Wheatsheaf (2) 1910 - 1929

Folkestone Express 14-5-1910

Wednesday, May 11^th: Before Messrs. E.T. Ward and W.G. Herbert, and Lieut. Colonel Fynmore.

The licence of the Wheatsheaf was temporarily transferred from Mr. Hall to Mr. Dye.

Folkestone Herald 14-5-1910

Wednesday, May 11^th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Mr. W.G. Herbert, and Lieut. Colonel R.J. Fynmore.

The temporary transfer of the licence of the Wheatsheaf Hotel from Mr. Hall to Mr. Dye was granted.

Folkestone Express 28-5-1910

Wednesday, May 25^th: Before Messrs. E.T. Ward, W.G. Herbert, and R.J. Linton, and Major Leggett.

The transfer of the licence of the Wheatsheaf from Mr. Hall to Mr. Dye was also confirmed.

Folkestone Daily News 19-1-1911

Inquest

An inquest was held by the Borough Coroner (G.W. Haines Esq.) on Thursday afternoon on the body of an infant child found at the Wheatsheaf Inn, Bridge Street.

Ernest Dye, landlord of the Wheatsheaf Inn, identified the body as that of a female child, which was shown to him by the servant at 8.30 a.m. on the 17^th January. He was in bed when Huxley came to the bedroom and told him that a child was dead in the bedroom occupied by his daughter, Dorothy Dye, and Elizabeth Huxley, the servant. He went to the room and saw the body lying near the bed. He sent for a doctor. The child was not concealed and could easily be seen by anyone going into the room. His daughter was in bed. He saw the child was dead, but did not notice whether it was a girl or boy. He sent for a doctor. His daughter assisted in the business. It was her custom to get up at 7 a.m. She had done so until yesterday. He did not say anything to his daughter. She looked too ill and weak, and had lost most of her reason. He formed that opinion from her manner. He had noticed his daughter`s condition last Thursday, the 12^th inst., and taxed her on the subject and she swore to him that she was not enciente. He believed her. His wife was alive, but not strong in her mind.

Mrs. Dye was called and questioned by the Coroner, who decided she was able to give evidence.

Witness said he could not go to his wife because of her mental condition. He had previously spoken to the servant, who had been with them 13 months. He told her of his suspicions, and asked her to speak to his daughter. She told him she had done so, and his daughter had sworn that there was nothing wrong with her. They went to bed at 11.30 p.m. on Monday, the 16^th. His daughter was helping him in the bar till 11 p.m. She showed no symptom or sign of fatigue. He was a fair sleeper, and heard nothing till awakened in the morning at 8.30. He did not know if his daughter had been walking out with anyone here. She had a young man, who lived away. Witness had been in Folkestone about seven or eight months. She had had no opportunity of seeing her young man during that time. He was unaware if she had written to him. The servant said she knew of nothing that had occurred during the night. He had spoken to his daughter since Tuesday. He was afraid her mental condition unfitted her to answer his questions. Her age was 20 last birthday. She had not had a child before. He sent for the doctor both for his daughter and the child. One came from Sandgate Road. He refused to go and see his daughter, although he almost prayed for him to do so for his daughter`s sake. He then sent for the police, who saw the child, and Dr. Gilbert subsequently attended. He had four other children, under 13, going to school. He had buried three.

Elizabeth Huxley deposed she was a general servant in the employ of the previous witness. She came with him from Wales. She shared the bedroom with his daughter Dorothy. They looked after the children between them. Mrs. Dye did not seem to realise what was said to her. She did not take any part in the management. Miss Dorothy had a young man before she came here. She had not noticed her condition until Mr. Dye spoke to her about it. She then asked her about it, and Dorothy replied that she was all right, but the town did not suit her health. They went to bed at 11.30 on Monday. She complained about having pains in the stomach and side about half an hour after. Witness fetched her some gin, which she refused to take, and then went to sleep till 7.30, but did not get up till 8 a.m. Miss Dye spoke to her. She sat up in bed and then got up and put her foot on something wet, which, on getting a light, she discovered to be the body lying alongside the bed, partly under the bed. She asked Miss Dye about it, and she said she did not know anything about it, and then did not answer. Witness then went to Mr. Dye, who said they had better have a doctor. She got the children ready for school, and then went for a doctor. She went to Dr. Gilbert`s first, who had a consultation and could not come. She then went to Dr. Streatfield, who could not come. Eventually she went to Dr. Dobbs, who came and saud they had better send for the police. It was then getting on for dinner time. The police came between 12 and 1. The child remained in the same condition as when first found.

P.C. Lemar deposed to being called to the Wheatsheaf Inn. The previous witness brought him the body of the baby wrapped in a towel from a room where he was informed that the mother was lying, into an adjoining room. Witness reported to the office.

Eleanor Dye, wife of the first witness, deposed that her daughter was 22 years of age, her oldest child. She attended to the kitchen and household work. She had nothing to do with the business. Dorothy was housekeeper and assisted with the bar. She had not noticed her daughter`s condition. Her husband had not mentioned it. Her daughter was a big girl. She did not know of any reason why her husband did not speak to her on the subject. If he had she should have known what to do.

Dr. Gilbert deposed that at 9.48 a.m. on the 17^th the witness Huxley called and asked him to come to the Wheatsheaf. He told her he was very busy and if the case was urgent to call someone else and he would call later. Subsequently he was telephoned for, and arrived at the Wheatsheaf at 1.30. He was told of the occurrence, and saw a young woman who had recently been confined. She told him she did not know of her condition. She said her mind was an absolute blank as to what had occurred or how the body got under the bed. On going to the front room he saw the body of a female child, well developed. It had a red mark on the neck. The face was swollen. The right ear was doubled forward. The nose was flattened on the face, blood issuing from the nostrils and mouth. Its hands were clenched. On the 18^th he made a post mortem examination, which disclosed the weight of the body, 6½ lbs., length 33 ins. There were no marks of violence. The red mark on the neck was caused by folding skin. The air had entered the lungs. The child had had a separate existence. Death was caused by suffocation, which can be caused by various causes.

Mr. Dye was re-called by the Coroner, who told him that he could not understand his statement as to his wife being mentally deficient.

The Coroner summed up and called attention to the law on the subject, pointing out that they had nothing to do with the concealment of birth, as that was the function of another tribunal, although there did not seem to be any concealment as the child laid in the room quite openly. It was for them to consider whether the conduct of the mother of the child was such in not making the necessary arrangements or taking proper care as to cause its death. He called the jury`s attention to the conduct of the father, who had not, in conjunction with his wife, taken such steps as would have ensured the child being alive today. But, however such conduct might be open to censure, the law did not impose any legal obligation on the parents to do so. He then asked the jury to consider their verdict.

The jury returned a verdict that the child was accidentally suffocated, and that the father had suspicions of the condition of his daughter, and ought to have taken his wife into consideration, who, as a mother of ten children, would have known what to do. They considered he was deserving of severe censure.

The Coroner called the father of the girl before him and told him the opinion of the jury. He also told him that the explanation given that his wife was so mentally deficient so as not to be able to do what was necessary did not satisfy him.

The wife had given her evidence in such a way as to impress the jury and himself that she was quite capable of doing what was necessary for her daughter, and he was surprised at the statement he had made as to her mental deficiency, which he and the jury did not believe without inquiring into the reasons he had for making such a statement.

Folkestone Express 21-1-1911

Inquest

An inquest was opened at the Town hall on Thursday afternoon by Mr. G.W. Haines on the body of a newly born female child of Dorothy Dye, the daughter of Edward Dye, an innkeeper, residing at the Wheatsheaf Inn, Bridge Street, when the following evidence was given:-

Norris Edward Dye, a licensed victualler, of the Wheatsheaf Inn, Bridge Street, said he saw the deceased child before it was removed to the mortuary. He identified the body viewed by the jury as that of a female child shown to him by his servant, Elizabeth Huxley, between 8 and 8.30 in the morning of Tuesday. She went to his bedroom and said “There is a child dead at the side of the bed”. Witness got up at once and went into a bedroom occupied by his daughter, Dorothy, and the servant, both of whom shared the same bed. When he got into the room he saw the body of a child lying on the floor by the edge of the bed. He did not see anything else there. The floor was covered with linoleum. The child was not under the bed and anyone could have easily have seen it on going into the room. His daughter was in bed. He saw at once the child was dead. He did not then notice that it was a girl. His daughter assisted in the business, and she should, in the ordinary way of business, to have got up about half past six or seven o`clock. She had always got up at that hour every morning up to Tuesday. He did not say anything to his daughter at the time, and he at once sent the servant for a doctor. His daughter appeared to him to be very bad, weak and exhausted, and he also thought she had lost most of her reason, because she seemed feverish, upset and absolutely in a bad way. She appeared to be fairly gone. Previous to that morning he had noticed something about his daughter`s condition. It was on Thursday or Friday last that he first noticed her shape and form was not as it should be, so he taxed her with it after closing time. He asked her if she was all right, as he did not like her shape and form, and her reply to him was that she was all right – in fact, she swore to him  she was all right. He was satisfied with all she said after what she told him. He was a married man, but his wife was not as she should be, and because of her mental condition, in his opinion, it was absolutely useless him speaking to her on the subject.

The Coroner: Is that the reason why you spoke to your maidservant about your daughter`s condition?

Witness said that was so. The servant had been with him about thirteen or fourteen months. He told the servant of his suspicions, and asked her to speak to his daughter. She afterwards told him she had spoken to Dorothy, who, she said, swore that she was all right. His daughter`s form was very pronounced, but he could not contradict what she said. His bedroom and the bedroom occupied by his daughter adjoined. He went to bed about half past eleven, his daughter and the servant going at the same time. His daughter was able to work up to the last, and was helping him in the bar up to eleven o`clock. He was a fairly sound sleeper and on Monday night he slept continuously. He heard nothing until he was awakened by Huxley. His daughter had not been walking out with anyone in that town. He had been there about seven or eight months. His daughter`s young man lived away from the town. He knew she had not seen him since they had been in Folkestone. He was not aware of his daughter having communicated by letter to her young man with regard to her condition. Huxley did not tell him anything about what had happened during the night, but she told him she knew absolutely nothing about it when he questioned her. He had spoken to his daughter since Tuesday morning. He was afraid that she was not able to answer him rationally.

The Coroner: Cannot she answer your questions?

Witness: Well, no, sir.

Mr. Dye, continuing, said his daughter was twenty years old last birthday. She had never had a child before. He sent off for a doctor and a doctor from Sandgate Road came. He sent for the doctor as he wanted medical advice for his daughter. The doctor arrived between ten and eleven. He would not go up to see his daughter, and when he (witness) asked him to do so he absolutely refused. The doctor did not give him any reason. He told him there had been a confinement, but he would not go. In gact he (witness) almost prayed him to go up, but he would not go. Witness then sent for the nearest policeman he could find, and one came. Subsequently Dr. Gilbert came and attended his daughter. He had other children, four of whom went to school. His daughter had been looking after them. The eldest of the four was thirteen years old. He had had three other children, but they were dead.

Elizabeth Huxley said she was in domestic service, in the employ of Mr. Dye. She had to do the housework, and had been with Mr. Dye eight months. She was twenty one years old in May. She had shared the bedroom and bed with her employer`s daughter, Dorothy, who assisted in the bar. Miss Dye and she looked after the children. Mrs. Dye did not realise or understand what was said to her; she simply repeated what anyone said to her, and witness was of opinion she was mentally deficient. Miss Dye had a young man previous to coming to Folkestone. Witness did not notice anything about Miss Dye until her father spoke to her about his daughter`s condition. After he had drawn her attention to it she did not think anything about it until he asked her about it at night. Miss Dye went to bed before her and when witness went upstairs she said to her “You appear to be upset”, and she (witness) replied “Well, your dada is upset about you. Are you all right?” Miss Dye then said “I am all right with what you mean”. On Monday night they all went to bed about 11.30, and Miss Dye complained about having pains about twelve o`clock. She said she had pains in her stomach and down her side. Witness went downstairs and got some gin, but she refused to have it. Witness afterwards fell asleep and did not wake until half past seven the following morning. Miss Dye was then awake, and on sitting up in bed she saw the bedclothes were stained. She got up and dressed, and while dressing she put her foot on something wet. She got some matches, and on striking them she saw the baby, partly under the bed and lying alongside it. She asked Miss Dye what it was and she replied she did not know. Witness then said “There is a baby under the bed”. Miss Dye did not say any more, and she (witness) went at once and communicated with Mr. Dye, who told her to go for a doctor. She knew the child was dead at that time. She got the children ready for school first and then went to Dr. Gilbert`s, where she was told the doctor had a consultation. She then went into Sandgate Road, and to Dr. Streatfield, who could not come. She proceeded to Dr. Dobbs, who came, and he told Mr. Dye that he had better inform the police. The doctor would not go upstairs, she understood. The child remained in the same position until the police came, between twelve and one.

P.C. Lemar said on Tuesday, from information received, he went to the Wheatsheaf public house, Bridge Street, where the servant took him upstairs to a bedroom adjoining the one in which he was informed the mother was lying. Huxley showed him the body of a newly born child wrapped up in a towel; it was dead. He did not see the mother, nor did he go into the room in which she was. He reported the matter at once to the office.

Mrs. Eleanor Dye, the wife of the landlord of the Wheatsheaf, said she had had ten children, and had lost five of them. She had two boys and three girls living. Her daughter, Dorothy, was about twenty two years of age, and was the eldest of the family. Witness did not assist in the business at all, but helped in the housework. Dorothy helped in the bar and was really the housekeeper, she being really with the children. She did not notice her daughter`s condition, and her husband did not refer to it at all. Her daughter was a big girl, and she (witness) did not give a thought about such a thing. If her husband had any suspicion of such a thing she saw no reason why he should not have mentioned it to her. She had not spoken to her daughter about the occurrence.

The Coroner questioned the witness about her husband`s and the previous witness`s statements that she was not rational and could not understand what was said to her.

Mrs. Dye, who appeared to be quite rational, said she hoped it was not so, for her children`s sake. She could not tell why they should say such things. Had she known her daughter`s condition she would have made some arrangements.

Dr. Gilbert said on Tuesday, about a quarter to ten, the witness Huxley called at his house and asked him to come down to Bridge Street at once. He told her he was very busy, and if the case was urgent to get someone else and he would call later on when he went out. A telephone message was sent to him while he was at the Cemetery, and he arrived at the Wheatsheaf Inn about half past one He was then informed that a young woman, aged twenty one, some time during the night had given birth to a female child, the body of which was found under the bed. On going upstairs, in the first floor back room, he saw a young woman in bed. She showed traces of having recently been confined, and when asked about it her answer was that she did not know she was pregnant, but on going to bed the night before she did not feel very well. The witness Huxley was present and the young woman said her mind was an absolute blank as to what occurred and how the child got into the bed. On being taken to a front bedroom he saw lying on the table, covered with a cloth, the body of a well developed female child. The infant was on its back, with the chin resting on the breast, and with its head turned towards the right shoulder. There was a red mark on the right shoulder. The right side of the face was swollen and of a dark colour. The right ear was doubled forward. The nose was flattened on the face and blood was issuing from both nostrils and mouth. The lips were of a bluish-red colour, both hands were clenched, and the nails were of a bluish-red colour. On Wednesday he made a post mortem examination. The weight of the body was 6¾lbs; length 21½  inches. On washing the child he could find no marks of violence upon it. It was a well and fully developed child. The brain was normal, the heart weighed 2½ ozs. The whole of the chest was filled with lung tissue of a pinkish colour. The lung tissue crepitated under the fingers on pressure. He submitted the heart and lungs to the water test together and they both floated. He submitted a portion of the lung to the hydrostatic test, and that floated. He submitted the whole of the right lung to a pressure test of 14 stone and it floated. That proved that air had entered the lungs. The intestines and kidneys were normal. In his opinion the child had had a separate existence, and the cause of death was suffocation. The child had breathed for the full lung area was extended. The girl told him she knew nothing about it. She was perfectly rational, and she told him her mind was a perfect blank as to what took place.

Mr. Dye was re-called, and the Coroner, addressing him, said: I have had an opportunity of seeing your wife and hearing her evidence. I must say I am surprised at the evidence you gave that she is practically mentally deficient, and not able to transact the ordinary business of life, and that you did not even think of speaking to her concerning your suspicions. I can only say I see nothing wrong with Mrs. Dye. She answered every question I put to her and as plainly as any woman would.

Mr. Dye: It is a surprise to me. It is an exceptional condition for her to be in.

The Coroner: It is a surprise to her that you should say otherwise.

The Coroner summed up, and in the course of his remarks said the jury had to find how that infant came by its death. There was not a doubt, after the evidence, that the child was the daughter of Dorothy Dye. From the doctor`s evidence it was proved that the child was a full-time one, and had nothing the matter with it, and that the child died from suffocation. It had a separate existence, and was born into the world alive. Therefore it had been suffocated. In all those cases one, of course, had to be careful in dealing with the evidence. It was very difficult to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion upon which they could base their verdict. The child had been found close to the bed, but the question of concealment of birth had nothing to do with them, although it might have with other authorities. He, however, did not see anything in the evidence to which they could attribute concealment, for the body could be seen by anyone going into the room. It was for the jury to say how that suffocation came about. In cases of infanticide, especially of that nature, it was the general custom of women to say that they did not know anything about it, and that it came in before they were aware of it, and could not help themselves. To say that that girl, Dorothy Dye, who was twenty two years of age, did not know what was the matter with her seemed difficult to believe. But they were not dealing with that. All they had to deal with was whether or not she, either by gross negligence or with an intention to do it, caused the death of the child. To bring in a verdict of manslaughter they would have to be certain that the woman was able, and in a condition to know what she was doing. For a jury of men to say what a woman`s ability was, was a very difficult thing.

The jury returned a verdict that the child was accidentally suffocated through inattention at birth. The foreman stated that the jury further considered that the father of the girl should have been censured. They thought he ought to have consulted more with his wife and taken her into his confidence, as he was suspicious about his daughter`s condition. They thought his evidence was very unsatisfactory.

The Coroner, addressing Dye, said he (Dye) heard what the jury`s opinion was. If he had spoken to his wife on the matter she would have spoken to her daughter and arrangements would have been made, and by that means the child`s life would have been saved. The reason he (Dye) had given for not confiding with his wife was that he did not consider her mentally competent to discuss with him a matter of that kind. The jury, and he accepted their view, had had an opportunity of hearing her, and they said they did not agree with him. What his reason was for saying she was incapable of giving evidence and discussing a matter of that kind he (the Coroner) could not say. If, however, he (Dye) had taken proper precautions the child might have been saved.

Folkestone Herald 21-1-1911

Inquest

At the Town Hall on Thursday afternoon Mr. G.W. Haines (Borough Coroner) held an inquest touching the death of the infant daughter of Dorothy Dye, a single woman, living with her father at the Wheatsheaf Inn, Bridge Street.

Maurice Edward Dye, the father of the child`s mother, said he was a licensed victualler, being in occupation of the Wheatsheaf Inn, Bridge Street. He saw the body before it was removed to the mortuary, about 8.30 on Tuesday His servant, Elizabeth Huxley, came into his bedroom while he was in bed and told him that a child was lying dead at the side of the bed. He got up at once, and went into the bedroom, which was jointly occupied by his daughter Dorothy and Elizabeth Huxley, who shared the same bed. On entering the room he saw the body of a child lying on the floor by the side of the bed. He saw no blood or anything of that nature on the linoleum. The body could easily be seen by anyone entering the room, and his daughter was lying in bed. He looked at the child, and found it was dead. His daughter assisted him in the business, and she usually rose about 6.30 or 7 a.m. She always rose at that hour up to that day. After seeing the child, he at once sent the servant for a doctor. His daughter appeared to be in a very weak and exhausted condition, and somewhat out of her reason. She seemed feverish and upset, and absolutely in a bad way. She did not appear to realise her position. On the previous Thursday or Friday he spoke to his daughter and asked her if she was all right. She replied she was perfectly all right; in fact, swore that she was. He was quite satisfied after she told him that. His wife was alive, but her mental condition, in his opinion, was such that it was useless his speaking to her on the subject. He had previously spoken to the maid servant (who had been with him over eight months) about his suspicions, and asked her to speak to his daughter. This she apparently did, for Huxley told him that she had spoken to Dorothy, his daughter, and she swore she was all right; the servant was 20 years of age last May. On being further questioned by the Coroner, witness stated that he occupied a bedroom on the same floor as his daughter, a passage separating the two rooms. He retired on Monday about 11.30 p.m., and his daughter retired at the same time, as also the servant. His daughter was able to work up to the very last moment and showed no fatigue, she having been helping him in the bar up to 11 p.m. He slept continuously through the night, and heard nothing until awakened by Huxley in the morning. His daughter had been walking out with a young man who did not live in the town; she had not seen him during the time she had resided in Folkestone, although she might have communicated with him by letter, but of this he was not aware. He (witness) had been resident in Folkestone about 8 months. The girl Huxley did not tell him what had happened during the night. He had spoken to his daughter since Tuesday morning, but her mental condition had not improved. His daughter was 20 last birthday. She had never had a child before. A doctor in Sandgate Road attended between 10 and 11 a.m., but he refused to go up and see his daughter, for which he gave no reason, although witness told him what had happened. He repeatedly asked him to go upstairs, but he would not. He then sent for the nearest policeman who could be found, and he saw the child. Witness still had four children going to school. His daughter looked after them, the eldest being a girl of 13. He also had had three other children, but they were dead.

Elizabeth Huxley said she was housemaid, in the employ of Mr. Dye, of the Wheatsheaf, having been there eight months. Her age was 21 in May next. She shared a bedroom and bed with Dorothy Dye, who assisted in the house and in the bar, and they looked after the children between them. Mrs. Dye did not usually assist, for since she had known her she did not seem to understand what one said to her, often repeating the same questions asked her. Witness thought she was mentally deficient. She knew Dorothy Dye had a young man before coming to Folkestone, but no-one in Folkestone. She had noticed nothing whatever unusual, and suspected nothing until Mr. Dye spoke to her. When they went upstairs at night she told Dorothy Dye her father was worried about her, and she replied “I am all right with what you mean, but I am unwell because the town does not suit me”. She told Mr. Dye the next morning of the conversation. On Monday night they all went to bed about 11.30, and when in bed (about midnight) Dorothy Dye complained of pains. Witness fetched some gin, but she refused to take it. Witness then went to sleep, and did not wake until 7.30 the next morning. On getting up at eight, she found a baby lying alongside the bed. She asked Miss Dye what it was, and she replied she did not know. Witness went at once and called Mr. Dye, asking him what they shoud do. He said “Send for the doctor”. After getting the children ready for school she went to Dr. Gilbert`s, but was told he had a consultation on, and could not come. She then went up to Dr. Streatfield in Sandgate Road, and as he could not come, she went to Dr. Dobbs, who came. Dr. Dobbs told Mr. Dye to inform the police, which he did. The doctor did not see the child`s mother. He child remained in the same position as it was until the police came, which was between noon and 1 p.m.

P.C. Lemar stated that on Tuesday last, whilst in Bridge Street, he received information, and went to the Wheatsheaf Inn, Bridge Street, where Huxley took him upstairs to another room, adjoining that wherein, he was informed, the mother was lying, and showed him the body of a newly-born child. It was dead, and wrapped up in a towel. He left the body there, and reported the matter at once.

Mrs. Eleanor Dye, wife of the proprietor of the Wheatsheaf, said she had had 10 children, having lost 5. She had living 2 boys and 3 girls. She had a daughter named Dorothy, aged about 22 years, who was her eldest child. Witness occasionally looked after the household only. Her daughter Dorothy was housekeeper, and also assisted in the bar. She had not noticed her daughter`s condition, and her husband had not mentioned it to her. Her daughter was naturally a well-built girl, and she had no suspicions, otherwise she would have cared for her. She had seen her daughter since, but not to speak to. She (witness) generally enjoyed good health. She was not mentally deficient, and knew no reason why the previous witnesses should say so. She, as a mother, would have looked after her, and naturally taken the greatest care of her daughter if she had known.

Dr. J.W. Thornton Gilbert said that on January 17^th, about 9.45 in the morning, the witness Huxley called at his house and asked him to go to Bridge Street at once. He told her he was very busy, and if the case was urgent and couldn`t wait to get somebody else, but he would call later on, as soon as he went out. A telephone message was sent him while he was at the cemetery, and he arrived at the Wheatsheaf public house in Bridge Street about 1.30 p.m. He was informed that a young woman, aged 21, sometime during the late hours of the night or the early hours of the morning had given birth to a female child, the body of which was under the bed. On going upstairs to the bedroom he saw a young woman in bed, and an examination showed that she had been recently confined. He asked her if she could give him any information. She said her mind was an absolute blank as to what had occurred, and how the child had got under the bed. On going to a front bedroom he saw lying on the table, covered with a cloth, the body of a well-developed female child. The infant was on its back, with the chin resting on the breast. There was a red mark on the right side of the neck. The right side of the face was swollen, and of a dark colour; the right ear was doubled forward; the nose was flattened on the face, and there was blood issuing from both nostrils and mouth. The lips were of a bluish red, both hands were clenched, and the nails were of a bluish red colour. On January 18^th he made a post mortem examination at the mortuary. The weight of the body was 6¾ lbs., length 21½ inches. On washing it he could find no marks of violence. The red mark on the right side of the neck was due to a fold caused by the pressure of the head, and the colour was due to moisture. It was a fully developed child. The brain was normal, the heart weighed 2½ ozs., the right side being engulfed with dark coloured liquid. The lungs weighed 2½ ozs. The whole of the chest wall was filled with lung tissue of a pinkish colour. He submitted the heart and lungs together to the water test, and they both floated. He submitted a portion of the lung to the hydrostatic test, and that floated. He submitted the whole of the right lung to a very heavy pressure test, and that floated. This proved there had been air in the lungs. The child had a separate existence, and in his opinion the cause of death was suffocation. Both lungs were expanded. On the previous day and that day the mother spoke to him quite rationally, although her mind was a blank as to what had occurred during her confinement.

Mr. Dye was re-called by the Coroner, who, addressing him, said: I have had an opportunity of seeing your wife and of hearing her evidence, and I am surprised at your stating in your evidence that your wife was mentally deficient and not able to transact the ordinary business of life, and that you did not think to speak to her regarding your suspicions. I can only say that I saw nothing wrong with Mrs. Dye. She answered every question clearly and as plainly as possible.

Mr. Dye: I am surprised; it seems exceptional.

The Coroner, in summing up, said there was no doubt that the child was the daughter of Dorothy Dye. According to the doctor`s evidence it had had a separate existence, and was born alive. In all these cases, one, of course, had to be careful in dealing with the evidence, and it was very difficult to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion upon which they could base their verdict. The child was found close to the bed, but the question of concealment of birth was nothing to do with them, although it might have with other authorities. He did not see anything in the evidence pointing to concealment, for the body could be seen by anyone entering the room; it was not hidden in any way. It was for the jury to say how the suffocation came about. In cases of infanticide, especially of that nature, it was the general statement of women under these conditions to say that they fainted and knew nothing about it, and that they could not help themselves. What they had to deal with was whether or not the mother, either by the grossest of negligence or with intent, caused the death of the child. To bring in a verdict of manslaughter they would have to prove that the mother knew what she was doing. Where it was not proved they must take the facts as they found them. It seemed very strange that the father of the girl had not spoken to his wife about his suspicions, and it was a pity that the girl did not have proper attendance, as the child might have lived.

The jury returned a verdict that the child was accidentally suffocated through inattention at birth. The foreman stated that the jury considered that the father of the girl should be censured, as they thought he ought to have taken his wife into his confidence when his suspicions were aroused. They further considered his evidence was very unsatisfactory.

The Coroner, addressing Mr. Dye, said that if he had spoken to his wife, she would have spoken to her daughter, and arrangements would have been made in the usual way, which might have been the means of saving the child`s life. He had stated as his reason for not doing this that he considered his wife was mentally incompetent to discuss with him such a matter. The jury and he had had an opportunity of hearing his wife`s evidence, and they did not agree with him as to that. What his reasons were for making that statement he did not know, for his wife was quite capable of giving evidence and discussing a matter of that kind, and with proper precautions the child might have been saved.

Folkestone Daily News 6-2-1911

Annual Licensing Meeting

Monday, February 6^th: Before Justices Ward, Herbert, Stainer, Leggett, Boyd, Fynmore, Linton, and Jenner.

The Chairman of the Bench announced that they had decided to refuse the licence, and refer the same to the Kent Sessions, of the Wheatsheaf, Bridge Street, licensee Maurice Edward Dye.

Folkestone Express 11-2-1911

Annual Licensing Sessions

Monday, February 6^th: 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.

The Chief Constable (Mr. H. Reeve) presented his annual report, which was as follows:- Gentlemen, I have the honour to report that there are at present within your jurisdiction 123 places licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquor by retail, viz.: Full licences, 76; Beer “On”, 7; Beer “Off”, 6; Beer and Spirit Dealers “Off”, 14; Grocers, etc. “Off”, 10; Confectioners` Wine “Off”, 3; and Chemists` Wine “Off”, 7. This gives an average according to the Census of 1901 of one licence to every 249 persons, or one “On” licence to every 369 persons. This is a decrease of 2 licences as compared with the return submitted last year, as two “off” licences were not renewed at the last annual licensing meeting. In one case the renewal was not applied for, and in the other case the renewal was refused owing to the premises being then unoccupied. The licence of the Wellington Inn, referred last year to the Compensation Committee on the ground of redundancy was renewed by that Committee at Canterbury on the 18^th July, 1910. One licence is also granted by the Inland Revenue Authorities for the sale of wine, spirits and beer off the premises for which no Magistrates` certificate is required. Since the last annual licensing meeting 14 of the licences have been transferred, one licence was transferred twice; eight occasional licences have been granted for the sale of drink on premises not ordinarily licensed for such sale, and 35 extensions of the usual time of closing have been granted to licence holders on special occasions. During the year ended 31^st December last, 100 persons (76 males and 24 females) were proceeded against for drunkenness. 77 were convicted, and 23 discharged. This is an increase of 7 persons proceeded against as compared with the preceding year. Of those proceeded against, 34 were residents of the borough, 39 persons of no fixed abode, 13 soldiers, and 14 residents of other districts. No conviction has been recorded against any licence holder during the year. Proceedings were taken in one case for supplying drink to a person when drunk, but the case was dismissed. Fourteen clubs, where intoxicating liquor is sold, are registered in accordance with the Act of 1902. There are 18 places registered for music and dancing, and two for public billiard playing. I have no objection to offer to the renewal of any of the present licences on the ground of misconduct, and am pleased to report that the houses generally have been conducted in a satisfactory manner. I have received notice of 5 applications to be made at these Sessions for new licences, viz.:- One beer “off”, one wine “off”, and three for music and dancing.

The Chairman said he was very glad to hear that the houses had been well conducted during the year, but the Licensing Committee were of opinion that there were still too many licences, and they were going to refer the consideration of one of them until the adjourned sessions on March 6^th to see if it should be referred to the Compensation Authority. That house was the Wheatsheaf Inn, Bridge Street (Maurice Edward Dye).

The tenant was told by the Chairman that he would have notice served on him that the licence of his house was not required.

Folkestone Herald 11-2-1911

Annual Licensing Sessions

Monday, February 6^th: 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 Chief Constable (Mr. H. Reeve) presented his annual report. (For details see Folkestone Express).

 

The Chairman: We are very pleased to hear that the houses have been so well conducted during the past year, but we are of opinion that there are still too many licences, and we are going to defer the consideration of one of them to the adjourned sessions to see whether it shall be referred to the Compensation Authority. The house to be referred is the Wheatsheaf, in Bridge Street (present licence holder, Mr. Edward Maurice Dye). All the others will be renewed, and the licences will be renewed outside the court, in the hall. The consideration of the licence referred to will be adjourned to the adjourned session this day four weeks.

Folkestone Daily News 6-3-1911

Adjourned Licensing Meeting

Monday, March 5^th: Before Messrs. E.T. Ward, W.G. Herbert, J. Stainer, Major Leggett, Mr. Boyd, Col. Fynmore, G.I. Swoffer, R. Linton, Col. Hamilton, and Mr. W.C. Young.

The Wheatsheaf Inn, Bridge Street.

The Chief Constable was sworn, and said that the house was not needed for the public requirements. Mr. G.W. Haines opposed.

He gave the number of licensed houses in the borough, and produced the ordnance maps.

The tenant was Mr. Edward Dye, and the owners Mackeson & Co. The rent was £28 per annum. It was originally two cottages in 1857. Witness minutely described the structure of the interior of the premises.

The Two Bells and Royal Standard were 36 yards from the house. The Swan, Railway Bell and Black Bull were over 300 yards away. There were also three off-licensed houses close by. The accommodation at the Wheatsheaf was inferior to all the others, and the trade was very small.

Cross-examined by Mr. Haines: He had averaged the house in the whole borough, and also in the congested districts. He had not taken the average in the neighbourhood in this area. He could not say if it was 953 inhabitants to one house. It was the lowest average in the Borough. He based his argument that there was no trade to the house. He could not say if a more experienced tenant was there more trade would be done. The licence was in existence for 50 years, during which time there had only been four tenants. He had no fixed standard of population. The other two houses were sufficient to meet the requirements. He thought there were quite enough licensed houses in the Borough. A few could be spared from the congested area. He picked on this house because it happened to be one of three and had no trade to it.

Detective Leonard Johnson deposed to visiting the Wheatsheaf on the 28^th November to serve a poor rate summons and subsequently to serve a general rate summons. There were no customers. He subsequently visited the house on ten occasions at all hours. He had found only four customers, two of whom were prostitutes.

Detective Sergeant Burniston deposed to serving notice of this opposition on the tenant, Mr. Dye, who said the house was not required as he could not get a living. There were no customers. He had visited it six times since and had not seen a customer.

Mr. Haines addressed the Bench on the police evidence, which only showed that the house had been visited since the notice was served. The present tenant was not in touch with the customers and was unfitted for the house. They had another tenant, who would be pleased to take it. There had been a good trade previously, and there had only been four tenants in 50 years. There was only one house for 960 persons in the neighbourhood.

H. Mackeson deposed that he bought the house 20 years since. The trade up to last year was over 200 barrels and 100 gallons of spirits per annum.

Mr. Hills deposed to using the house for years, and he was willing to take it. He was born in the neighbourhood, and was sure he could get the trade back.

Referred to the Compensation Committee at the County Quarter Sessions of Canterbury.

 

Folkestone Express 11-3-1911

Adjourned Licensing Sessions

 

The adjourned licensing sessions for the borough were held on Monday at the Town Hall, when the principal business was to consider whether the house, the licence of which had been adjourned, should be referred to the East Kent Compensation Authority. The justices on the Bench were Mr. E.T. Ward, Lieut. Colonels Fynmore and Hamilton, Messrs. W.G. Herbert, J. Stainer, G.I. Swoffer, R.J. Linton, G. Boyd, and W.C. Young.

The house in question was the Wheatsheaf, Bridge Street.

Mr. G.W. Haines represented the owners (Messrs. Mackeson and Co.) and the tenant (Mr. M.E. Dye).

Mr. Reeve (the Chief Constable) gave evidence. He said he put in a notice of opposition served on the licensee in that case, the ground of opposition being that the licence was not needed for the requirements of the neighbourhood. There were, within the jurisdiction of the Bench, 76 full licences, seven beer on licences, and 40 other licences, making a total of 123 premises licensed for the sale of intoxicating drink in the borough at large, an average, according to the Census of 1901, of one on licence to every 369 persons, or one licence to every 249 persons. The Wheatsheaf was situate in Bridge Street, and he put in an ordnance survey showing the situation of that house. The present licensee was Mr. Morris Edward Dye, who obtained the transfer of the licence on 25^th May, 1910. The registered owners were Messrs. Mackeson and Co., Hythe. The net rateable value of the premises was £20. Bridge Street was in a working class neighbourhood off the Canterbury Road. The average net rateable value of houses in Bridge Street was £9 5s. The Wheatsheaf was originally two cottages, built about the year 1857, but it now formed one house, with a frontage of 29 feet 6 inches to Bridge Street. There were two doors from the street, one opening into a small partitioned off compartment, which was 5 ft. 4 in. by 3 ft., and had a serving window from the bar. The other door opened into a front bar, which was 11 ft. 6 in. by 4 ft. 4 in. on the public side of the counter. On the right of that was an opening into a taproom, which was 22 ft. 2 in. by 11 ft. 5 in. wide, extending from the front to the rear of the building. At the far end of the tap was the scullery used by the licensee and the family, and the only oven or stove for cooking was in the taproom. Behind the front bar was the licensee`s small living room, which was 8 ft. 2 in. by 10 ft. 9 in. The yard at the rear was approached by a small passage from the front public bar. The yard was enclosed, a scullery being on one side, and a wood shed forming the other side. There was no cellar, but the beer was delivered at the front bar, and taken through an opening in the counter into the public bar. There was only one floor upstairs. On the landing, facing the stairs, there was a small bedroom, without light or ventilation. On the left of the landing was a long room, extending from front to back over the taproom below, the back portion being used as a bedroom, and the front portion was screened off by a curtain and used as a store room. On the other side of the landing there were two bedrooms, one front and one back. The nearest public house, the Two Bells, at the corner of Canterbury Road, was just 36 yards from the Wheatsheaf. That house was a fully licensed house also, the Wheatsheaf having a full licence also. The Two Bells` rateable value was £28. On the opposite corner of Bridge Street and Canterbury Road was the Royal Standard, an on beerhouse. That was also 36 yards from that house, and its rateable value was £25 10s. The Railway Bell was 333 yards from that house, and of a rateable value of £92. The Swan, in Dover Road, was 347 yards from the house, and the rateable value was £56. The Black Bull, at the corner of Canterbury Road, was 374 yards away, and had a rateable value of £140. There were also three off beer licences in that neighbourhood, one situate in Canterbury Road, 108 yards away from the Wheatsheaf, another, the Alexandra Tavern, situate at the corner of Bridge Street and Alexandra Street, was 122 yards away, and the third, the Sportsman, in Sidney Street, was 187 yards away. The accommodation provided in the Wheatsheaf for the public was inferior to that of the adjoining houses – the Two Bells and the Royal Standard – and also decidedly inferior to the others. The trade had been for some time very small. At the time of his visit, three o`clock on the 23<sup>rd</sup> February, there was one customer on the premises. The licensee`s daughter was in charge of the premises, and stated it was very unusual to see three customers in together, daytime or evening, and that the previous Sunday not eight people came in either midday or evening. He considered the licence to be unnecessary for the requirements of the neighbourhood, as there was, in his opinion, ample accommodation in the houses remaining to supply the legitimate requirements of the district.

Cross-examined by Mr. Haines, the Chief Constable said he had not taken the number of houses in the district served by the public houses. He should not think the number worked out at one on licence to every 953 people in the district.

Mr. Haines mentioned the area he included in his figures of one on licence to every 953 persons.

The Chief Constable replied that it was a rather wide area to take Linden Crescent, Fernbank Crescent, Albion Road and Gladstone Road in the roads served by the licensed houses referred to by him. Answering further questions by Mr. Haines, he said he believed the number of houses to the number of people in the district was the lowest in the town.

Mr. Haines: Do you think if a fresh tenant took the business that he could get a living there? Do you say it would be impossible for him to do it?

Mr. Reeve: I should not like to try it.

The Chief Constable, further cross-examined, said the licence was granted about 1860. He did not know how many tenants there had been during the fifty years. He would take it that there had been four tenants in fifty years. The first tenant, who held it until 1880, was a man who worked every day. No doubt a man of that kind would attract a number of his fellow workmen there, which a man like the present tenant might not be able to do. It was quite clear to him that there was no-one going to the house and no business being transacted, and it might be as well taken away. He thought the fact that the trade had left that house and that there were two houses immediately adjoining, which were doing a good trade, and that house was doing nothing, spoke for itself, and that the others could meet the whole of the trade.

Mr. Haines: Yes, they mat be able to meet it.

Mr. Reeve: They do, sir.

Mr. Haines: Would there be any objection to transferring the licence to another district?

Mr. Reeve: I would be sorry to see this particular licence transferred to any other district. I should be sorry to see more public houses in this borough.

In answer further to Mr. Haines, Mr. Reeve said it was for the Licensing Justices to say whether there was redundancy or not. He had picked that house because there were three houses in that spot, and it had no trade to it.

P.C. L. Johnson said he knew the Wheatsheaf. He had had occasion to visit it on several occasions. On November 28^th he visited the house about three p.m. for the purpose of serving a Poor Rate summons upon the licensee, Mr. Dye. There was no business being done in the house at the time, and there was not a single customer in either bar. On Thursday, January 19^th, at 11.30 a.m., and on February 22^nd, at one p.m., there were no customers. On Thursday, February 23^rd, at 5.40 p.m., he went to serve a summons on the licence holder, and there were no customers then. On Saturday, February 25^th, at nine o`clock, there were no customers. On February 28<sup>th</sup>, at 12.35 midday, he found two customers in the public bar, and they were two women whom he knew to be prostitutes. On March 1<sup>st</sup>, at twenty five minutes past ten in the evening, there were no customers, and on Friday, March 3<sup>rd</sup>, at three o`clock in the afternoon, he found one customer in the public bar. On Saturday, at a quarter past one, there was one customer in the public bar. He had visited the house ten times, and altogether he had only found four customers in the house. He should say the licence was not necessary, as there would be ample accommodation in the remaining houses if it was taken away.

Cross-examined, witness said up to the last year or so he thought the house had done a fair business.

Detective Sergt. Burniston said he served notice of opposition on the licensee, Mr. Dye, on February 16^th, at 1.45 p.m. He explained the notice to Mr. Dye, who said “The house is not required. I cannot get a living”. The bars were empty, and there were no customers on the premises at the time. On the following day at ten minutes past six he visited the house and there were no customers whatever. On the 18^th February, at half past eleven in the morning, there were no customers there, and on the 19^th at 7.40 p.m. the bar was again empty. On February 20^th he was outside the house at turning out time at eleven o`clock, and no-one then left the premises. On the 28^th February at turning out time again no-one left the premises. At 8.15 the previous night he visited the premises, and the bars were empty. In his opinion if that licence was taken away there would be quite ample accommodation in the remaining houses for the requirements of the neighbourhood.

Cross-examined, witness said he believed that prior to the tenant taking the house there was a fair business done at the house. Mr. Dye had a wife and several children to keep, but he had a pension of 22s. a week.

Mr. Haines said he did not pretend to say the business was what it ought to have been during the past year. He pointed out to the Magistrates that all the visits, with the exception of three, by the police, had been after the house was put back. The fact that the police visited the premises so often was not good for the trade of the house. Up to the present tenant going into the house it had done very good business, and there had only been four changes in the tenancy during the fifty years. Mr. Dye was not suitable for a working class trade. He had been a corporal-Major in the Life Guards. In conclusion, Mr. Haines said they had a new tenant who was willing to take the house, and who felt he could make a living there if the Magistrates would renew the licence.

Mr. H.B. Mackeson said his firm bought the house about ten years ago. The barrelage at the house was as follows: 1903, 299; 1904, 249; 1905, 231; 1906, 223; 1907, 216; 1908, 230; 1909, 216; 1910, 173. The spirit trade was as follows: 1903, 85 gallons; 1904, 55; 1905, 55; 1906, 69; 1907, 70; 1908, 92; 1909, 60, 1910, 19. The latter was owing to the Budget.

Mr. Reeve: Are we to put this falling off in trade down to the Budget?

Mr. Mackeson: Yes; in spirits.

George Arthur Hills, foreman to Mr. W. Smith, builder, said he had known the Wheatsheaf for fifteen years, and during the past eight years he had been in the habit of calling there. There was a good business during the time he visited it. He had been in the house after Mr. Dye had taken it, but not just lately. Up to Mr. Dye going into the house, he thought the business was maintained. He was willing to take on the tenancy of the house if it was renewed. He was a married man and would devote himself to the business. He thought he would be able to work up a business there. He applied for the house before it was stood back, and he would have applied for it when Mr. Hill came out of it, only he had had three months` illness. He believed there would be a living for him at the house. He had signed a provisional agreement to take it if the licence was granted.

Cross-examined. Witness said he had no experience of the licensing trade, not since he left school. (Laughter) He was born in the Lifeboat Inn, North Street. He had never heard the reason why Mr. Hill left the house. He believed he would be able to work back the old trade. He supposed it had moved a little further on. The other houses were very often crowded out.

Mr. Reeve: The people have not gone short of refreshment?

Witness: I hope not.

The Justices retired to consider their decision, and on their return into Court the Chairman said the Bench referred the case to the Compensation Authority, and in the meantime they granted a provisional licence.

Folkestone Herald 11-3-1911

Adjourned Licensing Sessions

At the Folkestone Borough Police Court on Monday morning the deferred Brewster Sessions were held. Opposition was offered to the Wheatsheaf, Bridge Street, on the ground that it was redundant, and eventually it was referred to the East Kent Compensation Authority. The sitting Magistrates were Mr. E.T. Ward, Lieut. Col. R.J. Fynmore, Lieut. Col. Hamilton, Major Leggett, Councillor W.C. Young, Messrs. W.G. Herbert, J. Stainer, G.I. Swoffer, R.J. Linton, and G. Boyd.

The Chief Constable opposed the licence of the Wheatsheaf, contending that it was not needed for the requirements of the neighbourhood. He stated that at the present there were within the jurisdiction of the Bench 76 fully licensed houses, 7 beer on licences, and 40 other licences, giving a total of 123 premises for the sale of intoxicating drink in the borough at large. The average, according to the Census of 1901, was 1 on licence to every 369, and 1 licence to every 249 persons. The Wheatsheaf was situated in Bridge Street. The present licensee was Mr. Edward Dye, who obtained the transfer of the licence on the 25^th May, 1910. The registered owners were Messrs. Mackeson and Co., Ltd. The net rateable value was £20. Bridge Street was in the working class neighbourhood off the Canterbury Road. The average net rateable value of the houses in Bridge Street was £9 5s. The Wheatsheaf was originally two cottages, built about the year 1857. It now formed one house of a row, and had a frontage of 27ft. 6ins. to Bridge Street. There were two doors from Bridge Street, one opening into a small, partitioned-off compartment, which was 5ft. 4ins. by 3ft., and had a serving window from the bar. The other door opened into the front bar, which was 11ft. 6ins. by 4ft. 4 ins. on the public side of the counter. On the right of this was an opening into the tap room, which was 22ft. 2ins. by 11ft. 5ins., and extended from the front to the rear of the building. At the far end of the tap room was the scullery, used by the licensee`s family, and the only oven or stove for cooking was in the public tap room. Behind the front door was the licensee`s small living room. This room was 8ft. 2 ins. by 10ft. 9 ins. The yard at the rear was approached by a small passage. There was no cellar. There was one floor upstairs only. On the landing facing the stairs was a small box room, without light or ventilation. On the left of the landing was a long room, extending from front to back over the club room or tap room below, the back portion being used as a bedroom, and the front portion, screened off with a curtain, used as a storeroom. On the other side of the landing there were two bedrooms, one front and one back. The Two Bells, situated at the corner of Canterbury Road, was just 36 yards away from this house, and was a fully licensed house. The rateable value of the Two Bells was £28. On the opposite corner of Bridge Street and Canterbury Road was the Royal Standard, an on beerhouse. That was also 36 yards from the house in question, and the rateable value was £25 10s. The Railway Bell, Dover Road, which was 330 yards away from the house was of the rateable value of £92; the Swan Inn, Dover Road, which was 347 yards away, was of the rateable value of £56; the Black Bull, at the corner of Canterbury and Black Bull Roads, was 374 yards away, and was of the rateable value of £140. There were also three off beer licences in the neighbourhood, one situated in the Canterbury Road 102 yards from this house, another in Alexandra Street, 122 yards from the house, and another in Sidney Street, 157 yards away. The accommodation provided in the Wheatsheaf for the public was inferior to that of the adjoining houses, viz., the Royal Standard and the Two Bells. Indeed, he might take all those he had mentioned, and the Wheatsheaf was decidedly inferior to the others. The trade for some time had been very small. When he (Mr. Reeve) called at three o`clock on the 23<sup>rd</sup> February there was one customer on the premises. The licensee`s daughter, who was in charge of the premises, said “It is very unusual to see three customers in together, daytime or evening. Last Sunday not eight people came in either midday or evening”. In conclusion, the Chief Constable stated that he considered the licence was unnecessary for the requirements of the neighbourhood, and in his opinion there would be ample accommodation left to supply all the legitimate requirements of the district.

Cross-examined by Mr. Haines, who appeared for Messrs. Mackeson and Co., witness stated that he had taken the average population for each licence for the sale of liquor for the whole of the borough. He had not taken the average for the number of houses in this particular district.

Mr. Haines contended that the figures for this particular district were the lowest in the whole of the borough. There were 953 people to each licensed house. Therefore he asked on what ground was this house not needed for the requirements of the public in this particular district?

The Chief Constable: There is no trade being done there.

Mr. Haines: And the statement you give was the statement made by the licensee`s daughter, and not by the licensee? – I have other evidence directly to call in support of that.

May there not be reasons why the business is not being carried on so well as it might be from a financial point of view? – I cannot say that. I am not behind the scenes.

Do you think a fresh tenant could get a living there? – I cannot say that.

Would you say it was impossible? – I should not like to try.

How long has the licence been in existence? – The premises were built in 1857,  and some two or three years after a licence was granted.

Do you know how many tenants there have been? – My book does not go so far back as that.

If I said there had been only four tenants in 50 years, would that be correct, including this present man? – I cannot say that. It may be so. The present tenant is the fourth tenant since 1880.

And the tenant before that had it for twenty years. It looks as if there was some business to be done? – It was formerly kept by a man working every day of his life out of the business, and he attracted a number of fellow working men.

Supposing a working man got in touch with the men of the district, would it not be possible to give satisfaction? – It might be satisfactory, but at the same time I do not think it altogether meets with the requirements of the present Licensing Bench to have a man in charge of licensed premises who was out at work all day long.

What do you put down as the standard of requirements of the neighbourhood? – It is perfectly clear to me that no-one goes to the house, and the licence might just as well be taken away.

You spoke of the requirements of the neighbourhood, but failed to tell me what the requirements were. There must be a standard to come up to or fall short of? – There are two houses almost immediately adjoining. This house is doing no trade. That speaks for itself, and the others could meet the requirements of the whole of the district.

P.C. Leonard Johnson stated that he had had occasion to visit the Wheatsheaf during the past few months. On the 28^th November he visited the house at 3 p.m. and served a summons on the licensee for non-payment of the poor rate. He noticed at that time there was no business at all being done in any of the bars. This year he had visited the house ten times, and the total number of customers he saw in the place on those occasions was only four. He did not think that the licence was necessary. There was ample accommodation in the remaining houses.

Detective Sergt. Burniston stated that he served a notice of opposition on the licensee on the 16^th February at 1.45 p.m. He explained it to Mr. Dye, who said “This house is not required. I cannot get a living”. Witness noticed that there was no business being done. There were no customers on the premises. He visited the house on the following day at 6.10 p.m. There was no customer on the premises, nor was there on the 18^th at 11.30 a.m., on the 19^th at 7.45 p.m., on the 20^th at turning out time, on the 27^th at turning out time, or on the 28^th at turning out time. The previous night he visited the house at 8.15 p.m., and no business was being done. Witness knew the neighbourhood very well indeed. There was no need for this house.

Mr. Haines said he did not pretend that the business was doing as well as it should, because the present tenant did not understand the business. For fifty years or more this house had had a licence, and there had only been four changes, including this man. They had a tenant who was quite willing to take the house on, and he felt confident he could make a living, and the owners felt so too. In this particular district there was only one house to every 953 of the population. The house up to this year had been doing a very good business.

Mr. H. Mackeson stated that the house had not always been connected with the firm of Messrs. Mackeson Ltd. In 1903 the barrelage was 299; 1904, 249; 1905, 231; 1906, 223; 1907, 216; 1908, 230; 1909, 216; 1910, 173. The spirits sold in 1903 amounted to 85 gallons; 1904, 55; 1905, 55; 1906, 69; 1907, 70; 1908, 92; 1909, 60, 1910, 19. The latter figure, he remarked, was due to the Budget.

The Chief Constable: Are we to put it all down to the Budget, Mr. Mackeson?

Mr. Mackeson: I am referring to the spirits only.

Mr. George Arthur Hills stated that he had known the house for 13 or 14 years. When he used to go there it was doing a good business. He could devote his time to the business if he wanted to. He felt sure he could work up the business. He applied to Messrs. Mackeson for the house before the licence was set back. He thought there was a living for him there.

The Chief Constable: Have you had any experience of the licensing trade? – No.

Do you know the reason why Mr. Hall left the house? – I have never heard.

There is very little trade there? – I feel satisfied I could get up a good trade.

Where has it gone to? – It has moved on.

The Chairman, when the Bench returned after considering the matter, stated that they had decided to refer the case to the Compensation Authority. In the meantime a provisional licence would be granted.

Folkestone Herald 22-7-1911

Bankruptcy

In regard to the bankruptcy of Mr. Maurice Edward Dye, licensed victualler, of the Wheatsheaf Inn, 12, Bridge Street, Folkestone, a statement of affairs has been issued. The gross liabilities are stated to be £162 7s., of which £81 2s. ranks for dividend. The assets are estimated by debtor at £4 10s, and the deficiency is put at £87 17s.

The causes of failure, as stated by the debtor, are “Continued ill-health of wife, bad trade and bad debts”.

The Official Receiver observes: The receiving order was made on the petition of the debtor, who was adjudged bankrupt the same day on his own application.

The debtor (aged 46 years) states that he first commenced business on his own account in April, 1910, when he became the licensee of the Wheatsheaf Inn, 12, Bridge Street, Folkestone. It is stated that after paying the ingoing valuation, namely £88, the debtor had a sum of between £10 and £12 left as working capital. He alleges that he has not been able to make the house a success, and became considerably in arrears in respect of his indebtedness to the brewers, so much so that in April of this year he executed a bill of sale in their favour to cover his then account, amounting to £50. Prior to commencing business the debtor had been a lodge-keeper for some years on an estate in Cheshire. He has not kept any books of account, but admits that he discovered his insolvency between six and eight months ago. In addition to the claim of the bill of sale holder for £50, there is another alleged fully secured creditor for £20, the security being the deposit of certain plate. It will be observed from the statement of affairs that no surplus is expected to come to the estate from these respective properties. The debtor was at one time in a cavalry regiment, and is now in receipt of a pension of 3s. a day.

East Kent Licensing

The principal meeting of the East Kent Licensing Authority was held on Wednesday at the Session House, Canterbury, Lord Harris presiding.

The Wheatsheaf, Bridge Street.

This house was among those scheduled for compensation, but opposition was offered by the owners, Messrs. Mackeson and Co., brewers, Hythe, to the house being closed. Mr. Theodore Matthew represented the Folkestone Justices, and Mr. Pitman appeared for the applicants.

Mr. H. Reeve, Chief Constable of Folkestone, stated that in a population of 33,485 there was one on licence for every 403 persons. The rateable value of the Wheatsheaf was £20. The premises were originally two cottages, and the internal arrangements were not convenient for licensed premises. The trade figures given to the justices showed that in 1908 the barrelage was 230, with 92 gallons of spirits; in 1909, 216 barrels, with 60 gallons spirits; and in 1910, 173 barrels with 19 gallons spirits.

Replying to Mr. Pitman, Mr. Reeve said he considered the house was doing a fair trade. He did not agree that the decline in trade was entirely in the time of the last tenant. The fact that the house had only four changes in forty years did not, in his opinion, show a good trade was done. The only reason he could give why this house had been scheduled was that it was one of three all close together, and all the on licensed houses in this particular neighbourhood were superior to this one, and better adapted in every way.

Detective Johnson was called to prove having visited the house on many occasions and finding no customers on the premises. On one occasion he had to go there to serve a summons for rates.

Mr. Pitman: Then you would say he was not a very satisfactory person for a landlord?

Witness made no answer.

P.S. Burniston gave similar evidence.

Mr. Henry Mackeson, a director of the firm of Messrs. Mackeson and Co., gave the figures of trade done as stated before the justices. He added that the house had only four changes in 41 years. There had never been a large trade for spirits, but until this tenant went in there was a fair trade. The present tenant was extremely unpopular, but they had no reason to doubt that when they could get him out the trade would go back to its former condition. He admitted there had been a steady fall in the trade, but considered it was only a normal fall such as had been going on all over the country.

Mr. Pitman contended that it was an extremely hard case for his clients, who were the owners of a 4½ barrel house, and who had got an objectionable man whom they could not turn out, with the result that trade had gone down.

The justices retired, and after a short interval, the Chairman came into the Court and asked for a map of the Harbour area. After another interval the justices returned, when Lord Harris stated that the Committee had decided to renew the licence.

Folkestone Express 22-7-1911

East Kent Licensing

At the East Kent Licensing Committee the licence which was referred by the Folkestone Licensing Justices was considered.

Mr. Matthew appeared for the Licensing Justices, and Mr. Pitman (instructed by Mr. G.W. Haines) for the owners.

After hearing counsel and the evidence on behalf of the owners, the Committee decided to renew the licence of the Wheatsheaf.

Southeastern Gazette 1-8-1911

East Kent Licensing

The principal meeting of the East Kent Licensing Committee was held at the Sessions House. Lord Harris presided.

Objections to the renewals of licences were fought out, with the following result: Wheatsheaf, Bridge Street, Folkestone, alehouse, licensee Maurice Edward Dye; registered owners Mackeson and Co. Ltd., brewers, Hythe. The Committee renewed the licence.

Folkestone Express 5-8-1911

Bankruptcy Court

A sitting of this Court was held at Canterbury on Saturday before Mr. Registrar Furley. Mr. J. Osborne Morris, the Official Receiver, conducted the examinations.

Maurice Edward Dye, licensed victualler, Wheatsheaf, Folkestone (deficiency £87), said he was a pensioner from the Royal Horse Artillery, having held the rank of S. S-Major. He had also been instructor in the Earl of Chester`s Yeomanry. He went to the Wheatsheaf 2½ years ago, but the business had been unsuccessful owing to his giving credit which he was unable to recover. Examination closed.

Folkestone Herald 5-8-1911

Bankruptcy

At a sitting of the Canterbury Bankruptcy Court on Saturday, before the Registrar (Mr. Walter Furley), the public examination of Mr. Maurice Edward Dye, of the Wheatsheaf, 12, Bridge Street, Folkestone, licensed victualler, took place. Mr. A.K. Mowll appeared for the debtor.

The Official Receiver stated that the liabilities returned at £87 17s., and the deficiency was the same figure.

Debtor stated that for about thirty years he was in the Army. He resigned from the Royal Horse Guards about seven or eight years ago, with the rank of squadron-corporal-major, on a pension of 3s. a day. In April, 1910, he took over the Wheatsheaf. The ingoing valuation of the house was £88 6s. 11d, and this he paid in cash out of money he had saved. After paying the ingoing valuation he had about £10 left. He had sold up his home in order to pay his travelling expenses to Folkestone. The public house had not proved a success. He had had no prior experience of that particular line. He had an invalid wife and a family of five. There was a very poor trade, especially during the last eight months. After the house was put back for compensation what few customers he had deserted him altogether. As soon as the police began watching it they went away. Debtor admitted that he had kept no books of account. He had “trusted” beer and had lost a lot of custom through that.

You mean “putting it on the slate”. How much? – About £40.

And you could not sue for it? – No, sir.

The Registrar: it was a very foolish thing to do. – I see that now, sir, sadly.

The Official Receiver: People set up a bill, and then went elsewhere? – Yes, sir.

And you could not find out where they were?

Mr. Mowll: He could not have sued them even if he had. These people did not care so long as they got free beer. (Laughter)

Debtor said he discovered that he could not pay his debts in full about five or six months ago.

The public examination was closed.

(As reported in a recent issue, the licence of the Wheatsheaf was eventually renewed by the East Kent Committee)

Folkestone Express 26-8-1911

Local News

On Wednesday at the police court the Magistrates granted a transfer of the licence of the Wheatsheaf Inn, formerly held by Mr. M.E. Dye, who has been adjudged a bankrupt, to Mr. Hills, a builder`s foreman. The applicant for the transfer told the Magistrates that it was his intention to devote the whole of his time to the business.

Folkestone Herald 26-8-1911

Wednesday, August 23^rd: Before Messrs. E.T. Ward, W.G. Herbert, and G.I. Swoffer.

Mr. G.W. Haines applied for the transfer of the licence of the Wheatsheaf Inn from Mr. M.E. Dye to Mr. A. Hills. Mr. Haines stated that Mr. Dye had been the tenant of the inn for some time, but had become bankrupt.

The Chief Constable asked the applicant whether he proposed giving his whole attention to the business.

Mr. Hills said he would give the business all his attention during business hours.

The transfer was granted.

Folkestone Express 20-1-1912

Local News

The Transfer Sessions were held at the Police Court on Wednesday morning, when the licence of the Rendezvous Hotel again came before the Bench. The Magistrates were E.T. Ward Esq., Lieut. Col. Fynmore, Major Leggett, Alderman Jenner, and W.G. Herbert Esq.

Plans for the alteration of the Wheatsheaf, Bridge Street, were approved.

Folkestone Herald 20-1-1912

Wednesday, January 17^th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Lieut. Col. R.J. Fynmore, Major Leggett, Alderman C. Jenner, and Mr. W.G. Herbert.

Plans were produced and passed for alterations of premises at the Wheatsheaf  

Folkestone Daily News 8-10-1913

 

Wednesday, October 8^th: Before Messrs. Ward, Herbert, Harrison, Vaughan, Swoffer, and Linton.

The tenant of the Wheatsheaf (Messrs. Mackeson`s) submitted plans for proposed alterations, which, with certain modifications, stood adjourned for one week for revision of plans.

Folkestone Herald 11-10-1913

Wednesday, October 8th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Mr. W.G. Herbert, Alderman T.J. Vaughan, Mr. G.I. Swoffer, Mr. R.J. Linton, Alderman C. Jenner, and Councillor W.J. Harrison.

Plans were submitted for alterations to the Wheatsheaf Inn, but the matter was adjourned for a week.