Folkestone
Daily News 9-2-1910
Annual Licensing Sessions
Wednesday, February 9th: Before The Mayor,
Messrs. Ward, Fynmore, Linton, Hamilton, Stainer, and Leggett.
Morehall Hotel
Mr. De Wet appeared in support, Mr. A.K. Mowll opposed
on behalf of Mr. Smiles, of the White Lion, Cheriton, and Mr. Watson opposed on
behalf of the Cheriton Council.
The Mayor asked if there were any fresh facts. If not,
the Bench had decided so many times not to grant the licence, and that would be
their decision now.
Mr. De Wet, after further addressing them as to there
being less empty houses in the neighbourhood, asked them to indicate as to new
facts.
The Mayor said they could not do that, and the
application was refused.
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.
Morehall Hotel
An application was then made by Mr. De Wet on behalf of
James Henry Kent, of the Morehall Hotel, Morehall, for an additional excise
licence to sell beer to be consumed off the premises.
The application was opposed by Mr. Watson (Dover), on
behalf of the Temperance Council, and by Mr. A.K. Mowll, for Mr. Smiles, White
Lion, Cheriton.
Mr. De Wet said he made his application in pursuance of
the Revenue Act of 1863. Continuing, he said he noticed the opposition was not
as large as on former occasions.
The Chairman, interposing, said that application had
been made, as they knew, over and over again, and it had become quite a hardy
annual.
Mr. De Wet said that was an expression which he was
expecting to hear from them.
The Chairman, continuing, said the Bench would like to
know whether Mr. De Wet had any fresh grounds at all to urge. He was coming
before the same tribunal with the same facts, and unless he had any new facts
to bring before the Bench it was only a waste of his time and theirs.
Mr. De Wet said he was going to submit that he had come
before the same tribunal, but that was not an application that had been before
them six or seven times; it was only the second. (The Clerk: The third). On the
previous occasions they were applying for a full licence, and he could
appreciate their feelings in that matter then. He thought there was not
sufficient scope for a full licence. The circumstances had altered, inasmuch as
now he had evidence that instead of there being upwards of 52 empty houses, as
there were when they made their application in 1908, and 49 in 1909, there were
now only 12, and that there had been four new houses built and three more new
houses in the course of erection. He submitted that all these were, if he might
so put it, fresh ground. There was an increasing neighbourhood and a diminishing
opposition. He had not come before them on that occasion armed with a memorial,
because memorials in the past had received scanty attention, and he had not
heard of any memorial from the opposition. He submitted that after they had
heard the evidence of Mr. Kent and the evidence as to the neighbourhood, etc.,
they would see their way to exercise their discretion and grant the licence. If
they felt there were no fresh grounds, he was entirely in their hands.
The Chairman said the Bench felt that Mr. De Wet had
not disclosed any new ground at all, and that the application wore the old
aspect.
Mr. De Wet then asked if the Magistrates could see
their way to give him some sort of guidance for the future. What did they hold
as new ground? (Laughter)
The Chairman said he did not think they could
anticipate.
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.
Morehall Hotel
Mr. De Wet made an application for a beer off licence
on behalf of Mr. Kent, and was opposed by Mr. Watson (in the absence of his
partner, Mr. Montague Bradley) on behalf of the Temperance Council, by Mr. A.K.
Mowll, on behalf of the licensee of the White Lion, Cheriton (Mr. Smiles).
The Revs. J.C. Carlile, A. Allon Smith, and J. Hugh
Morgan were interested auditors.
The Mayor said: Mr. De Wet, this application has been
made over and over again. It has become quite a hardy annual. The Bench would
like to know whether you have any further grounds to urge in this matter. You
are coming before the same tribunal with the same facts as last year, and
unless you have any new facts it is only a waste of your time, and ours, too,
to make the application.
Mr. De Wet said with a smile that he was not coming
before the same tribunal through any fault of his. The present was not the same
application that had been before them for seven times. This was only the third
time that an application for a beer off licence had been made in respect of
this hotel. On the other occasions they were applying for a full licence. Then
again the circumstances had altered somewhat, inasmuch as when the application
was made in 1908 there were upwards of 52 empty houses on the Morehall Estate,
and in 1909 about 49, and there were now only 12. Besides, four new houses had
been built there since last year, and three more were being built. He thought
that, therefore, he had sufficient grounds for again making the application;
there was an increased population and a diminished opposition. He mentioned
that he had not come before the Bench with a memorial on this occasion, because
memorials in the past had received scant attention from the Bench, and,
moreover, there was always in such cases a memorial from people whe were
opposing the licence.
The Mayor: Mr. De Wet, the Bench think that you have
not disclosed any new grounds at all that they could take into consideration,
and therefore the thing wears its old aspect, and we shall be obliged to come
to the same conclusion. The application is not granted.
Mr. De Wet enquired whether the Bench could give him
some idea of what they would consider new grounds for making the application.
The Mayor said he was afraid they could not anticipate
matters in that way.
Folkestone
Daily News 6-2-1911
Annual Licensing Meeting
Monday, February 6th: Before Justices Ward,
Herbert, Stainer, Leggett, Boyd, Fynmore, Linton, and Jenner.
The Chief Constable read his report (for details see
Folkestone Express).
Mr. De Wet applied on behalf of Mr. Kent for an off
licence for the Morehall Hotel. Sir Montague Bradley, of Dover, opposed on
behalf of the temperance bodies.
Mr. Kent deposed that he had resided at the present
premises for three years. Up to June last year he held a wholesale licence,
which only permitted the sale of three dozen pints or 4½ gallon casks. He was
repeatedly asked for small quantities, both in bottles and on draught.
The Bench retired for a few moments, and on their
return decided to refuse the application without calling upon Sir Montague
Bradley for the opposition.
Folkestone
Express 11-2-1911
Annual Licensing Sessions
Monday, February 6th: Before E.T. Ward Esq.,
Ald. Jenner, Lieut. Colonel Fynmore, Major Leggett, and W.G. Herbert, J.
Stainer, R.J. Linton, and G. Boyd Esqs.
Mr. De Wet appeared in support of an application by Mr.
J.H. Kent for an off licence for the premises known as the Morehall Hotel.
Mr. Montague Bradley, of Dover, appeared in opposition
on behalf of the Folkestone Temperance Council.
Mr. De Wet said applications had been made other years
for a full licence. Now the opposition dwindled down to one. That was one altered
circumstance in connection with his request. The second altered circumstance
was that under the new Act and forms of licence he was applying for a beer off
licence. Since their last application further houses had been erected, and just
facing the premises in question the foundations were in for eleven cottages on
the road leading to the station. Outside the Morehall Estate 14 houses had been
built and finished since the last application. On the Morehall Estate there
were 296 houses and shops, and there were only 12 empty out of that number.
Under those circumstances he did submit that he had more reason – he had reason
before – for coming before them and asking for a licence. Perhaps the
Magistrates had no reason to appreciate the usefulness of an off licence. He
asked them to favourably consider the application.
Mr. James Henry Kent said he had been in the premises
for three years, and during that time he had held a strong beer dealer`s
licence until July last. He had innumerable requests for small quantities of
bottled beer and draught beer. Under the wholesale licence he could not sell
under three dozen reputed pints at a time, or 4½ gallons in a cask. Everything
was in the house except the engine. Since his last application 14 houses had
been erected in the neighbourhood, and 11 cottages were being started upon
opposite the premises. His were the only premises on the estate, and in the
neighbourhood, selling any beer in any quantity. There was another wholesale
dealer`s shop in the vicinity, but in no longer existed, as it had been opened
now as a confectioner`s and tobacconist`s shop. There were only 18 empty houses
on the Morehall Estate. The rateable value of the house was £58 at present, and
the gross was £74.
Mr. Herbert asked if the grocer`s shop at the opposite
corner did not sell wines and spirits.
Mr. De Wet said the shop was restricted from a licence.
He could have brought a covenant showing that there was to be no other licence
put on the estate.
Cross-examined, witness said he was not an hotel
keeper. He prepared the notice for the application, and in it the premises were
described as the Morehall Hotel. He kept the Morehall Hotel, but that was only
the sign of the premises, which were built for an hotel. There were seven
bedrooms on the premises, and provision for five more. He had no doubt in time
they would make an application for a licence for the hotel. He felt it would
improve the value of the surroundings to have an off licence. He had no
memorialists in favour of his application. He would take it from Sir M. Bradley
that there was only one more occupied house than there was last year on teh two
estates.
In reply to Mr. De Wet, Mr. Kent said he had not heard
of a memorial against his application. The reason he gave up the wholesale dealer`s
licence was that it did not pay him to hold it as the demand was so small for
large quantities.
The Magistrates retired for a short time, and on their
return into Court the Chairman said they had considered the application, and
their decision was the same as before – not granted.
The Revs. Cannon Knollys, J.C. Carlile, R.M. Ross, A.
Smith, and J. Daniel were present in Court during the hearing of the
application.
Folkestone
Herald 11-2-1911
Annual Licensing Sessions
Monday, February 6th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward,
Major Leggett, Lieut. Col. R.J. Fynmore, Alderman C. Jenner, and Messrs.
J.Stainer, R.J. Linton, and G. Boyd.
The Morehall
Application was made by Mr. J.H. Kent for an off
licence for the premises at the corner of Cheriton and Coombe Roads. Mr. De Wet
appeared on behalf of the applicant, and Mr. Montague Bradley represented the
Folkestone Temperance Council.
Mr. De Wet said he had been instructed to again appear
before them in respect of the licence for Morehall. The circumstances, he was
glad to say, in this case were somewhat different from the circumstances in
other years, but before proceeding he would like to know what opposition he
would have. He saw his friend Sir Montague Bradley was present. He knew for
whom he appeared. He did not know whether Mr. Haines was opposing him on this
occasion.
Mr. Haines: I am taking no part.
Mr. De Wet: I am glad to hear that. Continuing, he said
that they would appreciate the fact that the opposition had dwindled down to
one. On former occasions they had had the Army, and Mr. Mowll, for whom he had
kept a chair, had been there. He had also had opposition from Mr. Smiles and
others. Now he submitted that that was one of the altered circumstances. The
second altered circumstance was in the new Act. There had been new licences and
new forms of licences, and under the new Act he applied for a beer off licence.
There were further altered circumstances. Since the last application other
houses had been erected. Each time he had been there the Magistrates asked if
there were any altered circumstances. New houses had been erected, and just
facing where these premises were were the foundations for eleven cottages. That
was just in front, on the road approaching the station. He wanted them to bear
in mind that these houses had actually been started. When they were occupied shortly
they would be creating a further demand out there. On the estate, which did not
include the other houses mentioned on the other side of the road, 14 houses had
actually been built and finished since the last application. On the Morehall
Estate, at the present time, there were 296 houses and shops, and of that
number there were only 12 empty. Out of that 12 empty he might say, in spite of
contradiction, that before March 50 percent of that 12 would be filled. He
found under the circumstances that they had more reason – they had reason
before – to come before them and ask for a licence. He had heard certain words
of the Chairman that there were too many licences; he was not asking for a full
licence, but for an off licence. There was no need to tell them what an off
licence was, although, perhaps, they had no reason to appreciate its
usefulness. Under the circumstances he asked them to favourably consider the
application, having regard to the fact that the circumstances had altered.
Mr. Kent, in giving evidence, stated that he had been
on the premises for the last three years. During those three years he had held
what was known as a strong beer dealers` licence. He had held that licence
until last July. He had had innumerable requests for small quantities of beer.
He had had applications every day. Some asked for draught and some for bottled
beer in small quantities. At present he could not sell anything under three
dozen reputed quarts. His premises were specially suited for an off licence.
They had everything there except the engine. He had taken the trouble to go
over the property, and found that since making their last application there had
been 14 houses erected on the Estate, and 11 cottages directly opposite
Morehall on the station approach. The foundations for the latter were already
in the ground. His were the only premises on the Estate or in the neighbourhood
that were at present selling any beer at all in any quantity. There used to be
another wholesale dealer, but that shop had now opened as a confectioner`s.
There were 12 houses empty in the Morehall Estate on Friday last, and three or
four of these were occupied before Christmas. He was thoroughly conversant with
the trade. He had been in it for some years, and knew how to conduct a house
thoroughly. The rateable value at present was about £58, and about £74 gross.
There were no grocers` licences anywhere in the neighbourhood. There was a
covenant that there should be no other licensed premises on the Morehall
Estate.
Cross-examined by Sir Montague Bradley, witness stated
that he was a wine and spirit merchant. He was not an hotel keeper. He prepared
the form of application for the licence.
Sir Montague Bradley: You describe it as the Morehall
Hotel. Is it a hotel? – It is built for an hotel. It is not carried on as an
hotel.
As a matter of fact there are only five or six bedrooms
available for hotel purposes? – There are seven, and there is still room to
build five more.
Is it your idea, in applying for the licence, that the
premises may be used as an hotel? – Not necessarily.
Is it in the future? – No doubt, in time, when the
neighbourhood grows, we might make application. All we need at present is an
off beer licence.
You thought it more discreet to apply only for the off
beer licence? – No.
You did not think it more discreet? – No.
Less discreet? – At present, yes.
Do you think it would improve the value of the
surrounding property? – Somewhat, I think it would.
What, to have a beer licence, and have people coming in
and out with jugs of beer? It is a very good class of house in the immediate
neighbourhood, I believe? – Yes, a fairly good class.
About what rental? – I have no idea.
You have no memorial this year. It has not been spoken
about? – No.
With reference to the number of houses, is it not a
fact that on Morehall Estate, on which your house stands, there is only one
more occupied house than at this time last year? – I do not exactly know. I
think we have the lists somewhere. Some have been let since that date.
Would you take it from me that there is only one
additional occupied house? – Yes.
On the town estate boundaries of Morehall there is a
decrease of seven in the number of houses occupied? – We have not gone into
that.
Do you agree with your solicitor`s statement that the
empty houses are quite certain to be filled up within the next few months? –
Not quite certain.
Do you think they will be filled up? Is it such a
populous neighbourhood? – I think they will fill up.
You spoke of the demand for beer, and emphasised the fact
that the demand was for bottled beer. – Very largely; in fact, all classes of
beer in small quantities.
And already you have beer in the house? – We have
everything except the engine.
You have not ordered that yet? – No.
Mr. De Wet: It would not take long to get that, would
it? – No.
In answer to other questions by Mr. De Wet, Mr. Kent
stated that there was a grocer`s store opposite. The fact of people taking jugs
of beer in and out would interfere with no-one. He had heard of no memorial
this year. There was a reason for dropping that. The memorial was not looked at
on the previous occasion.
The Magistrates¬ Clerk: It had not the desired effect.
Witness: There was no necessity for it.
In answer to a question by the Magistrates` Clerk,
witness stated that he did not hold a wholesale business licence. It did not
pay him to hold it, as the demand was small for large quantities, and he would
not require to hold it if this application was granted.
The Bench then retired, and on their return the Chairman
said: We have considered the question carefully, and our decision is the same
as before – not granted.
Folkestone
Daily News 7-2-1912
Annual Licensing Sessions
Before Messrs. E.T. Ward, Herbert, Leggett, Stainer,
Swoffer, Fynmore, Hamilton, Boyd, and Jenner.
The Chief Constable presented his annual report (for
details see Folkestone Express).
Mr. Kent applied through Mr. De Wet for an off licence
for the Morehall Hotel.
There was no trade opposition and only a very weak
fight on the part of the Temperance Party.
The Bench decided to grant the application on Mr. Kent
agreeing not to open on Sunday.
This came as a surprise to all, as after nine refusals
even the applicant began to lose heart. It is a most necessary licence, and
will confer great benefits in the neighbourhood.
Folkestone
Express 10-2-1912
Annual Licensing Sessions
The annual Brewster Sessions for the Borough of
Folkestone were held at the Police Court on Wednesday morning. The licensing
Justices were E.T. Ward, W.G. Herbert, J. Stainer, G.I. Swoffer and G. Boyd
Esqs., Major Leggett, Lieut. Colonels Fynmore and Hamilton, and Alderman
Jenner.
The Morehall
Mr. De Wet then made his application with regard to the
Morehall licence, which he said had been made ever since 1903. But the
circumstances under which they were now applying were different to those under
which they then applied. The trade opposition and the Army opposition had gone,
but he was still met with opposition from the Temperance party. In 1903 on the
Morehall Estate, the boundaries estate, and the Earl of Radnor`s estate, there
were 360 houses, occupied and unoccupied. At the present day in the same area
there were 512 houses. Out of those there were only 11 unoccupied, and of those
eleven, five were uncompleted houses, not actually erected. There were thus
only six empty houses on the estate. A new road had been made since the last
occasion, called St. George`s Road. Since the last occasion also, twenty four
new houses had been built on the estate. It might be objected that beer in any
form was unnecessary on the estate, but he submitted a demand had arisen for
the supply of beer in small quantities.
Mr. Henry Videan produced the plan which he had
prepared of the Morehall Estate showing the houses erected thereon.
James Henry Kent said he resided at Morehall. He had
been the tenant of the premises in question a little over four years. During
that time he had had requests in respect of beer too numerous to mention. The
demand increased year by year. He formerly held a strong beer dealer`s licence,
which he had dropped. He had gone over the property that morning. St. George`s
Road was not in existence last year. There were two houses in that road.
Continuing, the witness gave statistics of the number of houses, occupied and
unoccupied, in the area referred to. They made a total of 512 houses and shops,
twenty four of which had been built since the last application. He had
experienced the use of a petition in the past, and he had prepared no petition
on the present occasion.
Cross-examined by Mr. Watson (Sir Montague Bradley and
Watson, solicitors), who appeared on behalf of various Temperance bodies,
witness said there was a refreshment room at the station. Station Road was
rather out of the way of the hotel at Cheriton. The precise request from
several people was beer in small quantities. He thought it was desirable in the
neighbourhood. It would not affect the soldiers at all.
Mr. De Wet said that was his case.
Mr. Watson said he opposed the application on various
grounds. It was rather a select neighbourhood, and one where people could
afford to buy beer in large quantities if they required it. The licence was
unnecessary, and it was undesirable that people should go backwards and
forwards with jugs of beer.
The Chairman: Jugs of milk would not look nice, I
suppose. (Laughter)
Mr. Watson said the tendency at the present day was to
reduce licences. If an off licence were granted now, they might hear next year
that an on licence was required as well, and when once granted it could not be
taken away without compensation.
Mr. W.L. Easton, Police Court Missionary, said he had
counted the houses in the neighbourhood for the last six years. The last
occasion was the previous afternoon. The only houses not included were St.
George`s Cottages. There were 507 houses altogether, 487 occupied and twenty
empty. There were only nineteen new houses since last year.
Mr. De Wet: I think it is your honest belief, whatever
the demand, that beer is not required?
Mr. Easton: I am not asked to give a Temperance
address. It can be very well done without. (Laughter)
The Rev. J.C. Carlile said he was secretary of a body
of Church of England and Nonconformist clergy and ministers in Folkestone and
district, and they had had a meeting at which the question of the application
was discussed. They passed a resolution to join the opposition to the licence
being granted, on the ground it would be the first step to a full licence.
The Rev. John Hugh Morgan said he was Superintendent of
the Folkestone Circuit of the Wesleyan denomination. He produced a memorial in
respect to the application, signed by property owners, ratepayers and others.
It stated that no need existed for a licensed house and that it would be
detrimental to the district.
The Chairman, after perusing the memorial, said eight
or ten of the people who had signed it did not live in the district at all.
Mr. J. Daniel said he was in charge of the Baptist
Church in the neighbourhood, He also produced a memorial against the licence
being granted.
Mr. Kent, in answer to Mr. De Wet, said he had no
intention of opening the premises on Sunday.
The Bench then retired, and on their return the
Chairman said that application had been before them a great many years, and had
been refused on every occasion. But it had always been in their minds that one
day they would have to grant a licence, and they very nearly granted it last
year. That day they were unanimous in granting the licence required. They
understood it would not be kept open on Sundays.
Mr. Kent: No, sir.
The Magistrates fixed the adjourned licensing sessions
for March 6th.
Folkestone
Herald 10-2-1912
Annual Licensing Sessions
Wednesday, February 7th: Before Mr. E.T.
Ward, Lieut. Col. Fynmore, Lieut. Col. Hamilton, Major Leggett, Alderman C.
Jenner, Messrs. W.G. Herbert, J. Stainer, G.I. Swoffer and G. Boyd.
The Chief Constable presented his report (for details
see Folkestone Express).
The Chairman said it seemed to be very satisfactory
that there had been no proceedings against any licence holder during the past
two years, and that the number of cases of drunkenness was, he thought, the
smallest this century. One little disquieting fact was the number of females
charged with drunkenness. Out of 85 persons so charged at the Folkestone Police
Court, 31 were females. It seemed rather a pity. Mr. Ward added that before the
Chief Constable had given his report it had been intended to instruct him to
oppose the licence of the Rendezvous Hotel on the ground of redundancy.
However, as the case stood, it would be deferred until the adjourned licensing
sessions. The Chairman said that all the other licences would be renewed.
Mr. De Wet applied for an off beer licence for the
Morehall Wine and Spirit Stores. Mr. Watson, of the firm of Sir Montague
Bradley, of Dover, opposed on behalf of the Folkestone Temperance Council.
Alderman Jenner and Mr. Boyd did not adjudicate in regard to this application.
Mr. De Wet stated that the first time application was
made for this licence was in 1903, but the licence was then refused. The
circumstances under which they were now applying were different from those
under which they then asked, and when the new facts were placed before them he
thought the Bench would have no hesitation in granting the licence. His learned
friend, Mr. Watson, was appearing on behalf of the Folkestone Temperance
Council. In other years they had had opposition from other bodies. On previous
occasions the Army had been represented, and opposed the licence, and his
friend Mr. Mowll had appeared to oppose the licence on behalf of trade
opposition. The trade opposition and the Army opposition had been taken away;
there remained only the Temperance party. In 1903, on the Morehall, Boundaries,
and Lord Radnor`s Estates there were 360 houses, occupied and unoccupied. At
the present time there were 512 houses, and only eleven were unoccupied. Five
out of the eleven were uncompleted houses. That meant that there were only six
really empty houses. The Bench would also recollect that a short time ago Mr.
Nicholls, the Borough Engineer and the Chief of the Fire Brigade laid before
the Watch Committee a report in which he referred to the Morehall District, and
stated that there were 550 inhabited and 190 uninhabited buildings there, and
that it was desirable that a sub-station be built for fire purposes. Mr.
Nickolls, however, took rather a wider boundary than he (Mr. De Wet) was
taking, and his figures would, of course, include sheds and other outbuildings,
which were not houses, but which, of course, were buildings that would be
affected by fire. During the past few years a new road (St. George`s Road) had
been laid down in the district, and since the last application for the licence
24 new houses had been built. The licence they asked for these premises was a
beer licence only. Under the present licence they were not allowed to sell a
smaller quantity of beer than three dozen. There was a demand for smaller
quantities, and also the inhabitants of that district were of a station in life
that could not afford to purchase such a quantity of beer at a time.
Mr. Henry Videan deposed that he prepared a plan of the
district. In 1903 there were only 360 houses in the Morehall, Boundaries, and
Lord Radnor`s Estates. In 1903 an application for a full licence was made.
Cross-examined, witness stated that the boundaries he
took in 1903 were the railway to the south, Chart Road to the north, and the
road now known as Cherry Garden Avenue.
Mr. Jas. Henry Kent said he had been the tenant of the
Morehall Wine and Spirit Stores since 1907. During that time he had had many
requests made to him for small quantities of beer, requests too numerous to
mention. The requests had been more numerous lately. He had formerly only held
a strong beer licence. That morning he had gone round and secured the following
facts from his observations. There had been one new road made since he last made
application, St. George`s Road. There were three houses there. In St. Francis
Road there were 17 houses, three being unoccupied; in St. Hilda Road there were
35 houses, and one unoccupied; in St. Winifred`s Road 33 houses, none being
unoccupied; in Geraldine Road 26 houses, all occupied. These roads were on the
Boundaries Estate. On the Morehall Estate he had found that there were 65
houses in Chart Road, all occupied; 97 houses in Morehall Avenue, one of which
was unoccupied; in Trimworth Road there were 30 houses, one being unoccupied;
34 houses in Surrenden Road, all occupied; four houses, all occupied, in Coombe
Road; and 19 houses, all occupied, in Station Road. Eleven of these houses had
been erected since last year. Plans for eight more had already been passed by
the Corporation, and these were now in the course of erection. In Waverley
Villas there were 12 houses, all occupied; from Cherry Garden Avenue to
Trimworth Road there were five houses, none being empty. There were nine houses
in Morehall Villas, all occupied. In Shorncliffe Terrace there were 24 houses,
two being empty. In St. George`s Cottages there were six houses, all occupied.
There were 13 houses in Cherry Garden Avenue, all of which were occupied. In
Beachborough Villas and Salisbury Villas there were 25 houses, all occupied. In
Limes Road there were 28 houses, all occupied. In Morehall Terrace there were
16 houses, all occupied. This made a total of 512 houses and shops. Of these 11
were unoccupied, and of these eleven, five were uncompleted. This meant that
there were really only six empty houses.
Cross-examined, Mr. Kent stated that Station Road led
to the refreshment room on the station. It was, however, a long way out of the
way. There was also an hotel in that direction, but that was even further out
of the way. With reference to the number of requests made for beer in small
quantities, witness stated that he never had soldiers in after it. He did not
think it would be a very objectionable thing to see people going about with jugs
of beer.
Mr. Watson, for the opposition, said he had been
instructed to oppose the application on various grounds. He thought that the
neighbourhood in which the stores were situated was a rather special
neighbourhood, rather select, and that it was a neighbourhood where people
could afford to buy beer in larger quantities than was generally required.
There were residents who could purchase three dozen of beer when they wanted
any. The licence, therefore, he held to be unnecessary, because if anyone wanted
a small quantity of beer they could get it from the hotel, which was situated
just outside the boundary spoken of. He thought also that it was a very
undesirable thing that in a neighbourhood like this people should be going
about with jugs of beer in their hands.
The Chairman remarked amidst some laughter that it was
not a very objectionable thing to see people going about with jugs of milk.
Continuing, Mr. Watson said it was also undesirable for
soldiers to get the beer in small quantities and drink it in the fields or
road. In his opinion if an off licence was granted now it would only be the
first step to getting a full licence. His learned friend had pointed out that
from 1903 to 1912 the number of houses had increased from 360 to 512. That was
152 houses in nine years, making an increase of 17 per year. That was the
particular reason put forth by his learned friend why the licence should be
granted this year. He himself did not think that this was a very marked sign of
the quick growth of the district.
Mr. W.L. Easton said that he had counted the houses in
the neighbourhood year by year. The last occasion he counted them was on the
previous afternoon. He used the same boundary, practically, as that used by Mr.
Kent, with the exception of St. George`s Cottages. He found that altogether
there were 507 houses, and 487 occupied, making the number of empty houses 20
at the present time. There had been only 19 new houses since the previous year.
Cross-examined, Mr. Easton said he had included in his
figures the houses that they were building. It was his honest belief that beer
could very well be done without.
The Rev. J.J. Carlile deposed that he was the Secretary
of the Folkestone Temperance Council. It embraced the whole of the various
Temperance bodies in the town. It included bodies of all denominations, under
the Chairmanship of the Vicar (the Rev. Canon Knollys). At a recent meeting of
the Council the question of the present application had been discussed, and a
resolution passed to oppose the licence on the ground that it was detrimental
to Temperance work in the neighbourhood, and also because they considered it
would be the first step towards the granting of a full licence. He went on to
say that they had had the opposition of the Army officials during the previous
years, when they had opposed the licence, and had it not been for the fact that
the organisation of the opposition was not well arranged, he believed that they
would have no difficulty in getting it this year.
Cross-examined, Mr. Carlile admitted that the soldiers
would have to pass other licensed premises before they came to the premises in
question.
The Rev. John Hugh Morgan said that he was the
superintendent of a church near the premises. He produced a memorial in respect to the application which had been
displayed in the church, and signed by a number of the congregation. He had
examined the personnel of the people who had signed the memorial, and they were
some of the most influention people in the district. He thought that if the licence
was granted it would be detrimental to the interests of the neighbourhood. He
put in the memorial, which was read by the Chairman. It contained a protest
against the licence being granted, on the ground of detriment of the church
work, and the religious work of the church.
The Rev. John Daniel, in charge of the Cheriton Baptist
Church, also produced a memorial, which he said had been signed by the heads of
the families that worshipped at the church, who all felt very strong on the
matter. The membership of his church was about 100. The congregation on Sunday
morning would amount to about that number, but in the evening it would be about
350 or 400.
Mr. De Wet said it was not the intention of the
licensee to open on Sundays.
The Magistrates retired to discuss the matter, and
after an absence of some minutes returned, when the Chairman said that the
question of the licence had been before the Bench now for a great many years,
but one had never been granted. It had, however, always been the opinion of the
Magistrates that one day they would have to grant the licence; in fact, the
applicants nearly secured it last year. The Bench on this occasion were
unanimously of the opinion that the licence should be granted. The licence was
therefore granted –(slight applause, which was, however, suppressed) – on the
understanding that there should be no Sunday trade.
Notes
The French have a proverb to the effect that everything
comes to him who waits. But one`s object is not always achieved by mere
waiting. Persistency must sometimes be allied to patience. This was recognised
by those interested in the securing of a licence for the Morehall Wine and
Spirit Stores. The first application in respect to these premises was made as
far back as 1903, and there have been repeated requests to the licensing
Magistrates since then. Prior to last Wednesday all efforts were unsuccessful,
but the justices have at length recognised that the applicants have a good
case, and have granted an off beer licence for the premises at the corner of
Cheriton Road and Coombe Road. And I do not think that any reasonable,
unprejudiced person will find fault with the licensing authority in coming to
the decision which Mr. E.T. Ward, as Chairman, announced on Wednesday last. The
commonsense view of the unbiased man who is acquainted with the district must
be that is such facilities as those asked for are to be allowed at all, there
is a strong case in favour of their being granted in this instance. Not only is
there no public house within convenient reach, but there is no grocer`s
licence. Hitherto Mr. J.H. Kent has only been able to supply beer in quantities
of no less than three dozen bottles. It is not merely a question of
householders being able to afford to “lay in” three dozen bottles at the time.
There are many households in which beer is consumed, but only in small
quantities, say half a dozen bottles, or even less, during the week, and in
which it is inconvenient to find room for three dozen bottles. Again, there are
the visitors to consider, for in the summer a good many holiday keepers take
their quarters in the Morehall district. The majority of these probably only
stay a week or two, and would not require anything like three dozen bottles of
beer during their holiday. In all the circumstances it is certainly not
surprising that the Magistrates were unanimously of opinion that the licence
should be granted.
Folkestone
Daily News 6-3-1912
Wednesday, March 6th: Before Justices Ward,
Herbert, Stainer, Leggett, Boyd, Fynmore, Hamilton, and Linton.
The adjourned licensing sessions were held at the
police court this morning. All licences were confirmed excepting that of the
Rendezvous Hotel.
The Morehall licence was confirmed.
Folkestone
Express 9-3-1912
Local News
The adjourned licensing sessions for the borough of
Folkestone were held at the police court on Wednesday morning. The Magistrates
were E.T. Ward, W.G. Herbert, J. Stainer, R.J. Linton and G. Boyd Esqs., Major
Leggett, and Lieut. Colonels Fynmore and Hamilton. Only one licence had been
deferred – that of the Rendezvous Hotel.
Morehall
Mr. De Wet said he had an application to make in
respect to the off licence which the Magistrates were kind enough to grant
after nine or ten years` patient hearing in respect to certain premises out at
Morehall. He now asked them to confirm that, and thus put the crown on all his
applications.
The Clerk said he understood there was no objection.
Under a regulation made many years since, no person could appear to object to
the confirmation unless seven days` notice had been given.
The Chief Constable said no notice had been received.
The licence was then confirmed.
Folkestone
Herald 9-3-1912
Wednesday, March 6th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward,
Lt. Col. Hamilton, Lt. Col. Fynmore, Major Leggett, and Messrs. W.G. Herbert,
J. Stainer, R.J. Linton, and G. Boyd.
Mr. De Wet applied on behalf of the Morehall Wine and
Spirit Stores for the confirmation of the off licence granted at the original
sessions. He reminded the Bench that the new licence had been kindly granted by
them after eleven years, and so he now applied for confirmation of the licence
to crown his efforts.
The Magistrates` Clerk said it was now the rule, and
had been for some years, that any notice of objection should be given seven
days before the confirmation. As no notice had been received, he assumed there
was no objection.
The Bench confirmed the licence.
No comments:
Post a Comment