a Folkestone man, and there were several previous convictions
against him. The first was on November 1st, 1881, when he received
twelve strokes with the birch as a boy for stealing. In 1882 he was sentenced
for stealing; in 1889 for being drunk in charge of a horse; in 1891 he was
sentenced at the Folkestone Quarter Sessions to six months` imprisonment for
stealing; in 1894, at the Folkestone Quarter Sessions, six months` imprisonment
for stealing glaziers` diamonds; in 1895 at Maidstone Assizes for an attempted
unnatural offence; and in 1896 at Margate for stealing. Then he kept out of
trouble till April of this year, when he was convicted summarily at the
Folkestone Police Court for stealing a bag of coalite. He ran very straight,
therefore, for fourteen years. He was away from the town for some time. He came
back again, and married and settled down, and went on without any complaints.
He lost his wife about 18 months ago and seemed to take to drink after that. He
had one situation at Folkestone for upwards of three years, and his employer
gave him a very good character till he took to drink after the loss of his
wife.
The prisoner said that he had nothing to say.
The Recorder: I remember giving you a tremendous
lecture when you were here some sixteen years ago. Time flies so quickly.
He then called the Police Court Missionary (Mr. W.L.
Easton) forward, and asked him if he could do anything for the prisoner.
Mr. Easton said that he would try if the man was
willing, and the prisoner was accordingly taken below for Mr. Easton to have a
talk with him. Later on he was brought up again, and Mr. Easton said that he
thought that it would be possible to get the prisoner into a home for a short
time. He said that he had had a good character for five years and would sign a
paper to give up the drink. He (Mr. Easton) suggested that if the prisoner was
bound over, a condition should be made that he gave up the drink.
The Recorder agreed with this course, and desired the
landlord of the Chequers Inn (Mr. Howlett) to stand forward.
In answer to the questions of the Recorder, Mr. Howlett
said that he had known the prisoner as a customer. Witness himself had only
been in the house about two years. He had known the prisoner as a customer for
about twelve months. He kept the bowl of money containing the change in full
view of his customers.
The Recorder: The sooner you put it in some other place
the better. No prudent people leave their money lying about.
Addressing the prisoner, he said: I am going to take a
lenient view of this case. I hope I shall not be wrong. It appears that you did
try and pull yourself together some years ago. You are only 47 years of age,
and there is still time for you to retrieve.. I am going to let you out on
probation, and bind you over to be of good behaviour under Mr. Easton`s charge
for a year. The condition is that you give up the drink. Are you willing to do
that?
Prisoner: Yes, sir.
The Recorder: That being so, you can step out of the
dock, and I hope I shall not see your face here again.
There was slight applause in Court at this
announcement, but it was, of course, at once suppressed.
Folkestone
Express 8-10-1910
Wednesday, October 5th: Before W.G. Herbert,
G.I. Swoffer, J. Stainer, R.J. Linton and G. Boyd Esqs., and Lieut. Col.
Fynmore.
Mr. Mowll said he had an application to make in regard
to the Chequers public house. They might remember that the application for the
renewal of the licence was before the licensing Bench this year, and the
licence was then renewed, as the house was doing a very considerable trade. But
the Chairman (Mr. Ward) made some reference to the back entrance. He (Mr.
Mowll) rather thought the feeling was that possibly persons might go into that
office, which was no part of the premises at all. The matter was then thought
to be one which should be carefully considered by the owners of the premises,
and they were now in the position to submit for the Magistrates` approval plans
with the proposal that there should be an iron gateway from the urinal to the
corner of the stable, which it was proposed to close every evening at six
o`clock, and Messrs. Leney, the owners, proposed to keep the key of that
themselves, and to send a man to close the gate every night and open it in the
morning. It was necessary to have that back way.
Mr. Leney said on Sunday the gate would only be open
during opening hours.
The Magistrates approved the plans.
Folkestone
Herald 8-10-1910
Wednesday, October 5th: Before Mr. W.G.
Herbert, Alderman T.J. Vaughan, Lieut. Col. Fynmore, Messrs. G.I. Swoffer, R.J.
Linton, and G. Boyd.
Mr. Rutley Mowll said he wished to make an application
in respect of the Chequers Inn. The renewal of the licence was before the
Magistrates this year, and the licence was granted, it being shown that the
house did a considerable trade, but the Chairman (Mr. Ward) made some reference
to the back entrance. He rather thought that there was a feeling that possibly
persons might go into the office at the back – which was not part of the
licensed premises at all – after hours, and come out by the back way after
licensing hours. At any rate, the matter was then considered, and the owners of
the premises were now in a position to submit for their approval plans for this
proposal, viz., that there should be an iron gateway from the urinal to the
corner of the stable, which it was proposed to close every evening at six
o`clock. Messrs. Leney, the owners, intended to keep the key of this, and to
send a man to close the gave every night at 6 o`clock, and open it again in the
morning. Mr. Mowll pointed out that it was necessary to have a backway owing to
the construction of the building. He thought that this proposal met the
situation.
The Magistrates agreed to the proposal on condition
that the gate was shut during closing hours on Sunday.
This suggestion was agreed to by Messrs. Leney.
Folkestone
Express 21-11-1914
Monday, November 16th: Before Lieut. Col.
Fynmore, Alderman Jenner, and Colonel Owen.
Charles William Bonney, a lance corporal in the Herts.
Regiment, was charged with stealing a pigeon.
P.C. Holland said on Sunday evening, about 8.30, he was
in Seagate Street, when he was called to a shop in Beach Street, kept by Mr.
Fagg. He there saw the prisoner with the live pigeon buttoned under his coat.
He asked him where he had got it from, and he said he saw it sitting in the
street, and he picked it up. Mr. Howlett, the landlord of the Chequers Inn, was
with him (witness) at the time, and identified the pigeon as his property, and
gave the prisoner into his custody and charged him with stealing it. Prisoner,
when told he would have to go to the police station on a charge of stealing the
pigeon, said “I am quite willing. I saw it in the street, and picked it up”.
Walter Howlett, the landlord of the Chequers Inn, said
the pigeon (produced) was his property, and he valued it at 2/-. He kept the
pigeon in a big wooden box in the yard, which was closed after six o`clock in
the evening. The box contained seven pigeons, and it was properly secured when
he fed the pigeons about half past three or four o`clock in the afternoon. The
pigeons could not have got out of the box. He was told at a quarter past eight
that the pigeon run was open, and in consequence he went to Mr. Fagg`s shop,
where he saw the pigeon taken from the prisoner by the constable. Bonney had
been in his house during the evening,, and had been in the front room and the
passage leading to the yard.
William Howlett, aged 14, the son of the last witness,
said he saw the prisoner in the house about 8.15 the previous evening. Bonney
had been in the house about an hour and a quarter with others, and about a
quarter past eight he noticed that the man had something in his breast under
his tunic. Prisoner left the house. He (witness) spoke to his father, and they
followed the man to Mr. Fagg`s shop, where the pigeon was taken from him. Some
pigeons had been stolen on Friday night, and the prisoner came into the house
with the men who were then accused. Bonney had not anything under his tunic
when he came into the house. The prisoner went out of the room three times in a
quarter of an hour, and once went into the back yard about a quarter of an hour
before he left the house. The other soldiers went in and out of the room. He
could not see what was under the prisoner`s tunic, which bulged out.
The Chairman said there was a strong suspicion in the
case, but they would give prisoner the benefit of the doubt, and he would be
discharged.
Folkestone
Herald 21-11-1914
Monday, November 16th: Before Lieut. Col.
Fynmore, Alderman C. Jenner, and Col. G.P. Owen.
Charles William Bonney, a private in the Royal Herts.
Regt., was charged with stealing a pigeon, the property of Mr. Howlett, the
landlord of the Chequers Inn, Seagate Street.
P.C. Holland said on Saturday night he was called to
the fish shop in Beach Street kept by Mr. Fagg, where he saw the prisoner, who
had a live pigeon in the front of his tunic. Witness asked him where he got it
from, and he said he saw it in the street and picked it up. Mr. Howlett, who
was present at the time, identified the bird as his property and witness took
prisoner into custody. When charged he said “I found the bird in the street,
and picked it up”. He was sober at the time.
Walter Howlett, the landlord of the Chequers Inn, said
he identified the pigeon as his property, and valued it at 2s. He kept it with
six others in a cage in the back yard, which was locked every evening from 6
p.m. The door of the cage was secured by nails and a piece of string. The birds
were always kept there, and not let out. He secured them when he fed them in
the afternoon. The pigeon could not have got out of the cage. From something
his son told him, he missed the pigeon about 8.30 and proceeded to Mr. Fagg`s
fish shop, where he saw the prisoner with the pigeon, which the last witness
took from him. Prisoner said he picked it up in the street. Witness looked at
the pigeon`s head and saw it was his. Accused had been in the Chequers Inn
earlier in the evening. Prisoner had been in the front parlour, in the passage,
and in the yard.
William Howlett, the son of the last witness, aged 14¾
years, said he saw the prisoner in the parlour of the house about 8.15 p.m. He
had been there for about 1½ hours with other soldiers. Prisoner had something
under his tunic, but witness did not see what it was. Risoner left the house,
and witness told his father, who followed him to Mr. Fagg`s fish shop in Beach
Street, where the bird was taken from prisoner. Witness saw him come into the
house with other men, and he had nothing under his tunic then. Prisoner was in
the parlour during the time he was in the house, and there were other soldiers
there. He went out three or four times, and witness saw him go into the back
yard. It was about 8.20 when witness saw him with something under his coat.
The Chairman said they were going to give prisoner the
benefit of the doubt, and he would be discharged.
No comments:
Post a Comment