Railway Hotel 1910s

Folkestone Herald 6-4-1912

Wednesday, April 3^rd: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Lieut. Col. Fynmore, Col. Owen, Capt. Chamier, Messrs. W.G. Herbert and G.I. Swoffer.

Permission was granted for certain alterations to be made at the Railway Hotel, Coolinge Lane.

Folkestone Express 18-1-1913

 

Local News

At the Police Court on Wednesday the following licence was transferred: The Railway Hotel, Coolinge, from Mr. Lord to Mr. F.E. Kent.

 

Folkestone Herald 18-1-1913

Local News

At a special transfer sessions of the Folkestone Borough Bench, before Mr. E.T. Ward, Mr. W.G. Herbert, Lieut. Colonel Fynmore, Mr. G.I. Swoffer, Major G.E. Leggett, Mr. R.J. Linton, and Mr. G. Boyd, the licence of the Railway Hotel, Coolinge Lane, was transferred from Mr. Joseph Lord to Mr. F.E. Kent.

Folkestone Herald 5-2-1916

Friday, February 4^th: Before Mr. J.J. Giles, Colonel G.P. Owen, Mr. H. Kirke, and Alderman A.E. Pepper.

Frederick Edward Kent, the licensee of the Railway Hotel, Coolinge Lane, was summoned for suffering gaming, and secondly for a breach of the Liquor Control Order Regulations by supplying drink to a man named Shoobridge at 5.45 a.m. in the 26^th ult.

Mr. Rutley Mowll, of Dover, who appeared for defendant, said he pleaded Guilty to supplying drink to Shoobridge, but they strongly opposed the other charge. Taking into consideration the good character the defendant had borne, he asked the Magistrates to only hear the charge on which he pleaded Guilty.

The Chief Constable (Mr. H. Reeve) said on this condition he would ask permission to withdraw the summons for suffering gaming.

The Magistrates allowed this course.

P.S. Sales stated that at 4.45 a.m. on the 26^th ult. he was with P.C. Chaney near the Shorncliffe Station, when they saw a light showing from a room on the ground floor of the defendant`s licensed house. He heard voices in the room and the chink of money.

Mr. Mowll said he objected to that. The charge was for supplying drink to this one man, and the summons for gaming had been withdrawn.

The Chief Constable said that led up to the entry of the premises.

P.S. Sales said he kept observation, and he heard different voices, and he saw one man drink. He was keeping observation at a window, between the blinds and the sash. He could see two men in the room, and saw Shoobridge drink from a glass. Shoobridge, witness understood, lived at 3, Coolinge Lane. At 5.45 a.m. he knocked at the door, which was opened by defendant. He said “Who have you got inside?”, and defendant replied that he had a few friends. Witness then said “Well, I will have a look at them”. He went into the room and saw three men, two being soldiers in uniform, and the other Shoobridge. On the table he saw three glasses, one a pint ale glass, and two spirit glasses. The ale glass appeared to have recently contained liquor. On the stove there was another ale glass two thirds full of ale. The room was the kitchen. He asked what the men were doing in the place, and defendant said they were his friends. He took the names of the soldiers, who were Sergt. Majors Milligan and Laughton, of the C.E.F. He told them he would report them for being on licensed premises during prohibited hours, and Milligan said “You can do what the ---- you like. We know what we are doing”. He told defendant he would also report him. Mr. Kent replied “No, not licensed premises, sergeant. It is up to me, I suppose, however. I always keep a decanter in the kitchen”. Milligan said he was sorry he had visited defendant. Witness smelt the glasses; one smelt of ale, and the other two whisky.

Mr. Mowll made a long speech, in which he pointed out that the summons was for supplying this one man, Shoobridge, with liquor during prohibited hours. It was nothing to do with the warrant officers mentioned, and the line he was taking did not include them. The summons did not charge his client with selling to those persons, nor opening his house. The police very properly had charged the defendant with neither of these offences. There was no sale or opening the house for sale. The charge was that defendant supplied one man with drink, contrary to the Liquor Control Board Order. If that happened in the kitchen of any other house, not a licensed house or club, it would have been all right, and no offence would have been committed. Licensed victuallers, however, were forbidden to give any person intoxicating liquor between certain hours. That was the only charge against them. If the other summons had been taken, they would have been there a very long time. Mr. Kent was entertaining some friends, and, although it was in a private part of the house, the law was very stringent, and it was an offence. It was a very technical mistake. If the charge had been one of opening his premises during prohibited hours, the offence would have been a very serious one. Before the present regulations came into force it would have been no offence at all. Mr. Kent had managed the house for nearly four years in an admirable manner, and he trusted the Magistrates would take this into consideration.

The Chief Constable said Mr. Kent had been managing the house just over three years, and there had been no complaints during that time.

The Bench retired, and upon coming back the Chairman said the offence was a very serious one. Taking into consideration defendant`s good character, he would be fined £10.

Folkestone Express 12-2-1916

Friday, February 4^th: Before J.J. Giles Esq., Colonel Owen, H. Kirke Esq., and Alderman Pepper.

Frederick Edward Kent, landlord of the Railway Inn, Coolinge, was summoned for suffering gaming to be carried on on his licensed premises on January 26^th. There was a second offence against him for a breach of the regulations under the Defence of the Realm Act for suppying drink to a person named Shoobridge at 5.45 in the morning of the same day.

Mr. Rutley Mowll, of Dover, appeared for Mr. Kent, and said he pleaded Guilty to the summons for supplying drink, but certainly not to the other summons relating to the card playing for money. He suggested to the Chief Constable that, having regard to the very good character held by the landlord, that charged might be withdrawn.

The Chief Constable (Mr. Reeve) replied that in these circumstances he would ask the Bench for permission to withdraw the summons for gaming, and the Bench agreed.

P.S. Sales said at 4.45 a.m. on January 28^th he saw a light in a room at the Railway Inn and heard voices and the chink of money.

Mr. Mowll said he did not know whether the officer realised what was the charge before the Court.

The Chief Constable submitted that he was entitled to give evidence as to what led up to entering the premises.

The Clerk: In consequence of what he heard, did ne keep observation on the premises? Put it in that form.

The witness, under examination by the Chief Constable, said he kept observation, and looked through a window, between the blind and the sash. He could see the left arm of one man and the right arm of another man. He also saw a man whom he knew as Shoobridge drink from a glass. Shoobridge lived at 3, Coolinge Lane. At 5.45 a.m. he knocked at the door, which was opened by defendant. He said “Who have you got inside?”, and defendant replied that he had a few friends. Witness then said “Well, I will have to have a look at them”. He went into the room and saw three men, two being soldiers in uniform, and the other, Shoobridge. On the table he saw three glasses, one a pint ale glass, and two spirit glasses. The ale glass appeared to have recently contained liquor. On the stove there was another glass, two thirds full of ale. The room was the kitchen. He asked the men what they were doing in the place, and defendant said they were his friends. One gave the name of Sergt. Major Milligan and the other Sergt. Major Laughton, of the C.E.F. He told them he would report them for being on licensed premises during prohibited hours, and Milligan said “You can do what the ---- you like. We know what we are doing”. He told defendant he would also report him for keeping his premises open during prohibited hours. Mr. Kent replied “No, not licensed premises, sergeant, but still I suppose it is up to me. I always keep a decanter in the kitchen”. Milligan said he was sorry they had visited defendant. Witness smelt the glasses; one smelt of ale, and the other two whisky.

Mr. Mowll said in that case the sole charge before the Court was one of supplying liquor to a certain individual named in the summons. The case had nothing to do with the warrant officers named. He wished to point out to them that the summons did not charge his client with selling to those persons, nor with opening his house for sale. The only charge before the Court was that that licensed victualler supplied one man with liquor contrary to the Control Board Regulations. Might he also point out to them that that was in the kitchen part of the house, not in the licensed part of the premises. It therefore followed from the course that had been taken by the authorities that there was no suggestion that Mr. Kent was breaking any of the licensing laws. If the other summons had been gone on with he would have most strenuously opposed it. It was a curious thing that to what Mr. Kent had pleaded Guilty that day would have been no offence at all in the kitchen of any other house but a public house or a club. Mr. Kent was entertaining his own guests in his own kitchen. The law was very stringent and quite rightly so, now, and he had to advise Mr. Kent that he had made a mistake. He thought they would take the view that it was a very technical mistake. If he was charged with opening his premises during prohibited hours that would be a serious offence. Before the regulations came into operation it would have been no offence at all. Mr. Kent had conducted that house for nearly four years, and it was a house which required a good tenant. He thought the Magistrates would find from the Chief Constable that he had been admirable in the conduct of his premises, and had been all that could be desired.

The Chief Constable said Mr. Kent had been the tenant for three years, and there had been no complaint during that time.

The Chairman, after the Magistrates had returned from consultation in private, said the Bench looked upon that as a very serious offence. They took into consideration the good character of the house previously. They had decided to fine him £10.

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 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.

Mr. F.E. Kent applied that the licence of the Railway Hotel, Coolinge Lane might be transferred to his wife, as he was about to join up. Granted.

Folkestone Express 1-3-1919

Local News

The following licence was transferred at the Police Court on Wednesday: The Railway Hotel, Coolinge Lane, from Mrs. Kent to Mr. F.E. Kent, who had been demobilised.
 

Folkestone Herald 1-3-1919

Local News

On Wednesday the Magistrates consented to the transfer of licence as follows: The Railway Hotel, Coolinge Lane, from Mrs. Kent to Mr. F.E. Kent