London And Paris 1910 - 1919

Folkestone Daily News 4-7-1910

Monday, July 4^th: Before Messrs. S. Penfold and Vaughan.

Felix White was charged with wilfully breaking a plate glass window at the Paris Hotel. Prisoner pleaded Not Guilty.

P.C. Butcher deposed that at 12.45 on Saturday night last he was on duty in South Street, and saw the prisoner sitting on the step of the Paris Hotel. Witness told him he could not stop there, and prisoner moved away, but came back again and raised his foot and put it deliberately through a plate glass window. He then turned to witness and said “There you are”. Witness took him into custody and charged him with wilfully breaking the window in question.

Mr. Gray, the landlord of the Paris Hotel, said damage was done to the extent of 12s. 6d.

Prisoner said the reason he sat down was because his head was bad. The constable flashed his lamp on him, which frightened him, and in stepping back his foot went through the window.

The Chief Constable said he understood the prisoner only came out of Canterbury gaol on Saturday, and he certainly didn`t seem quite right in the head.

Mr. Gray said he had no wish to press the charge, and prisoner was discharged on promising to leave the town.

Folkestone Express 9-7-1910

Monday, July 4^th: Before Aldermen Spurgen and Vaughan.

Felix White was charged with breaking a square of glass in a window at the London and Paris Hotel. He pleaded Not Guilty.

P.C. Butcher said at 12.45 on Saturday night he was on duty in South Street, when he saw the prisoner sitting on the doorstep of the London and Paris Hotel. He told him he could not sit there, and prisoner said he could not get lodgings. Prisoner went away, but returned, and when he got opposite the London and Paris Hotel he raised his foot and deliberately put it through the landing window, which was of plate glass. He then turned to witness and said “There you are, governor”. He was perfectly sober. Witness took him into custody and brought him to the police station.

Mr. Gray, of the London and Paris Hotel, said the amount of the damage was 12s. 6d.

Prisoner said he came over queer in the head, and when the officer flashed his lantern on him it frightened him, and he stepped back and knocked up against the window.

The Chief Constable said White was a stranger, and he understood that he only came out of prison on Saturday.

Prisoner said that was the only time he had been in prison. He was a packer by trade, and came to Folkestone to find his sister.

Mr. Gray said he did not wish to press the charge, and prisoner was allowed to go on promising to leave the town.

Folkestone Express 14-11-1914

Tuesday, November 10^th: Before J. Stainer, G.I. Swoffer, R.J. Linton, G. Boyd, W.J. Harrison, E.T. Morrison, and J.J. Giles Esqs., and Col. Owen.

John Keneally was charged with being drunk and disorderly. He pleaded Guilty.

P.C. Cradduck said about 6.30 the previous evening he was on duty in Harbour Street, when he saw the prisoner ejected from the London and Paris Hotel. He was drunk, and commenced a disturbance. He (witness) requested him to go away, but he refused, and went into the True Briton, from which house he was ejected. He (the constable) again asked him to go away, but he said “I don`t care a ---- for a ---- policeman”. He went into the London and Paris again, so he took him into custody.

Prisoner said he was very sorry, but he worked at the London and Paris.

The Chief Constable said the man had worked at the London and Paris for a week, and that was his first pay-day. He went out early in the afternoon, and never returned until he arrived in that condition, when they would not allow him to go into the house again.

Fined 5/- and 4/6 costs, or seven days` hard labour.

Folkestone Herald 2-12-1916

Friday, December 1^st: Before Mr. J. Stainer, Mr. G.I. Swoffer, Councillor G. Boyd, Mr. J.J. Giles, and Councillor W.J. Harrison.

George Gray, landlord of the London and Paris, and his barmaid, Jessie Martin, were summoned for supplying drink not paid for by the consumer, Sergt. Robert Wilcox for paying for the drink, and Geo. Mitchell and Burns Grant for consuming the drink. Mr. G.W. Haines represented all the defendants.

P.C. Piddock said on November 25^th he was in the bar of the London and Paris Hotel and saw the barman hand to Wilcox a glass of beer, which he in turn handed to Mitchell and then paid for. Later Miss Martin served him with a bottle of ale and some spirits, for which he paid, giving the ale to Grant. When spoken to, Mitchell said “Would you be surprised to hear I paid for my own drink by giving him the money for it?” Mr. Gray had been in the bar during the whole time. The barmaid told him she thought the men paid for their own drinks. Witness saw no money pass between Wilcox and the other man.

By Mr. Haines: The other men might have handed money to Wilcox before he came to the counter.

P,C, Whittaker corroborated.

By Mr. Haines: He was close to Wilcox, but could not hear what orders he gave.

Miss Martin said that Wilcox came up to her and ordered three drinks. She told him she could not serve him with three all at once, and he then went round to the other men and collected the money for each man`s drink. He gave the change he received back to one of the men.

By the Magistrates` Clerk: As Wilcox got each drink he got the money from one of the men and paid for it.

Corpl. Wilcox, of the Headquarters Staff, C.F.A., gave corroborative evidence, as did Lance Corpl. Mitchell and Gnr. Burns Grant.

Mr. Gray was fined £5, Miss Martin £2, and the other defendants 10s. each.

Folkestone Express 9-12-1916

Friday, 1^st December: Before Mr. J. Stainer and other Magistrates.

George Gray, landlord of the London and Paris, and Jessie Martin, his barmaid were summoned for supplying to persons drink which had not been paid for by themselves; Corporal Robert Wilcox for treating; and Bombr. George Mitchell and Bombr. Burns-Grant for accepting and consuming. Mr. G.W. Haines appeared for all the defendants.

P.C. Pittock said P.C. Whittaker and he also visited this house on November 25^th, and saw the Corporal order drinks for the other two soldiers. Grant said “This is a fair cop”. Mitchell said “Would you be surprised to know I paid for my own drink and gave him the money for it?” Witness informed him that he drink had been paid for with half a crown. All three of them then said “We paid for our own drinks”. Mr. Gray was in the bar the whole of the time. Miss Martin, when told she would be reported, said “I think they paid for their own”, while Mr. Gray, when similarly informed, said “I am very surprised at that”.

By the Clerk: Witness saw no money passed between the Corporal and the other two men.

By Mr. Haines: Witness could not agree that he had made a mistake. When he ordered ale and lemonade, the barmaid did not ask for whom was the ale.

P.C. Whittaker corroborated, and in cross-examination said he did not hear what Wilcox said to the barmaid. No money transaction could have taken place which witness could not see.

Miss Martin, giving evidence for the defence, said she had been at the London and Paris for fifteen months. On the Saturday in question, Mitchell and Burns were sitting in the bar when the police came in. One of the officers asked for a lemonade and a bitter, and witness asked whether the lemonade was for his friend. He nodded his head as though in assent. When Wilcox came in he called for a Guinness, a Scotch and a cigar, putting down half a crown. She refused, saying he could not have them all at once. She knew he might give them away if he had them all. Then he bought a cigar, and left 2s. 2d. change on the counter. After being refused all the drinks, he said “Very well, I will go and get the boys` money”. She heard him ask for their money, and saw each man take money out of his pocket. Wilcox called for a Guinness, and put down 4½d. Then he put down 4d. for some whisky, and, coming to the counter again, took 4½d. out of his pocket for a Bass for himself. All the time 2s. 2d. change remained on the counter.

Re-examined, witness said she was sure all the men were not there when the police officers came in. She had made no mistake as to the soldiers, because she knew the men.

Corporal Robert Wilcox said he went to the London and Paris with a man named Mackintosh. He saw the other soldiers in there and nodded to them. He then asked whether they “were going to have one”, but Miss Martin refused to take the order, saying that treating was not allowed. Mackintosh gave him half a crown to get him a cigar. When Miss Martin refused the order for the drinks, witness told the boys each must pay for his own drink. He took 4½d. from one, and 4d. from another, and paid for his own drink separately. He took the cigar to Mackintosh, leaving 2s. 3d. change on the counter.  Nothing was faid about a “fair cop”. It might have been said and he did not hear it.

In cross-examination witness said he was aware that treating was prohibited.

Bombr. George Mitchell said he saw the police officers in the bar, and knew them as such. Wilcox said “You will have to pay for your own drinks”, and witness gave 4d. for some whisky. He (witness) did not want to get up from the couch where he was sitting.

Gunner Burns-Grant also said he gave 4½d. to Wilcox to get his drink for him. He denied saying “It`s a fair cop”.

Mr. Gray was fined £5, Miss Martin £2, and the three soldiers 10s. each. 

Folkestone Express 10-2-1917

Annual Licensing Sessions

Wednesday, February 7^th: Before E.T. Ward, G.I. Swoffer, R.J. Linton, G. Boyd, H. Kirke, and J.J. Giles Esqs., and the Rev. Epworth Thompson.

Mr. H. Reeve read his annual report as follows: Gentlemen, I have the honour to report that there are within your jurisdiction 115 places licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquor by retail, viz; Full licences 71, Beer on 7. Beer off 5, Beer and spirit dealers 15, Grocers etc., off 7, Confectioners, wine, on 3. Chemists, wine, off 6, Total 115. This gives an average, according to the census of 1911, of one licence to every 291 persons, or one on licence to every 429 persons. This is the same number of licensed premises as were in existence last year.

At the adjourned licensing meeting, held on 6^th March last, the licence of the Clarence Inn, Dover Road, was referred to the Compensation Committee on the ground of redundancy, and at the principal meeting of that Committee held at Canterbury on 21^st June, the renewal of the licence was refused. The question as to the amount of compensation to be paid was referred to the Inland Revenue Authorities, and has not at present been determined, consequently a provisional renewal of the licence will be applied for. During the past year five of the licences have been transferred.

For the year ended 31^st December last 55 persons (28 males and 27 females) were proceeded against for drunkenness, of whom 32 were convicted and 23 discharged without conviction. Of the persons proceeded against 17 were residents of the Borough, 9 members of the Naval and Military Forces, 13 persons of no fixed abode and 16 residents of other districts. In the preceding year 174 persons (109 males and 65 females) were proceeded against, of whom 129 were convicted and 45 discharged.

Proceedings have been taken during the year against 14 of the licence holders for various offences, 7 of whom were convicted and 7 dismissed. The following are the cases in which convictions have been recorded, viz; 9^th March, the licensee of the Guildhall Hotel was fined £1 for a breach of the “No Treating” Order; 24^th March, the licensee of the Mechanics Arms Inn was fined £1 for allowing a child under 14 years to be in the bar of his licensed premises; 23^rd June, the licensee of the Chequers Inn was fined £1 for dispatching intoxicating liquor from his licensed premises without a licence; 30^th June, the licensee of the Morehall Wine Stores was fined £1 for dispatching intoxicating liquor from his licensed premises without the same having been previously paid for; 30^th June, the licencee of 27 Rendezvous Street (off licence) was fined £1 for a similar offence; 1^st December, the licensee of the London and Paris Hotel was fined £5 for a breach of the No Treating Order; 1^st December, the licensee of the Pavilion Shades was fined £5 for a similar offence.

Nine clubs where intoxicating liquor is supplied are registered under the Act. There are 16 places licensed for music and dancing, 7 for music only, and 1 for public billiard playing.

The Order of the Liquor Control Board which came into operation on 10^th January last year, restricting the hours of sale and supply of intoxicating liquor to 4½ hours each weekday and 4 hours on Sunday remains in force, and in my opinion is mainly the cause of the decrease in the cases of drunkenness recorded.

Under Regulation 10 of the Defence of the Realm Regulations, Orders have been made by the Competent Military Authority, and are still in force, closing 3 of the licensed houses to all members of H.M. Forces. The houses are the Jubilee Inn, Radnor Street, the Wonder Tavern, Beach Street, and the True Briton, Harbour Street.

The Chairman said with regard to the report the number of convictions was very satisfactory. Mr. Reeve said in his opinion that was due to the restricted hours. He (Mr. Ward) was sorry to see so many convictions of publicans – seven – which was a greater number than he remembered in any year. There was no doubt that publicans were faced with very great difficulties with so many restrictions placed upon them. He urged upon them the necessity of being very careful not to serve any wounded soldiers, or any soldiers waiting embarkation. There were very heavy penalties laid down for offences of such a nature – imprisonment for six weeks or £100 fine. He hoped all of them would be very careful. All the licences would be renewed with the exception of the seven against which convictions had been recorded, but those seven licences would be granted until the adjourned sessions in a month`s time.

The Clerk (Mr. J. Andrew) said with regard to the premises licensed for music and dancing the Magistrates had made new regulations. In future no structural alterations should be made in the licensed premises, and no alterations should be made in the stage, gangways, passageway or exits without the previous approval of the justices, and such gangways should be kept free from chairs or other obstruction during the hours of public entertainment, and all performances should be of an unobjectionable character, and good order and decent behaviour should be kept and maintained on the premises during the hours of licence.

Folkestone Herald 10-2-1917

Annual Licensing Sessions

Wednesday, February 6^th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Mr. G.I. Swoffer, Mr. R.J. Linton, Mr. G. Boyd, Mr. J.J. Giles, Mr. H. Kirke, and the Rev. H. Epworth Thompson.

The Chief Constable read his report (for details see Folkestone Express).

The Chairman said he was sorry to see so many convictions of publicans, the greatest number he had seen for years. No doubt the difficulties of publicans were great owing to abnormal times. He would advise them to be very careful not to serve wounded soldiers or those who were soldiers about to embark. In regard to the licences, they would all be renewed, with the exception of seven, which would be considered at the adjourned sessions on March 7^th.

Folkestone Express 10-3-1917

Adjourned Licensing Sessions

The Folkestone adjourned licensing sessions were held on Wednesday, Mr. E.T. Ward presiding on the Bench, when the licences of the Guildhall, the Mechanics Arms, the London and Paris Hotel, the Chequers, the Pavilion Shades, the Morehall Wine Stores, and Finn`s Store, Rendezvous Street, were renewed.

 

Folkestone Herald 10-3-1917

Adjourned Licensing Sessions

Wednesday, March 6^th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Lieut. Col. R.J. Fynmore, Mr. G.I. Swoffer, and Mr. H. Kirke.

The licences of the Pavilion Shades (Mr. E. Bishopp), the Mechanics Arms (Mr. J. Lawrence), Paris Hotel (Mr. G. Gray), Guildhall Vaults (Mr. Cousins), and those of Mr. J. Kent (Morehall), and Messrs. Finn and Co. Ltd. (Rendezvous Street) were renewed.

Folkestone Express 30-3-1918

Local News

A summons against Mr. G.B. Gray under the Beer Prices and Description Order was adjourned by the Folkestone Magistrates on Tuesday until Thursday next.

Folkestone Express 6-4-1918

Thursday, April 4^th: Before Messrs. E.T. Ward, J.J. Giles, and H. Kirke.

George B. Gray, of the London and Paris Hotel, was summoned under the Beer Prices and Description Order made by the Food Controller for selling in the public bar of his house half a pint of beer which was of an original gravity of less than 1036 degrees at the rate of 5d. per pint. He pleaded Not Guilty. Mr. A.F. Kidson, the Town Clerk, prosecuted, and Mr. G.W. Haines defended.

Mr. Kidson said the Order made by the Food Controller provided that beer should be sold in the public bar by Imperial measure, and that prices should be for beer of an original gravity of less than 1036 degrees not exceeding 4d. per pint, and for beer of original gravity not exceeding 1042 and not less than 1036 degrees, fivepence per Imperial pint. The beer which was purchased from Mr. Gray, when analysed, showed that it was of the original gravity of 1031.44 degrees, practically five degrees below the figure at which the price should only be 4d. There was a clause in the Order that if it was proved that the publican sold the beer on the warranty of the brewer that it was of the original gravity specified in the Order, and notice of it was given to the prosecution, and it was proved, then he was entitled to the dismissal of the case. Mr. Gray had given them such notice, and forwarded invoices from Messrs. Bass, Ratcliff and Gretton. One dated February 28^th referred to pale ale, the charge for which was 130s. per barrel. It also stated that the beer was of a gravity in excess of that mentioned in the Order for which retail prices were fixed. The second invoice was dated March 4^th, and referred to two barrels of beer which were not of Messrs. Bass` brew. It stated that the gravity of the beer was between 1036 and 1042 degrees, and must be sold at a price not exceeding 5d. per pint. Mr. Kidson said the information supplied by Mr. Gray as to the invoices he had received concerning the beer could only be obtained by bringing him before the Magistrates.

Mr. G. Eyles, the food inspector, said he visited the hotel on March 6^th, and went into the public bar. He asked for a pint of 5d. beer. The barmaid said he could not have a pint, but he could have half a pint. He had half a pint, for which he was charged 2½d. It was served in a glass stamped “Half a pint”. He told the barmaid who he was, and that he was taking the beer for the purpose of analysis. He asked her to inform Mr. Gray, who came into the bar, and he (witness) told him the same. He poured the beer into a bottle, which he sealed heavily with wax. He left the beer with Mr. Stainer for analysis on the same day.

Cross-examined, witness said he did not ask to inspect the defendant`s cellar. The beer was drawn through an engine.

Mr. J.W. Stainer said he analysed the sample of beer on March 6^th, and found it to be of the original gravity of 1031.44.

In reply to the Clerk, Mr. Stainer said the gravity of the beer would not alter much after the beer was despatched from the brewery. It would not decrease from March 4^th to the 6^th.

Defendant said the invoice dated February 28^th related to beer he received in his house on that day or the following day. On March 4^th he received the invoice (produced) and the beer would arrive that day.

The Clerk: What does “G.A.” mean on the invoice?

Mr. Gray: Government Ale.

The Clerk: Not good ale, then! (Laughter)

Defendant said he purchased the beer in barrels only from Messrs. Bass. He had no more than two barrels of Government Ale in one week. On March 6^th he had only two barrels in his cellar. The casks bore the price 5d. upon them. He never sold fourpenny ale. He sold the beer as it came in. The Government Ale came to his house through Messrs. Bass from Messrs. Leney, as Bass and Co. did not brew such ale.

Cross-examined, Mr. Gray said with regard to the first invoice, the price of the beer was 130s. per barrel, and the other 77s. per barrel. He supplied Mr. Eyles with the cheaper beer. The other beer he sold at 8d. He had never had the beer tested at all. He did not know the gravity of the bitter beer. He supplied bitter beer in the bar if it was asked for. The engine for the bitter ale was in the private bar.

In reply to the Clerk, defendant said the beer was delivered to him every Monday, and he produced invoices which represented all the Government Ale he had received since the end of January. He had no reason to believe that the gravity of the beer was under that mentioned on the invoice.

Mr. Haines said on the evidence he contended he had satisfied the Magistrates that the invoices were in accordance with the Order, and that the beer should be sold for 5d. a pint. He suggested that if the Food Control Inspector was going to take samples for analysis he should follow out the instructions of the Food and Drugs Act, so that the vendor could have a sample and the Bench could also have one.

The Clerk pointed out that the Order stated that the person authorised on behalf of the Food Controller should have all the powers of procuring samples given by the Food and Drugs Act. There was no direction as to the treatment of the sample. It was also an offence if the retailer declined to sell.

The Chairman said the point did not crop up in that case. On the evidence before them the case must be dismissed.

 

Folkestone Herald 6-4-1918

Thursday, April 4^th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Lt. Col. R.J. Fynmore, and Mr. H. Kirke.

Geo. Barclay Gray, landlord of the London and Paris Hotel, was summoned for an offence under the Beer Prices and Description Order, on March 6^th, by selling half a pint of beer of a specific gravity of less than 1036 degrees at the price of 5d. a pint. He was represented by Mr. G.W. Haines and pleaded Not Guilty.

Mr. A.F. Kidson (Town Clerk) prosecuted, and said the Order provided that beer should be sold in a public bar by Imperial measure, and that where the original gravity of the beer was less than 1036 degrees it should be sold at 4d. a pint, and where it was over 1036 degrees and not more than 1042 degrees it should be sold at 5d. a pint. In this case the defendant sold half a pint of beer in the public bar and charged 2½d. for it. On an analysis being made it was shown that the beer had an original gravity of 1031.44 degrees – practically five degrees below the required standard. There was one defence that was permitted by the Order, and that was for the defendant to prove that he bought the articles as being of the nature and substance demanded, and that he had no reason to believe that they were otherwise. In this case the defendant had given notice that he would produce the invoices for the beer, showing that it was purchased as beer of a sufficient gravity to sell at 5d. a pint. One of the invoices, dated February 28^th, was for one barrel of ale, and bore the remark “All beers brewed by us for sale by retail are of a gravity in excess of those beers controlled as to retail prices”. The other invoice, dated March 4^th, was for two barrels of pale ale, and bore the remark “This must not be sold at a price exceeding 5d. a pint”. If these invoices were proved to relate to the beer in question, then the defence would have proved their point and were entitled to a dismissal.

Mr. George Ulyes, Food Inspector to the Folkestone Local Food Control Committee, stated that on March 6^th he went into the public bar of the London and Paris Hotel and called for a pint of fivepenny ale. He was told that he could not have a pint, but that half a pint could be served. He then said he would have half a pint, for which he paid 2½d. On being served, he put the beer in a bottle, sealed it, told the barmaid that he had got the beer for purposes of analysis, and advised her to tell the landlord that he had done so. He then saw the landlord and told him what he had done. Later in the day he took the bottle of beer to Mr. Stainer.

By Mr. Haines: He did not ask to see Mr. Gray`s cellar. He was not refused anything that he asked. The beer was drawn from the engine.

Mr. J.H. Stainer stated that a bottle of beer was brought to him by the last witness. He analysed it and found the original gravity of it to be 1031.44 degrees. There had been no change in the beer during the short time it had been in his possession.

Replying to the Town Clerk, witness said the gravity would not alter much in the time between the dates of the invoices and the date of analysis.

Mr. Gray, on oath, stated that he received the beer invoiced on February 28^th on February 29^th. As far as he remembered, he received the beer invoiced on March 4^th on the same day. The latter invoice was for two barrels of pale ale, and on the bottom of the invoice it stated that this beer might be sold up to 5d. a pint. It was stated that the specific gravity of the beer was about 1036 to 1042 degrees.

The Magistrates` Clerk (Mr. J. Andrew) asked what the letters “G.A.” on the invoice meant.

Defendant: Government Ale.

Mr. Andrew: Oh, not good ale. (Laughter)

Further questioned, defendant said he dealt only with Messrs. Bass. He always had two barrels of this beer a week, and there were never more of them in the cellar than two. Both the casks invoiced on March 4^th were marked at 5d. a pint. He never had any beer in his cellar marked 4d. a pint. He had sole access to the cellar, and he had done nothing to the beer since its arrival. As it came in, so it went out.

By the Town Clerk: One of the invoices was for 130s. a barrel, and the other for 77s. a barrel.

Do you charge the same for both beers to your customers? – Certainly not.

Which beer did you supply to Mr. Ulyes? – The cheaper beer.

What is the price per pint of the cheaper beer? – Fivepence.

What is the price of the other? – Eightpence.

How do you know which beer Mr. Ulyes was provided with? – Because I was drawing it from that barrel. The other beer does not go to the public bar at all.

Have you had the beer tested at all? – No.

Do you know the gravity of the beer? – I really do not.

In reply to the Magistrates` Clerk, defendant said beer was delivered to him every Monday. Bass`s made no cheap beer now, so they sent him Leney`s by arrangement.

By Mr. Haines: He had had no complaint about the beer from anyone. He thought it was of the gravity stated on the invoice.

Addressing the Court, Mr. Haines said he thought he had satisfied them that the invoice was in accordance with the Order, that it stated that this beer should be sold at fivepence, and that this was the beer that was mentioned on the invoice. If the Food Controller was going to take analyses of food and drink he should follow the provisions of the Food and Drugs Act, and then the defendant might have had an opportunity of having his section of the sample analysed.

Mr. Andrew pointed out that the Order said that a person authorised by the Food Controller or Local Food Control Committee should have all the powers of taking samples conferred by the Food and Drugs Act. It did not say in what way the sample should be treated. It was an offence for a retailer to refuse to serve a sample.

The Bench dismissed the case.