Mechanics Arms 1910s

Folkestone Express 28-1-1911

Wednesday, January 25^th: Before W.G. Herbert and R.J. Linton Esqs.

Mr. J. Lawrence, of the Mechanics Arms, applied for an hour`s extension on the 25^th inst., on the occasion of the dinner of the motor drivers.

The Chairman, in granting the application, said in future the applicant must send down the proper notice to the Clerk to the Justices earlier. It was most unjust both to Mr. Andrew and to the police, and very unpleasant to the latter to have to send for two Magistrates at a moment`s notice.

Folkestone Herald 28-1-1911

Wednesday, January 25^th: Before Messrs. W.G. Herbert and R.J. Linton.

An hour`s extension was granted to the Mechanics Arms for that evening for the motor drivers` annual dinner, but the applicant was told that in future a proper written application must be sent to the Clerk beforehand. The Chairman said it was most unfair to the police having having to be sent round at a moment`s notice to find Magistrates. It was also very unfair to the Justices.

Folkestone Herald 3-2-1912

Wednesday, January 31^st: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Lieut. Col. Fynmore, Major Leggett, and Mr. W.G. Herbert.

Mr. J. Lawrence was granted extensions for the licence of the Mechanics Arms for one hour on February 3^rd and February 6^th, the first for a club dinner, and the second for the Provincial Motor Cab Company`s drivers` dinner.

Folkestone Express 4-1-1913

Tuesday, December 31^st: Before W.G. Herbert, J. Stainer, G.I. Swoffer, R.J. Linton, G. Boyd, W.J. Harrison and A. Stace Esqs., and Major Leggett.

An extension of one hour was granted to Mr. Lawrence, of the Mechanics Arms, on Wednesday, on the occasion of the annual dinner of the taxi cab drivers.

Folkestone Herald 8-1-1916

Friday, January 7^th: Before Lieut. Col. R.J. Fynmore and other Magistrates.

Daniel MaCartney was charged with purchasing a bottle of whisky for a soldier. Defendant said he did not remember anything about it. He was drunk at the time.

Corpl. Charles Frederick Price, of the C.M.P., said he saw the defendant in St. John`s Street on Thursday afternoon about 4.30. He saw Corpl. McDonald hand the prisoner 4s. 6d., and, in his hearing, ask him to get a bottle of whisky. Prisoner said he would do anything for a soldier, and he went into a bar in St. John`s Street. As the door was ajar, he (witness) saw the bottle handed over the counter to prisoner. Prisoner then came out and gave the bottle of whisky to the soldier.

In reply to the Magistrates` Clerk (Mr. J. Andrew), witness said the prisoner was not drunk, although he had had a drink.

Corpl. R. McDonald, of the 11^th Battalion, Canadians, said he saw the accused in St. John`s Street. He told witness that he could get him a bottle of whisky. He said he would do anything for a soldier. He then gave prisoner 4s. 6d., and he went and got the bottle of whisky produced. He had seen the man for a month or two round the town.

P.C. Arnold said that when charged at the station, accused made no reply. He was sober.

MaCartney said he did not remember getting the bottle of whisky. He remembered meeting the two fellows. He was an American citizen, and he did not know the laws of this country.

The Chairman said the accused would be sentenced to two months` imprisonment with hard labour.

Folkestone Herald 22-1-1916

Friday, January 21^st: Before Mr. G.I. Swoffer, Councillor G. Boyd, Mr. R.J. Linton and the Rev. Epworth Thompson.

George John Lawrence, the licensee of the Mechanics Arms, St. John`s Street, was summoned for keeping his house open for the sale of drink for consumption by a soldier, contrary to the Regulations. Defendant, who pleaded Not Guilty, was represented by Mr. G.W. Haines.

Corporal McDonald, of the C.E.F., deposed that on January 6^th, about 4.30, he was in company with Corporal Price, of the C.E.F., in St. John`s Street. He there saw a man named MaCartney, and after a conversation with him handed him some money, and gave him certain instructions. MaCartney then went into the Mechanics Arms, leaving the door open about a foot, and witness saw a bottle of whisky handed over to him (MaCartney). The server of the whisky was behind the counter. When MaCartney came out of the house he was carrying the whisky under his coat. He put it under his coat just as he was coming out of the door. About ten yards further down the street MaCartney gave him the whisky. He and Price then took MaCartney to the guard room, and later he was brought to the police station. MaCartney was in the public house about ten minutes. Witness could not say whether he was supplied with any drink himself. The whisky was wrapped up in white paper. Witness had given MaCartney 4s. 6d. for it. He did not bring any change.

Cross-examined, witness said he knew it was whisky in the bottle. He smelt it. He was not on military police duty at the time. The instructions he gave MaCartney were carried out. The object of getting MaCartney to get the whisky was to have him charged.

Mr. Haines: You incited this man to do what is wrong? – No; he offered to get the whisky.

I put it to you that you went up and asked him to get it? – No.

In further reply to Mr. Haines, witness said he did not know if MaCartney paid for the whisky. He swore that he was not on military police duty that day.

By the Magistrates` Clerk (Mr. J. Andrew): MaCartney went right up to the counter. He could only see a portion of the bar. He only saw one other person in the bar. It was the public bar and MaCartney went in by the main door. Both Price and himself were military policemen, but they were not on duty on the afternoon in question.

In reply to the Chief Constable (Mr. H. Reeve), witness said he had seen MaCartney before. MaCartney then offered to get some whisky, whereupon witness gave him some money, which he bolted with.

The Magistrates` Clerk: When did MaCartney bolt with the money? -  About a month previous to the last meeting. I had known MaCartney for about a month. Witness added that he would not say MaCartney was well dressed. He could not say what age he was either.

Corporal C.F. Price gave corroborative evidence. He said he saw MaCartney put the bottle of whisky under his coat. There was only one person behind the bar at the time. He had known MaCartney about a month altogether. He saw him nearly every day. He had seen previous transactions between him and soldiers. MaCartney on this afternoon came up to them and made a suggestion. It was in consequence of that suggestion that the last witness gave him 4s. 6d.

By the Magistrates` Clerk: They were not waiting for him on this day particularly. They were glad, however to see him. MaCartney entered the bottle and jug department.

P.C. Arnold said he was on duty on the 6^th January at the police station when MaCartney was brought in. At the same time he received a bottle of whisky. He went to the Mechanics Arms, St. John`s Street. He saw Mr. Lawrence, and told him of the complaint which had been made by the military. Mr. Lawrence said he had not sold a bottle of whisky that afternoon, as he had not been in the bar. He then went and saw Mr. Harrington, the barman, with Mr. Lawrence, and asked if he had sold a bottle of whisky. He replied “No, I have not”.

Inspector Lawrence said he accompanied Corporal Price to the Mechanics Arms on Tuesday, the 11^th inst. The corporal pointed out the door of the Mechanics Arms through which MaCartney entered. It was the door of the bottle and jug department. It was a narrow bar, not much wider than the bar itself. The counter faced the bar. He would not think the bar was more than five feet across. Before then he had seen the defendant, and told him he had called respecting a bottle of whisky which was said to have been purchased there for a soldier on a previous occasion, and in regard to which P.C. Arnold had been to see him. Defendant replied “I remember, and I can assure you it did not come from here, as we never see a bottle of whisky”. Witness then told him that from what had since been ascertained he would report him (defendant) for selling a bottle of whisky to a man named MaCartney, who was acting as agent for a soldier named McDonald, contrary to the Defence of the Realm Act. Defendant replied “It is up to my man Harrington. He was in charge of the bar. There were only five bottles of whisky in the bar when he went on duty, and none of them has been sold”.

Corporal McDonald, re-called, said in reply to the Magistrates` Clerk that previously to meeting MaCartney he had no bottle of whisky in his possession, nor had Price one to his knowledge.

Corporal Price, re-called, made the same answer to a similar question.

Mr. Haines, addressing the Bench, said the charge was not of selling whisky, but of keeping open the premises for the sale of for the consumption of liquor for a soldier. The Order said “The premises shall be closed as respecting soldiers”. Of course, since the 10^th inst. another Order had come into force. They had to be satisfied that Harrington knew the whisky was for a soldier. He put it that in this case the man MaCartney was incited to commit a crime. If they wanted an informer they should have treated him properly, and not go and run him in directly afterwards. He ventured to say that the case had not been satisfactorily proved.

Mr. Lawrence, on oath, said on the day in question he was out. He knew of the Order, and he had told the barman not to sell any whisky whatever to a soldier. Also, if a man who looked a bit dubious came in and asked for a bottle of whisky, Harrington was to use his own discretion. He would not allow a bottle of whisky to be sold to a man who was acting for a soldier. After Inspector Lawrence had called, Harrington said he had sold a bottle of whisky to a civilian, but not to a Canadian soldier.

In reply to the Chief Constable, witness said when he went out he left the bar in charge of Harrington. When Harrington replied to P.C. Arnold, witness did not hear him (Harrington) say he had not sold any whisky to anyone.

William John Harrington, the barman, said he was in charge of the day on the day in question. Defendant had given him instructions about serving soldiers and civilians. MaCartney had been a very good customer at the Mechanics Arms. He knew him just a week before Christmas. One day MaCartney came in with a pocket full of money, and he treated everyone in the bar twice. He told witness he was a miner from Tilmanstone, and was on his holiday. Witness remembered him coming in on the day in question. He had a bitter and a pork pie, which he paid for. When he had finished that he came back into the private bar and said “I can`t get to Dover by train tonight, so I am going to walk”. He asked for a quarter of whisky, but he then altered his mind and said “I will take a bottle of “Johnny””. He put the money down on the counter. Witness said to him “Now, is this for yourself or for a soldier?” He thought it was safest to ask. MaCartney said he would take an oath it was for himself. He then gave the man the whisky and took the money. He admitted when the police first came he said he did not sell any whisky. He was so taken aback that he did not know what he was saying, so he made a mistake. MaCartney had never bought a bottle of whisky from him before. He believed MaCartney`s statement.

Cross-examined by the Chief Constable, witness said he did not know where MaCartney lived. He was quite clear he asked him if he wanted the whisky for himself or for a soldier. He paid 4s. 6d. for it. That was the first time this man had visited the house that day. MaCartney was not badly dressed. On the day in question he was wearing a muffler. There was no-one in the bar when the transaction took place. MaCartney paid for the whisky in silver. He was quite sober. Witness did not look outside to see if there were any soldiers outside.

In reply to the Magistrates` Clerk, witness said when he told P.C. Arnold he had not sold any whisky that afternoon he did not realise he was telling a lie. They often sold bottles of “Johnny”.

The Magistrates` Clerk: Did you hear the defendant tell Inspector Lawrence that they never sold a bottle of whisky?

Witness said he heard what Inspector Lawrence said, but Mr. Lawrence (the defendant) did not know what whisky he sold, as he was never in the bars.

The Magistrates having deliberated in private, the Chairman said the Bench had decided to convict. This being the first case of the kind, defendant would be fined £5.

Folkestone Express 29-1-1916

Friday, January 21^st: Before G.I. Swoffer Esq., and other Magistrates.

George John Lawrence was summoned for a breach of the Defence of the Realm Regulations in that it was alleged he kept his premises open for the sale of drink for consumption by a soldier. Defendant is landlord of the Mechanics Arms, St. John Street. Mr. G.W. Haines appeared for the defendant and pleaded Not Guilty.

Corporal McDonald, of the C.E.F., said on Thursday, January 6^th, about 4.30 p.m., he was in company with Corporal Price in St. John Street, when he saw a man named MacCartnay. Witness spoke to that man and gave him some money with certain instructions. The man then went into the Mechanics rms, leaving the door open about a foot. Witness saw a bottle of whisky handed to him by someone behind the counter. On coming out of the house, MacCartnay had the whisky under his coat. He came up to witness and Corporal Price and handed witness the whisky. They were then  about ten yards from the public house. Witness and Price thereupon brought MacCartnay to the guard room and, later on, he was taken to the police station. The whisky was also brought to the Police Office. MacCartnay was in the public house about ten minutes. Witness had given him 4/6 and there was no change.

Cross-examined by Mr. Haines: Witness knew it was whisky, because he drew the cork and smelt the spirit, but he did not taste it. He was in uniform, but he was not wearing his armlet, because he was not on duty. He spoke to MacCartnay because he “wanted to get him charged”.

Mr. Haines: You practically incited the man to do what was wrong?

Witness: No, not at all. He told  me he would get me whisky. Continuing, witness said he saw no money passed in the public house. He had seen the man on a previous occasion.

By the Magistrates` Clerk: He could only see a small portion of the bar. MacCartnay went up to the counter, where he stood for a little while, and then the whisky was handed to him. Witness and Corporal Price were members of the Canadian Military Police.

By the Chief Constable: On a previous occasion MacCartnay offered to get witness some whisky. Witness gave him money, and he bolted with it.

By the Clerk: He had seen MacCartnay only two or three times.

Corporal C.F. Price gave corroborative evidence. He said he had seen transactions between MacCartnay and soldiers in Folkestone. On the occasion in question MacCartnay came up to them and made a suggestion.

By the Clerk: They were not “in particular” waiting for MacCartnay, but they were glad to see him. (Laughter) MacCartnay did not appear to work; witness had never seen him working.

P.C. Arnold said he was on duty at the police station when MacCartnay was brought in by the two corporals. Witness then went to the Mechanics Arms, of which Mr. Lawrence was the licensee. He saw Mr. Lawrence and the barman, Harrington. Defendant said he had not sold a bottle of whisky; he had not been in the bar that afternoon. Harrington also said he had not sold a bottle of whisky.

Inspector Lawrence said on January 11^th he accompanied Corporal Price to the Mechanics Arms. He went on to explain the positions of the door and the bar of the house. The bar was in front of the door. He thought the compartment was about five feet wide; very little more than the width of the door. Witness also spoke as to a conversation h had with the landlord, who said “I can assure you it (a bottle of whisky) did not come from here; we never sell a bottle of whisky”. Witness said “From what has since been ascertained, I shall report you for selling a bottle of whisky to a man named MacCartnay, acting as the agent of a soldier named McDonald”. Defendant then said “It`s up to my man, Harrington, who was on duty. There were only five bottles of whisky in the bar, and they have not been sold”.

Corporal McDonald, re-called, said, in reply to the Clerk, that prior to meeting MacCartnay he (witness) had no whisky in his possession.

Corporal Price also made a similar declaration.

Mr. Haines, addressing the Bench, said the offence was not the fact of selling, but the keeping of the premises open for the sale of drink for consumption by a soldier. He submitted that the prosecution had failed to show that Harrington knew the whisky was for a soldier. If Harrington did not know this, the Bench could not hold Mr. Lawrence guilty. He suggested that MacCartnay had been incited to do this. The corporals saw the man, went up to him first, and offered him 4/6. Where was his profit to come from?

Defendant said he had taken every precaution with regard to the sale of whisky to a soldier or for a soldier. On the day in question he was out on business. Harrington did at first deny that he had sold a bottle of whisky, but afterwards admitted that he had done so, the first statement being made through a misunderstanding.

Cross-examined by the Chief Constable: He did not remember Harrington saying he had not sold a bottle of whisky to anyone.

William John Harrington, the barman, said Mr. Lawrence had given him instructions not to sell to “dubious” persons – persons he did not think fit to serve. MacCartnay, whom he had known since the week before Christmas, had been a very good customer. At Christmas time he had a pocketful of money, and treated the whole of the bar on two occasions. The man`s clothes were good, and he wore a collar and tie. He said he was a miner at Tilmanstone. On the day in question, MacCartnay came into the bar and had a bitter and a pork pie, which he paid for. Then he went out, but came into the private bar and said “I cannot get a train to Dover tonight; I am going to walk”. He asked for a quarter of whisky, but changed his mind and said “I will have a bottle of Johnny”, and put the money on the counter. Witness said to him “Now, is this for yourself, or is it for a soldier?” He said it was for himself.

Mr. Haines: Were you getting dubious?

Witness: I thought I had better ask the question.

You understood it was himself alone? – He said something about some mates.

Mr. Haines: But if he was going to refresh himself with that bottle he might not arrive? Had you any reason to believe the whisky was for a soldier?

Witness: No, sir, or I should not have served him.

As to the reply he gave the policeman, he said he was taken aback when the officer came, and he did not know what he was saying. He made a mistake. MacCartnay had not before bought a bottle of whisky.

Cross-examined by the Chief Constable: He did not know where MacCartnay lived, and had not enquired. On this occasion MacCartnay was dressed in his ordinary clothes, with a red muffler round his neck. When he had been in before he had worn a collar and tie. The man declared that the whisky was for himself, and that he was taking it to Dover. Witness did not look outside to see whether there were any soldiers about.

By the Clerk: When he made the statement to the policeman he did not realise that he was telling a lie. They sold bottles of whisky in the bar. He heard Mr. Lawrence say to Inspector Lawrence that they never sold a bottle of whisky. Mr. Lawrence was rarely in the bar. Mrs. Lawrence and witness “ran the bar”. They certainly had customers for bottles of whisky.

The Chairman (after the Magistrates had adjourned) said the Bench had decided to convict, and as it was the first case, defendant would be fined £5.

Annual Licensing Sessions

Wednesday, February 9^th: Before E.T. Ward Esq., Lieut. Col. R.J. Fynmore, G.I. Swoffer, R.J. Linton and G. Boyd Esqs., and Colonel Owen.

The Chief Constable read his report as follows: I have the honour to report that there are at present 115 places licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquor by retail, viz., Full licences, 71, beer on, 7, beer off, 6, beer and spirit dealers, 15, grocers etc. off, 7, confectioners wine on 3, chemists wine off, 6. This gives an average, according to the census of 1911, of one licence to every 291 persons, or one on licence to every 429 persons.

During the past year 13 of the licences have been transferred. For the year ended 31^st December last, 174 persons (109 males and 65 females) were proceeded against for drunkenness, of whom 129 were convicted and 49 discharged. Of the persons proceeded against, 57 were residents of the borough, 30 members of the naval and military forces, 66 persons of no abode, and 21 residents of other districts. In the preceding year 96 persons (64 males and 32 females) were proceeded against, of whom 64 were convicted and 21 discharged.

During the past year two convictions have been recorded against the licensee of the Clarence Inn, Dover Road, viz.: 5^th April, fined £1 for allowing a child under 14 years of age to be in the bar of his licensed premises; 16^th September, fined £10 for allowing intoxicating liquor to be consumed on his licensed premises during prohibited hours. A conviction has also been recorded against the licensee of the Mechanics Arms, St. John Street, who was fined £5 on the 6^th January for selling a bottle of whisky to a person acting as an agent to a soldier contrary to an Order made by the competent military authority for this district on the 11^th December last. The licensee of the Railway Hotel, Coolinge Lane, was also convicted on the 4^th inst., and fined £10 for supplying intoxicating liquor during prohibited hours, contrary to the Order made by the Liquor Control Board. Three other licence holders were proceeded against, but the cases were dismissed. One unlicensed person was proceeded against, and fined £25 for selling intoxicating liquor without a licence.

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

At a special meeting of the Borough Justices held on 17^th July last, the Order made by them on the 8^th September, 1914, closing the licensed premises and registered clubs at 9 p.m. was revoked, and a new Order closing the premises at 8 p.m. every day, and from 2 p.m. to 6 p.m. every Saturday was made, and approved by the Secretary of State on 30^th July. An Order made by the Liquor Control Board closing licensed premises and clubs, except between 12 and 2.30 p.m. and 6 and 8 p.m. every weekday, and between 12.30 and 2.30 p.m. and 6 and 8 p.m. on Sunday, came into operation on the 10^th January.

I ask that the renewal of the Clarence Inn, Dover Road; the Mechanics Arms, St. John Street; and the Railway Hotel, Coolinge Lane be withheld until the adjourned licensing meeting. With few exceptions, the houses generally have been well conducted.

The chairman said they were sorry that the report was not so satisfactory as usual. Drunkenness had increased. There had been 129 convictions last year as against 65 in the corresponding period of 1914. There had also been four convictions against licensees. They were glad to see, however, that with a few exceptions the houses had been well conducted. The Bench looked to the licensees to continue that state of affairs, and to do all that they could to prevent drunkenness. With regard to the three houses that had had convictions against them, they would be adjourned to the adjourned licensing sessions. With regard to the Clarence Hotel, the Chief Constable had mentioned he would oppose the renewal of the licence on the grounds of misconduct, and they would instruct him also to oppose it on the grounds of redundancy. All the other licences would be renewed.

The Justices fixed March 6^th as the date of the adjourned licensing sessions.

Folkestone Express 11-3-1916

Adjourned Licensing Sessions

Monday, March 6^th: Before  E.T. Ward Esq., Lieut. Col. Fynmore, J. Stainer, G.I. Swoffer, R.J. Linton, G. Boyd and H.C. Kirke Esqs., Alderman Jenner and Colonel Owen.

The Chief Constable (Mr. Reeve) said the question of the granting of the licences of the Mechanics Arms (Mr. J. Lawrence), and the Railway Hotel, Coolinge Lane (Mr. Kent) was adjourned from the annual licensing sessions until that day owing to the fact that the licensees had been convicted. He had carefully considered both matters, but he did not see the necessity of serving a notice of opposition on the ground of misconduct, as in other respects the houses had been satisfactorily conducted.

The Chairman said the licences would be renewed. With regard to Mr. Lawrence, who had been the licensee of the Mechanics Arms for a number of years, the Magistrates were sorry that there had been that conviction. There were very stringent regulations in operation now, and that should be borne in mind. Mr. Lawrence apparently knew nothing about the particular matter at the time, as he left his barman in charge. He did not think that was sufficient for him to do, especially when they took into consideration the short period the licensed houses were now open. He thought the licensee should look after the house himself. With regard to Mr. Kent they advised him to be very careful.

Folkestone Herald 11-3-1916

Adjourned Licensing Sessions

Monday, March 6^th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Lieut. Col. R.J. Fynmore, Mr. J. Stainer, Mr. G.I. Swoffer, Mr. R.J. Linton, Councillor G. Boyd, Alderman C. Jenner, Col. G.P. Owen, and Mr. H. Kirke.

The Chief Constable (Mr. H. Reeve) said with regard to the licences of the Mechanics Arms (held by Mr. J. Lawrence) and the Railway Hotel, Coolinge Lane (held by Mr. J. Kent), he had gone into the matter very closely, and after careful consideration he had not served notices on either of the licensees, who had been convicted during the past year. He therefore proposed that those licences should be renewed.

The Chairman, addressing Mr. Lawrence, said they were very sad to see these convictions, but they had to be very stringent at the present time. From what he could remember of his case, he was not present at the time, and had nothing to do with it. As they were open such a short time nowadays he thought the licensee should put in all his time at the house. Addressing Mr. Kent, the Chairman said the same remarks applied to him. He should be very careful in the future. The licences would be renewed.

Folkestone Herald 25-3-1916

Friday, March 24^th: Before Mr. J. Stainer, Mr. G.I. Swoffer, Mr. R.J. Linton, Councillor G. Boyd, Councillor C. Edward Mumford, and the Rev. H. Epworth Thompson.

George John Lawrence, landlord of the Mechanics Arms, was summoned for allowing a child under fourteen years to be on his premises on March 16^th. He pleaded Not Guilty.

Inspector Swift deposed that at about 7.30 on the 16^th inst, accompanied by P.C. Butler, he visited the Mechanics Arms, St. John`s Street. In the bar he found three woman and a child. One of the women was the mother of the child, whose age was eight and five months. He called the attention of the barman to the fact that the child was there, and he said “I told him to go out just now”. Witness said he should have seen that he did go, and the barman replied “I was busy at the time”. The mother had a glass containing liquor. Later witness saw the defendant, and told him what had happened, and Mr. Lawrence said “I am very sorry. I was away from home at the time, and up at the Camp till eight”. The barman (Tailor) said he was in charge of the premises. The child was in the bottle and jug department.

Cross-examined, witness said the barman said “I told them to take the child out just now”. The mother said she had told the boy to go out several times, but he would not go.

P.C. Butler corroborated.

William Edward Tailor, the barman, said on the night in question he was in charge. Mrs. Jones, the mother of the child, came in and asked for refreshments. The boy then came in, and witness told the child he must go out. He was serving other customers at the time. Inspector Swift came in. He saw the mother come in at the door. The women were alone there at first, and about five minutes afterwards the boy came in. He told the mother the child must go out, and she replied that she was drinking up and was going out at once. He then went into the other bar to serve some other customers. When he returned a few minutes later the women had drunk up their liquor. The Inspector was in the place then.

Cross-examined, witness said Mrs. Jones came in first. The boy could not have been in then without him seeing him. Three or four minutes afterwards the other two women came in. The boy was not there then. He did not wait to see the mother take the boy out. He went into the other bar.

Mrs. C. Jones, of 5, Mount Pleasant, said she went into the bar alone. A woman came in, and witness`s little boy followed her in. She told the boy to go out, as also did the last witness. Her boy said “I am waiting for you”. Just after that Inspector Swift came in. She asked her boy to go out three times.

Defendant said the barman told the boy to go outside. He served the mother when she was alone, but not when she was with the child.

The Chairman said they agreed there must be a conviction. It was the duty of the barman to turn the boy out. They fined defendant £1.

Mrs. Jones, summoned for causing the boy to be on the premises, was dismissed with a caution.

Folkestone Express 1-4-1916

Friday, March 24^th: Before J. Stainer Esq., Councillor Boyd, Councillor C.E. Mumford, G.I. Swoffer Esq., R.J. Linton Esq., and the Rev. Epworth Thompson.

George John Lawrence, landlord of the Mechanics Arms, St. John`s Street, was summoned for allowing a child to be on licensed premises, contrary to the regulations.

Inspector Swift said at 7.30 p.m. on the 16^th inst. he, accompanied by P.C. Butler, visited the Mechanics Arms, and in the bar there found three women and a child. One of the women was the mother of the child, and she gave its age as eight years and five months. Witness called the attention of the barman to the child, and he said “I told him to go out just now”. Witness said “You should have seen that he did go”, and the barman said he was so busy at the time. Later, witness saw the defendant, who said he was very sorry; he was away from home at the time, at the Camp.

By the Chief Constable: The barman said he was in charge of the house at the time.

By the defendant: The mother said she had told the boy to go out several times, but he would not go.

P.C. Butler corroborated.

Defendant called the barman, William E. Taylor, who said on the night in question he was in charge of the house. He saw the boy in the bar, and witness said “You must not be in here; you must go out”. He also asked the mother to take the boy out. He saw the boy about five minutes after the mother came in. The mother said “I am drinking up and going out at once”.

By the Chief Constable: The three women did not come together. The mother of the boy, Mrs. Jones, came in first, and he saw the lad shortly afterwards and ordered him out. He did not wait to see whether the woman took or sent him out. Possibly the boy was in the bar five minutes.

Mrs. Caroline Jones, of 5, Mount Pleasant, said she went into the Mechanics Arms alone and called for refreshment. There were two women in the bar when she went in. Then a woman came in with a jug for her beer, and witness`s little boy followed her in. She told him to go out. The boy had only just come in when the Inspector arrived. The barman also told the boy to go out.

By the Chief Constable: Witness told the boy three times to go out, and Mr. Taylor told him to go out once.

Defendant said as soon as the barman saw the child he did his duty by ordering the boy to go out.

Fined £1.

Mrs. Jones, summoned for causing the child to be on licensed premises, was dismissed with a caution.

Folkestone Express 10-2-1917

Annual Licensing Sessions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Folkestone Herald 10-2-1917

Annual Licensing Sessions

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

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

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

Folkestone Express 10-3-1917

Adjourned Licensing Sessions

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

Folkestone Herald 10-3-1917

Adjourned Licensing Sessions

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

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