Updates

27-7-2013: Sandgate Visitors` List/Sandgate Weekly News 1891 - 1898, Folkestone Programme 1900- 1904, and South Eastern Gazette 1901 - 1905 Reports Added.

Star (2) 1905

Folkestone Chronicle 11-2-1905

Licensing Sessions

Wednesday, February 8^th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Lieut. Colonel Westropp, Lieut. Colonel Fynmore, and Mr. W.C. Carpenter.

There was the usual animated scene as the names of licensees were called out in alphabetical order, and the usual theatrical ring of the burly constables shouting “Get your money ready, please”.

The Chairman opened the Sessions by briefly saying “I will ask the Chief Constable to read his annual report”.

Chief Constable Reeve then read the following:- Chief Constable`s Office, Folkestone, Feb. 8^th, 1905. To the Chairman and Members of the Licensing Committee. Gentlemen, I have the honour to report that there are at present within your jurisdiction 139 places licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquore, viz., full licences 87, beer (on) 11, beer (off) 6, beer and spirit dealers 16, grocers 12, chemists 4, confectioners 3. This gives an average (according to the Census of 1901) of one licence to 220 persons, or one on licence to every 313 persons.

Eighteen of the licences were transferred during the year, viz., 12 full licences, 3 beer on, and three spirit dealers. One full licence was transferred twice during the year.

The orders which were made at the last licensing meeting to close the back entrances to various licensed houses, and to make certain alterations to others, were complied with by the licensees.

Proceedings were taken by the police against three of those licence holders during the year, one for harbouring prostitutes, and two others for permitting drunkenness. The former only was convicted. He has since transferred his licence and left the house.

Two other licence holders were proceeded against by the Inland Revenue Authorities (six informations were laid against one defendant, and three against the other), and in each case a conviction followed, the defendants being fined 20s. and costs upon each summons.

For selling drink without a licence 8 persons were proceeded against by the Inland Revenue Authorities, and two by the police, in each case a conviction being recorded.

For drunkenness, 171 persons (143 males and 28 females) were proceeded against, 156 convicted, and 15 discharged. This is an increase of 17 persons proceeded against as compared with the previous year. One person was convicted of refusing to quit licensed premises when requested.

Six occasional licences and extension of hours on 42 occasions were granted to licence holders during the year.

There are 16 places licensed for music and dancing, and three for public billiard playing.

Eleven clubs where intoxicating liquors are sold are registered in accordance with the Licensing Act, 1902.

The general conduct of the licensed houses being in my opinion at present satisfactory, I have no objection to offer to the renewal of any of the present licences on the ground of misconduct.

I beg to point out that within the area formed by a line drawn from the Harbour through South Street, High Street, Rendezvous Street, Dover Road to the Raglan Hotel, thence over Radnor Bridge to the sea, there is a population approximately of 5,090, with 45 “on” licensed houses, giving a proportion of one licensed house to every 113 inhabitants. I would ask the Bench to exercise the powers given them by the Licensing Act, 1904, and refer the renewal of some of the licensed houses in this area to the County Licensing Committee for consideration, and payment of compensation should any of the renewals be refused.

The houses situate in this congested area which in my opinion should be first dealt with under the provisions of the Act are the following, viz.:- Victoria Inn, South Street, Duke Of Edinburgh, Tontine Street, Cinque Ports, Seagate Street, Providence Inn, Beach Street, Star Inn, Radnor Street, Perseverance Inn, Dover Street.

I would respectfully suggest that the consideration of the renewal of the licences of these houses be deferred until the Adjourned Licensing Meeting.

I am, gentlemen, your obedient servant. H. Reeve, Chief Constable.

The Chairman: The report just read by the Chief Constable is very satisfactory as to the general conduct of the houses, but we are sorry to see an increase of 17in the number of charges for drunkenness, and we hope that the licence holders will assist the police by doing all in theor power to prevent drunkenness, and a decrease in charges during the coming year. As a Licensing Bench we cannot close our eyes to the fact, as shown by Chief Constable Reeve`s report that there are a very large number of licensed houses in one certain area, and as the legislature have taken steps to compensate licence holders for the loss of their licences, we have decided to adjourn the granting of the six licences mentioned in the Chief Constable`s report, viz., The Victoria, Duke Of Edinburgh, Cinque Ports, Providence, Star and Perseverance. In the meantime notice of objection to the licences will be served, and the recommendations of the Justices will be considered by the Court of County Quarter Sessions (Canterbury), and if one or the whole of these houses are closed the owners will be compensated.

Folkestone Express 11-2-1905

Annual Licensing Sessions

Wednesday, February 8^th: Before E.T. Ward Esq., Colonel Hamilton, Colonel Fynmore, W.G. Herbert Esq., and W.C. Carpenter Esq.

The Chief Constable`s report was read (see Chronicle for full report).

The Chairman said the report was of a most satisfactory nature. The Magistrates were pleased to fine there were no complaints against any of the houses. It was, however, an unfortunate thing that there was an increase in drunkenness during the year, and they hoped that the licence holders would, in the coming year, be still more careful in trying to help the Bench and the police as much as possible in keeping down drunkenness, so that next year they might have a better report from the Chief Constable. With regard to the houses the Chief Constable referred to in what he called the congested area, there was no question that there were too many public houses there. By the new Act they were empowered to report to the County Quarter Sessions those houses which they thought were not required in the borough. They would therefore direct the Chief Constable to serve notices of objection against those six houses – the Victoria Inn, the Duke of Edinburgh, the Cinque Ports, the Providence Inn, the Star, and the Perseverance – so that they might report to the Quarter Sessions that those houses were unnecessary in the borough. Of course, if the Quarter Sessions upheld their decision with regard to those houses, or any one of them, then the owner would be compensated. If the Chief Constable would kindly serve the notices, the licences would be dealt with at the next Sessions.

The adjourned meeting was fixed for Monday, March 6^th.

Folkestone Herald 11-2-1905

Annual Licensing Sessions

Wednesday, February 8^th: Before Mr. J. Pledge, Lieut. Colonel Hamilton, Alderman W.G. Herbert, Councillor R.J. Fynmore, and Mr. W.C. Carpenter.

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

The Chairman said that the report of the Chief Constable was very satisfactory, and the Licensing Bench were very pleased to find that there was no complaint against any licence holders. There was an unsatisfactory matter in connection with the report, and that was the increase in drunken persons during the year, but the Bench hoped that the licence holders would be more careful, and so try to help the Bench in the matter of keeping down drunkenness, so as to have a better report from the Chief Constable next year. With regard to those houses which had been reported upon, there was no question about it that in the congested district there was a large number of houses, viz., one to every 113 persons. By the new Act, the Bench were empowered to report to the County Quarter Sessions those houses which they thought were not required in the borough, and they would therefore direct the Chief Constable to serve notices of objection before the adjourned meeting against those six houses. The Bench would then report to the Quarter Sessions that, in their opinion, those houses were unnecessary in the borough. If Quarter Sessions upheld the decision of the Bench in regard to one or all of those houses, those houses would be compensated.

Folkestone Daily News 6-3-1905

Adjourned Licensing Sessions

Monday, March 6^th: Before Messrs. Ward, Pursey, Fynmore, Hamilton, and Carpenter.

Star Inn

The Star Inn, in Radnor Street, was next proceeded against on the grounds of redundancy.

Mr. G.W. Haines represented the owners and occupiers.

The evidence was much the same, and the case was referred to the justices at Canterbury, a provisional licence being granted in the same way.

Folkestone Chronicle 11-3-1905

Adjourned Licensing Sessions

Monday, March 6^th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Lieut. Colonel Hamilton, Lieut. Colonel Fynmore, W.C. Carpenter, C.J. Pursey, and W.G. Herbert Esqs.

Six licences were objected to by the Chief Constable, acting under the instructions of the licensing authority. These were: The Victoria Inn, South Street, tenant Mr. Alfred Skinner; Mr. Minter representing the brewers, Messrs. Mackeson and Co.

The Cinque Ports Arms, tenant Samuel Robert Webster; Mr. W.R. Mowll for the brewers, Messrs. Leney and Co.

The Duke of Edinburgh, Mr. Ralph tenant; The Perseverance, tenant Robert Henry Tracey, and The Providence. The brewers, Messrs. Flint and Co., were in these three cases represented by Mr. Horace Avory, K.C., instructed by Messrs. Nicholson and Graham.

The Star, Radnor Street; In this, the last of the six houses objected to, Mr. Haines appeared for the brewers and the tenant.

In all six cases both brewers and tenants objected to their licences being taken away simply on the grounds of redundancy.

Mr. Avory`s objections were practically the same as those which has been urged throughout the Kentish district, and were on all fours with the advocates` objections who represented the other houses.

Chief Constable Reeve did not in any single case object on the ground of misconduct on the part of the licensee, but purely on the grounds of redundancy.

Mr. Avory K.C. submitted that the congested area in which the six licences objected to was an unfair one. If the boundary on the map were extended a mile, then it would be found that the houses were spread over and serving a large population. It was not a suffcicient ground to take away a man`s licence on the grounds of redundancy without comparing the threatened house with other houses. He seriously submitted that it was worthy of the Magistrates` consideration as to whether any practical result could follow a reference to Quarter Sessions of these cases. So many licences in Kent had already been referred to Quarter Sessions that he doubted whether sufficient funds would be available for compensation purposes. The result would be a deadlock when these cases came to be considered; the Quarter Sessions would either be obliged to hold their hands, or there would be a gross injustice by the reduction of compensation below the proper amount.

After a long hearing the whole of the six licences were sent back to Quarter Sessions for reference.

Folkestone Express 11-3-1905

Adjourned Licensing Sessions

Monday, March 6^th: Before E.T. Ward Esq., Lieut. Col. Fynmore, Lieut. Col. Hamilton, W.G. Herbert, W.C. Carpenter, and C.J. Pursey Esqs.

The Chief Constable said he first of all put in a map showing the congested area. The whole of the “on” licensed premises were marked in red. The area he had marked was from the bottom of the steps leading to The Bayle, across the top of High Street, Rendezvous Street, Grace Hill, Dover Road, along Radnor Bridge Road, to the sea. Within that area there were 916 houses for a population approximately of 4,580. That included 46 “on” licensed houses, giving a proportion of one “on” licence to about every 313 inhabitants. There were also within the area six “off” licence holders. He should also like to point out that within the borough during the past year they had 171 charges of drunkenness. He had found that 94 of those charges arose within that particular area.

The objection against the licence of Henry Tickner Else, of the Star, was the last to be considered. Mr. Haines, on behalf of Messrs. Ash and Co., admitted receiving the notice of opposition, which was on the same grounds as the others.

The Chief Constable said the house was a fully licensed one and was situate in Radnor Street. The present licensee obtained the licence last year. The registered owners were Messrs. Ash and Co., and the rateable value was £20. He repeated the evidence with regard to the number of houses in the area. Radnor Street was 180 yards long, and there were seven fully licensed houses within it. Within a radius of 100 yards there were four other on-licensed houses, within 150 yards there were eight, and within 200 yards there were 19. The licence of the house was objected to at the licensing meeting of 1903 on the grounds of redundancy, structural unfitness, and also that it was used as a common lodging house at that time. The licence was renewed on the undertaking that the house should not be used as a common lodging house, and that the landlord should provide a separate bedroom for each lodger, and also close a back entrance. Those undertakings were carried out. There appeared to him to be a very small trade to the house, and he should say there were very few residents who used the house, and it was quite unnecessary for the requirements of the neighbourhood.

Cross-examined, he said he did not consider the licence necessary because seven fully licensed houses were too many. The man had conducted the house very well. The principle he had adopted in selecting the houses was the business done and the suitability of the premises.

Detective Sergeant Burniston said the trade was very small, and the landlord depended upon the lodgers he got. He did not think the house was required, and if the licence was refused there would be sufficient accommodation in his opinion.

Cross-examined, he thought more houses in that neighbourhood could be very well done without.

Mr. Haines only repeated what the other solicitors had said.

The Chairman said they would have to refer that case to the Quarter Sessions.

This concluded the business.

Folkestone Herald 11-3-1905

Adjourned Licensing Sessions

Monday, March 6^th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Alderman W.G. Herbert, Councillor Fynmore, Lieut. Colonel Hamilton, Mr. W.C. Carpenter, and Mr. C.J. Pursey.

It will be remembered that at the February Sessions the Bench instructed the Chief Constable (Mr. H. Reeve) to oppose the renewal of six licences on the grounds that they were not required for the districts in which they were situated.

The last case was that of the Star Inn, Radnor Street. Mr. G.W. Haines appeared for the applicant (Mr. Harry Thomas Tickner Else).

The Chief Constable put in a large plan showing the congested area, the map being on a scale of 1 inch in 500, and the public houses being marked in red. Taking the area from the Bayle Steps, South Street, High Street, Rendezvous Street, Dover Road to the Raglan Hotel, and thence to the sea, there were 916 houses, with a population, approximately, of 4,580. That included 46 on-licensed houses, which meant one on-licensed house to nearly every 100 inhabitants, though for the borough at large there was one house for every 131 inhabitants. There were six off-licence holders in the area under notice. The Chief Constable stated that the owners of the house were Messrs. Ash and Co., and the rateable value was £20. The house was in Radnor Street, which was 180 yards long, and had seven licensed houses in it. Within a radius of 100 yards there were four licensed houses, within 150 yards there were 8, and within 200 yards there were 18 on-licensed houses. The licence of this house had been objected to in 1903 on the grounds of redundancy, etc., and also because it was used as a common lodging house. The licence was granted on certain undertakings, which were carried out. There appeared to be a very small trade done in the house, and very few residents in the neighbourhood used the premises, which were unnecessary.

Cross-examined by Mr. Haines: He based the requirements of the neighbourhood on the number of residents and houses. The house was being conducted wonderfully well. Witness had selected the houses for opposition based on trade, also bearing in mind the suitability of the premises. The licence of the Marquis of Lorne, in the same street, had been opposed in 1903, on the grounds that it was not wanted.

Detective Sergeant Burniston deposed that the applicant had a great many hawkers as lodgers at his house. There was not a great trade at the house; in fact, it was very small. If the Star was closed, the addition of trade to the neighbouring houses would not be much.

The Bench referred this case also to Quarter Sessions.

Southeastern Gazette 14-3-1905

The adjourned licensing sessions for Folkestone were held on Monday, before E.T. Ward Esq. (in the chair).

Mr. Minter applied for the renewal of the Victoria Inn, South Street, on behalf of the owners, Messrs. Mackeson and Co., Ltd. The police objected on the grounds that the house was excessive. In that district there was one “on” licensed house to every 100 inhabitants. The Bench unanimously decided to refer the house to the Quarter Sessions, granting the tenant a provisional license in the meantime.

Mr. Mowll next applied on behalf of the owners, Messrs. Leney and Co., for the renewal of the Cinque Port Arms, held by Samuel Robert Webster. After hearing the evidence, the Bench came to a similar decision.

They also referred the following licenses to Quarter Sessions:—The Duke of Edinburgh, Messrs. Flint and Co., owners; the Providence Inn., Henry Green, licensee; the Perseverance Inn, Robert Henry Tracey, licensee; and the Star, held by Ticknor Else.

 

Folkestone Daily News 11-5-1905

Local News

We learn that the Compensation Committee at Canterbury appointed by the Quarter Sessions only intend to deal with 11 cases out of the 15 that were sent to them. There were six from Folkestone, five from Hythe, and four from Elham.

The six from Folkestone were The Providence, The Perseverance, The Cinque Ports, The Victoria, The Edinburgh Castle (sic), The Star.

The Committee have decided that there is no need to interfere with the Providence. The objection to that has been thrown without asking for further evidence. The other five will be dealt with shortly.

     

Folkestone Chronicle 13-5-1905

East Kent Licensing Authority

Lord Harris presided at the preliminary meeting of the East Kent Licensing Authority, held at the Sessions House, Canterbury, on Friday, when cases from Ramsgate, Folkestone, Hythe, and Elham were reported.

It was decided that the principal meeting to be held pursuant to the Licensing Rules, 1904, by the Compensation Authority for the East Kent Area should be fixed to take place at the Sessions House, Longport, Canterbury, on the 26^th May, at 10.15 a.m. At that meeting the Authority will be prepared to hear, with reference to the renewal of the licences of the following premises, all those persons to whom, under the Licensing Act, 1904, they are bound to give an opportunity of being heard: Victoria Inn, South Street, Folkestone; Star Inn, Radnor Street, Folkestone; Cinque Ports Arms, Seagate Street, Folkestone; Duke of Edinburgh, Tontine Street, Folkestone; Perseverance, Dover Street, Folkestone; Rose and Crown, High Street, Hythe; Old Portland, Market Square, Hythe; Walmer Castle, Adelaide Gardens, Ramsgate; Kent Inn, Camden Road, Ramsgate; Bricklayers Arms, King Street, Ramsgate; and Albert Inn, High Street, Ramsgate.

Folkestone Daily News 26-5-1905

East Kent Licensing Authority

At the Canterbury Quarter Sessions this morning, before Judge Selfe and the licensing Magistrates, the cases of renewing the licences of the Duke of Edinburgh in Tontine Street, the Victoria in South Street, the Star in Radnor Street, the Perseverance in Dover Street, and the Cinque Ports in Seagate Street came up for hearing.

Mr. Pitman, instructed by Mr. Bradley, appeared for the Folkestone Justices; Mr. Hohler appeared for the Star; Mr. Bodkin for Messrs. Flint and Sons and Messrs. Mackeson; Mr. G.W. Haines for the tenant of the Perseverance; and Mr. Mowll for the Cinque Ports.

Mr. Bodkin raised a point of law as to whether the justices had investigated the matter before remitting it to Quarter Sessions.

Sir L. Selfe, however, decided against him, and the cases were proceeded with on their merits.

Mr. H. Reeve, the Chief Constable, recapitulated his evidence given before the Folkestone Justices. He was severely cross-examined by Mr. Bodkin and Mr. Hohler, but they failed to shake his evidence.

Mr. Tiddy and Mr. Jones, of Tontine Street, gave evidence in favour of the Duke of Edinburgh.

The Magistrates retired to consider the matter, and on their return into court Sir W.L. Selfe announced that they had come to the decision to do away with the licences of the Star, the Victoria, the Cinque Ports, and the Duke of Edinburgh.

These houses will be closed as soon as the question of compensation is settled.

The Perseverance, in Dover Street, was not interfered with at present.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 27-5-1905

East Kent Licensing Authority

The principal meeting of the Compensation Authority for East Kent was held at the Sessions House, Canterbury, on Friday, before Judge Sir W.L. Selfe.

The Folkestone licensed houses under consideration were: Victoria Inn, South Street, licensee Alfred Skinner; Star and Garter (sic), Radnor Street, licensee Henry T.T. Else; Cinque Ports Arms, Seagate Street, licensee Samuel R. Webster; Duke of Edinburgh, Tontine Street, licensee Frederic Ralph; and the Perseverance, Dover Street, licensee Robert H. Tracy.

Mr. Bodkin and Mr. Hohler appeared for the brewers, Mr. Pittman for the Justices of Folkestone, Mr. Haines and Mr. Rutley Mowll for the tenants.

Mr. Pittman having opened the case for the Justices of Folkestone, formal evidence as to the trade done by the various houses and their general character was given by Chief Constable H. Reeve and Detective Sergt. Burniston.

Mr. Bodkin said there was nothing against the five houses except the statement of two police officers that the trade done in two of them was small. The Victoria had been held by Mr. Skinner for about six years, and was used for a particular class of trade. It is used by sailors, fishermen, and railway men. It had a good steady trade, which had been fairly maintained for the last few years.

As to the Perseverance, Mr. Tracy went in last November and paid £180 for it. He had done a fairly good trade, and if now the licence would be taken away the compensation would be very small, and although he had conducted it with perfect respectability, he would be fined the difference between £180 and the small quantum of compensation that the Committee could award. He would ask on what possible basis the Justices selected the house, when close by was the Welcome, against which a conviction was obtained this year and one last year?

As to the Duke of Edinburgh, where the tenant, Mr. Ralph, had been 14 years, and had maintained himself and was satisfied, although it was next door to a fully-licensed house, it attracted a different class of trade, and was of use to the locality.

Mr. G.L. Mackeson, Managing Director of Mackeson Limited, and Alfred Skinner, the tenant, gave evidence as to the Victoria,

Eventually a licence was granted in the case of the Perseverance, but refused in all the other Folkestone cases.

Folkestone Herald 27-5-1905

East Kent Licensing Authority

Yesterday the Special Committee of Licensing Justices of East Kent, to whom the local authorities had referred the licences of five Folkestone houses, under the licensing Act of 1904, sat at the Canterbury Sessions Hall, and considered the reports which had been presented to them, as well as the reasons advanced in favour and against the renewal of the respective licences. Sir William Lucius Selfe was the Chairman of the Committee.

The houses in question were the Victoria, South Street, the Perseverance Inn, Dover Street, the Star Inn, Radnor Street, the Duke of Edinburgh, Tontine Street, and the Cinque Port Arms, Seagate Street.

Mr. Pitkin, barrister, appeared for the Licensing Justices, Mr. H.C. Bodkin, barrister, for the owners of the Victoria, the Perseverance, and the Duke of Edinburgh (Messrs. Flint and Co.), Mr. Hohler was for the owners of the Star (Messrs. Ash and Co.), Mr. G.W. Haines represented the tenant of the Perseverance, and Mr. Rutley Mowll (Dover) appeared for the owners of the Cinque Ports Arms (Messrs. Leney and Co.).

Mr. Pitkin said that at the annual licensing meeting this year the Chief Constable gave notice that he intended to oppose the renewal of the five licences named, and one other, that of the Providence. The notices were served on the people who required notices under the Act, and at the adjourned meeting the Chief Constable and his Detective Sergeant gave evidence, while evidence was also called on behalf of the licensees of the houses. At that meeting it was proved that in the area which the Chief Constable had marked out on the map, namely, from South Street, up High Street, down Grace Hill, to the railway arches, and across to the sae, there were in all 916 houses to a population of 4,580. Of these 46 were on-licensed and 6 were off- licensed. That was one licence to rather more than every hundred of the population, and if that was so there could be no doubt that that was a case in which some reduction was necessary. The renewal authority were unanimous in referring the whole of the five licences under discussion. At the preliminary meeting it was decided that the case of the Providence should not be proceeded with. The Chief Constable would tell them that in selecting those five houses he was guided by the fact that the houses were those which were doing the least trade, and that he had selected in each case one out of a cluster of houses, and that which appeared to be the worst of each cluster.

Mr. Harry Reeve, the Chief Constable, repeated the figures as to population, etc. He said in the whole borough there was one on-licence to every 313 people. During the year 1904 there were 171 cases of drunkenness in the borough, and 94 of those arose within the specified area. The Victoria was in South Street, which was merely a paved passageway from the High Street to the Lower Sandgate Road. The owners were Messrs. Mackeson, of Hythe, and the present holder of the licence was Mr. Alfred Skinner. The rateable value was £24. In South Street there were two houses on one side, and on the other three were adjoining. The accommodation in the Victoria Inn for the public was described by witness, and also that of the landlord. Within a radius of 100 yards of the Victoria there were 18 other on-licensed houses, and within 200 yards there were 34. Witness considered that the landlord did very little trade. There had been four tenants since April, 1894, though the present tenant had been in the house since the 2^nd August, 1899. In selecting that house he had been guided by the principles that it was the house in the vicinity doing the least trade, and was the least suitable for a public house. Dealing with the Perseverance, in Dover Street, witness said that that was an ante 1869 beerhouse, and the registered owners were Messrs. Flint and Co., of Canterbury. The present holder of the licence was Robt. Tracey, who obtained it in December, 1904. In eight years there had been five tenants. The rateable value was £27 per annum. Within a radius of 100 yards there were 17 on-licensed houses, within 150 yards there 29 houses, and within 200 yards there were 39 houses. There seemed to him to be very little trade done at the house. He was past he house a few evenings ago, and saw one of the bars in total darkness, so that it did not appear that they were doing much trade. As to the Duke of Edinburgh in Tontine Street, the owners of which were Messrs. Flint and Co., that was an ante 1869 beer on-licence. The present licensee had been there since 1891. The rateable value of the house was £24. It was a very small establishment. There were 17 other on-licensed houses within 100 yards, 33 within 150, and 39 within 200 yards. Very little business was done at the house, and the holder of the licence went out working a great deal of his time. The Star Inn was in Radnor Street, and there were 63 houses in the street, of which seven were fully licensed houses. The registered owners were Messrs. Ash, and the present tenant was Mr. Else, who had held it since May of last year, being the seventh tenant since 1881. The rateable value was £20. Witness considered that the trade at the Star Inn was very little, the chief business being that of letting lodgings to those of the tramping class. Within one hundred yards there were four other licensed houses, within 150 yards there were eight, and within 200 yards there were 15 other on-licensed houses. With regard to the Cinque Ports Arms, it was one of a block of three licensed houses in Seagate Street. The owners were Messrs. Leney and Co., of Dover, and the tenant was Samuel Webster, who had held it since August, 1901. The rateable value was £24. Seagate Street was 43 yards long, and on one side of the street was a dead wall, and on the other there were four houses, the first of which was a boot shop. Then came the Cinque Ports house, with a stable, the Chequers public house, and the South Foreland. Within a radius of 100 yards there were 21 houses, within 150 yards there were 32 houses, and within 200 yards there were 39 houses, all of which were on-licensed. The tenant was a basket maker, and very often worked at his trade. Very little trade was done at that house.

Cross-examined by Mr. Bodkin: It was from the whole of the Licensing Justices that he received instructions. With regard to the Victoria Inn, South Street, he had no definite knowledge of the state of trade, his opinion being gathered from what he saw as he went by. The licensee had been in occupation for six years, and while the population might not have altered in eight years, the population generally of the borough had increased very considerably. In 1881 there were 18,000, in 1891, 24,000, until last year it was 31,200. It had not increased much of late years, though it had not gone back much. As to the Perseverance, the tenant went in last year, having paid about £180 to go in. He could not say for certain what the trade was, and he had no complaint at all as to the conduct of the premises. No objection had been given to the renewal of the Welcome. He would not consider that the Welcome, during the past few months, was a well-conducted house, and there had been two convictions against it in twelve months, though the tenants in each case were different people. The last conviction was since the last Licensing day. The present landlord of the Perseverance was a very respectable man. There was no complaint against the landlord of the Duke of Edinburgh. The Victoria had been repaired during the last few months, and he believed it was in an excellent state of repair.

Cross-examined by Mr. Haines: The last tenant of the Perseverance was a Mr. Morgan. He had been there for three years, and the previous tenant to that was a Mr. Riddalls, who had been there four years, as had a tenant before him. In the season the population greatly increased in Folkestone.

Cross-examined by Mr. Hohler: The Star Inn was well-conducted, and he had no complaint against it. He could not say that any of the 171 cases were traced to the Star Inn, for, unfortunately, he could not often trace the origin of the cases of drunkenness.

Cross-examined by Mr. Mowll: In 1903 the Magistrates called for plans of the Cinque Ports Arms, and no order was made. The tenant had conducted the house properly.

Re-examined by Mr. Pitkin: Witness had based his opinion that the trade was small at the five houses from his observations. The statistics as to the growth of the town applied to houses outside the congested area. Before the Justices a petition was presented in favour of the renewal of the licence of the Duke of Edinburgh.

Detective Sergeant Burniston said that he had known the Victoria Inn for ten years, and also the other houses, which he had had to visit occasionally when making enquiries. Very few people used the houses. He had served Skinner with the notice of objection, and he had said “I wish I could leave this house tomorrow”. He said that on account of the trade being so bad. The Duke of Edinburgh did a very small trade, the majority of the customers being hawkers. He had visited the houses many times during the day, and had usually found the bars empty. Many times the landlord`s wife had said that she did not make enough money to pay the brewer his rent. Witness knew the Perseverance, and there a very small trade was done, the customers being principally fishermen. Tracey, the tenant, when he received the notice of objection, said that he wished he had not speculated his money in the house, and on a later date he said that he did not take sufficient money to pay the rent. As to the Star, that did a very small trade, the landlord depending chiefly on the lodgers he had. Very few people in the street used the house. The landlord often spoke to witness, and had remarked that he was sorry he had taken the house. As to the Cinque Ports, that also did a very small trade, about one barrel a week. Very few residents used the place. From what he had seen, he would think that it was almost impossible for the landlords to get a living. The houses were not necessary for the needs of the neighbourhood.

Cross-examined by Mr. Haines: The tenant Tracey made his statement after he had been served with a notice.

Cross-examined by Mr. Hohler: The Star was a quiet house, though badly constructed.

Mr. Bodkin submitted that there was under that particular provision of the Act upon which the Committee sat, precisely the same powers as under the old conditions of appeal to Quarter Sessions. He would submit that there must be as careful and as exhaustive an enquiry in reference to the issue to each house as there ever had been under the Licensing Act of 1838. The chief case upon which one must rely in interpreting the duties of the Quarter Sessions was the well-known Farnham case, and in that case a statement was made by the Master of the Rolls, which really gave the key to the whole of the decisions. The Justices in that case formed themselves into a Committee, or appointed a Committee, and after an exhaustive enquiry, made personally by themselves, they declined to select from the houses generally within their area any particular houses which they might oppose prima facie before going round and making an inspection, and so finding out what they considered to be absolutely unnecessary for the requirements of the locality. What they did was decided as being the only possible and fair way of dealing with the question. Instead of giving notice of objection to individual cases selected out of Court, if he might so express it, they gave notice of objection to every single house in their area. What the Master of the Rolls said was “They (the Justices) were of opinion that the only fair and satisfactory way of dealing with the question was to cause objections to be served on all the owners of licensed houses, so that the cases of all of them might be formally inquired into, and for that purpose authority was given to the Justices` Clerk to object to such renewals on the general ground that the houses were not required, and also on the special grounds set out in that notice. That course gave everyone concerned their opportunity, and the Justices had the opportunity of weighing the merits and acting judicially in the matter of which public houses should remain and which licences should be taken. That is one course that might be taken, and it seems to me the reasonable and proper course”. That procedure had not been adopted in that case. It was very far from it. The procedure in this instance apparently had been to adopt the view of a particular official, the Chief Constable, and to instruct him to serve notices of objection solely on the houses which he had selected without giving any opportunity to the occupiers of such houses to show, by way of comparison of trade, accommodation, situation, the state of repair, and matters of that kind, how discrimination by the Justices should be made, and which should be referred to Quarter Sessions. In doing so, he submitted the Folkestone Justices had not followed the proper and legal course. They might have given just as easily instructions to the Chief Constable to serve notice on all houses in that selected area. How was a Quarter Sessions, sitting 50 or 100 miles away from a town, to distinguish between those and other houses in a selected area? A great many of the compensation authority would be absolutely ignorant of the locus in quo. Before any legal decision could be given in reference to any one property, in accordance with the procedure conducted by the Folkestone Justices, it was essential that there should be an enquiry into the needs of the neighbourhood. The case of Howard and King in Parliament was followed by the Raven and Southampton case, in which it was contended that the procedure adopted in the Farnham case was a reasonable one so that the course adopted by the Folkestone Justices was not equivalent.

The Chairman said that he would advise the Committee that the action of the Committee was sanctioned by an action in the King`s Bench Division. For the purposes of that day they would not act under the decision of the King v Tolhurst. If the King`s Bench had considered that the hearing in the Tolhurst case carried the case any further than the Raven case, they would no doubt have followed the decision in the Raven case.

Mr. Hohler said that he had acted for the Justices in that case, and they said that they had not only acted on the police evidence, but they had also acted upon their own local knowledge. The Lord Chief Justice, in his judgement, had referred to that.

The Chairman said the Tolhurst case had decided that the evidence must be sufficient to justify the Magistrates referring the matter to that Court.

Mr. Bodkin asked the Committee to state a case on that decision.

The Chairman: No, certainly not.

Mr. Bodkin said that he had no authority to say so, but he had every reason to believe that that decision was to be appealed against.

The Chairman replied that the Committee could not stay their hands on the possibility of an appeal to the Court of Appeal.

Mr. Bodkin then addressed the Committee on behalf of his clients, and he then called his evidences.

The Star

Mr. Percy George Brothers, Secretary to Messrs. Ash and Co., said that the house belonged to his firm. The average for the last four years had been 131 barrels. The price of the firm`s barrel was 34s. 8d. The licence of the house had been opposed in 1903, but it was renewed on his firm undertaking to do certain repairs, amounting to between £40 and £50. Since then they had spent £15 on the house. In 1903 witness`s firm had a house called the Marquis of Lorne, and the licence of that was refused. The costs in that case came to about £160. The house was free for spirits.

Cross-examined by Mr. Pitkin: A great deal had been spent on the house, and the greater part of the money spent in 1903 was in converting the rooms into cubicles.

Mr. Henry T.T. Else, the tenant, said that he took possession on the 25^th May of last year. In addition to the barrelage mentioned, he sold about 2½ gallons of spirits a week. He took in lodgers, and on an average had nine per week. He received 3s. a week for each. Then the use of a stable brought him in about £5 per year. The rent was £18 10s., and his licence cost him £17 5s. 3d., though this year it had been reduced to £14 10s.

Cross-examined by Mr. Pitkin: Seeing that he had had to keep his lodgers all through the winter, he saw no reason why he should not make a living for himself during the summer.

Mr. Hohler observed that it was very hard on his clients, Messrs. Ash, that that house should have been referred, and all the more so as in 1903 it had been specially considered by the Justices for the same reason it was now objected to, and renewed. Granting that the Court was satisfied that there was an excess of houses in the district, why should it be that the Star should have been selected? There had been no complaint against it. It was also a consideration in his favour that already his clients had been deprived of a house, viz., the Marquis of Lorne. After all deductions the tenant had over 50s. a week profit. He argued that the right house had not been referred.

After retiring to consider their verdict, the Committee, through their Chairman, announced their decision. Sir William Selfe said that in the course of Mr. Bodkin`s arguments on the question of law, it had been said that the procedure of the Justices below in referring the licences for the consideration of that Court was not in accordance with the law. He (the Chairman) expressed the opinion that it was. The Committee had considered each case separately, without regard to any of the other cases that had been heard, and they had decided to refuse the renewal of all the licences except that of the Perseverance, which they would renew.

Southeastern Gazette 30-5-1905

East Kent Licensing Committee

The principal meeting of the East Kent Licensing Committee was held at the Sessions House, Canterbury, on Friday and Saturday. At the first day’s sitting, Judge Sir W. L. Selfe presided.

There were five applications from Folkestone, viz., in respect of the Victoria, the Perseverance, the Duke of Edinburgh, the Star, and the Cinque Port Arms. The licensees were represented by Mr. Bodkin, K.C., Mr. Hohler, Mr. Rutley Mowll and Mr. Haines, while Mr. Pitman appeared for the justices of Folkestone, and Detective Sergt. Bumiston having given evidence, Mr. Bodkin contended that the fact that compensation was now to be given did not affect the question, as to whether a license should be renewed or not, and the onus upon those who came there to prove that a license should be refused on the ground that it was not required was just as great as if they were acting last year instead of in the present year, and he thought it was necessary to bear this in mind because one heard in various quarters views expressed that now compensation was payable, these licensing cases might be got through in as short, and, if he might say so, as perfunctory a way as possible, without any enquiry of any sort, or careful attention given to the interests involved. Mr. Bodkin further argued that the primary duty of the Licensing Justices was that laid down in the Farnham case, viz., that they should personally select the houses which they deemed were not required, instead of leaving such selection to the discretion of the Chief Constable.

All the licenses were refused, with the exception of that of the Perseverance.

 

Folkestone Express 3-6-1905

East Kent Licensing

The Special Committee of Licensing Justices of East Kent considered on Friday, at the Canterbury Sessions Hall, five Folkestone licences which had been referred to them under the Licensing Act of 1904. The Chairman was Sir William Lucius Selfe. Mr. Pitman, barrister, appeared for the licensing justices, and Mr. H.C. Bodkin, barrister, for the owners of the Victoria (Messrs. Mackeson and Co.), the Perseverance and the Duke of Edinburgh (Messrs. Flint and Co.); Mr. Hohler for the owners of the Star (Messrs. Ash and Co.); Mr. G.W. Haines for the tenant of the Perseverance, and Mr. R. Mowll (Dover) for the owners of the Cinque Ports Arms (Messrs. Leney and Co.).

Mr. Pitman said that in 1903 the licensing justices announced their intention of exercising the power which they then had of reducing the number of licensed houses in the area of Folkestone, and especially in the neighbourhood of the Harbour district. In the beginning of 1904, in the King`s Speech, there was mentioned a prospect of the present Licensing Act coming into force, and the justices determined therefore to hold their hand, and nothing was done in 1904. At the annual meeting that year, the Chief Constable gave notice that he intended to oppose the renewal of the five licensed houses which had been mentioned, and one other, the Providence. At the adjourned meeting the Chief Constable and the detective who assisted him in the enquiries made gave evidence, in which they stated that the area which the Chief Constable had marked off was a congested area, there being 915 houses for a population of 4,580. There were 46 on-licensed houses and 6 off-licensed houses, so there was rather more than one licence to every 100 of the population. He did not think that there could be any doubt that in such circumstances some reduction was necessary. The renewal authority recommended that the renewal of the six houses mentioned should be considered, but at a preliminary meeting it was decided that the Providence should not be proceeded against. He might mention that the Chief Constable, in selecting those houses for his opposition, was guided by the fact that they were the houses doing the least trade, and that he had selected in each case one out of a cluster of houses, and that which appeared the worst of each cluster.

Mr. H. Reeve, the Chief Constable, was the first witness, and he repeated his evidence given before the local licensing justices. In cross-examination by Mr. Bodkin, he said he received his instructions with regard to the houses from the whole of the Licensing Justices. With regard to the Victoria Inn, South Street, he had no definite knowledge of the state of trade, his opinion being gathered by what he saw as he went by. The licensee had been in occupation for six years, and while the population might not have altered in eight years, the population of the borough had increased very considerably. In 1881 there were 18,000, in 1891, 24,000, until in 1901 it was 31,200. It had not increased much of late years, though it had not gone back much. As to the Perseverance, the tenant went in last year, having paid about £180 to go in. He could not say for certain what the trade was, and he had no complaint as to the conduct of the premises. No objection had been given to the renewal of the Welcome. He would not consider the Welcome, during the past few months, was a well-conducted house, and there had been two convictions against it in twelve months, though the tenants in each case were different people. The last conviction was since the licensing day. The present landlord of the Perseverance was a very respectable man. There was no complaint against the landlord of the Duke of Edinburgh. The Victoria had been repaired during the last few months, and he believed it was in an excellent state of repair.

In answer to Mr. Hohler, he said he had no complaint to make against the Star, which was well-conducted. He could not say that any of the 171 cases of drunkenness were traced to the Star Inn. Unfortunately they could not very often trace the origin of the cases of drunkenness.

Det. Sergt. Burniston also gave similar evidence to that given before the licensing justices.

Mr. Bodkin said he submitted under that particular jurisdiction precisely the same duty fell upon that tribunal as was upon the Court of Quarter Sessions in deciding whether or not the licences should be renewed. He submitted there must be as careful and as exhaustive an enquiry as to each house as there had been under the Licensing Act of 1868. Therefore it was necessary to say what the law was with regard to those cases, and whether there had been any difference of distinction made between the procedure under that Act to what there was under the earlier legislation. The chief case upon which one must rely as interpreting the duties of the Quarter Sessions was the well-known Farnham case. In that case there was a statement made by the Master of the Rolls which really gave the key to the whole position. The justices in that case formed themselves into a committee, or rather appointed a committee, and after an exhaustive enquiry made personally by themselves, they declined to select from the houses generally within their area any particular house which they might oppose prima facie before going round on their tour of inspection and trying to find out what was unnecessary for the requirements of the locality. What they did was described as the only possible and fair way of dealing with the question, which was just as difficult as it ever had been. Instead of giving a notice of objection to individual houses selected out of court, they gave notice of objection to every single house in the division. The Master of the Rolls then said that the justices were of the opinion that the only fair and satisfactory way of dealing with the question was to cause objections to be served on all the owners of licensed houses, so that the cases of all might be formally inquired into. That course gave the justices an opportunity of weighing the merits and acting judicially in the matter of which public houses should remain and which licences should be taken. That was the one course which might be taken, and it was a most authoritative statement. It was the statement which was made, and it seemed to him (the Master of the Rolls) the reasonable and proper course. That was a procedure which was described as a fair, reasonable, and satisfactory procedure. It was not adopted in that case; far from it. The procedure apparently had been to adopt the view of the Chief Constable, and to instruct him to serve notice of objection solely on houses which he had selected without giving any opportunity to the occupiers of such houses to show by way of comparison of their trade, accommodation, situation, state of repair, or matters of that kind, how discrimination should be made by the justices as to the houses to be retained and which ought to be referred to the Quarter Sessions. In not doing so, he submitted that the Folkestone Justices had not followed the proper legal course. They might have given just as easily instructions to the Chief Constable to serve notices on all the houses in the selected area. How was a Quarter Sessions sitting 20 or 100 miles away from a town to differentiate between those and other houses in a selected area? Before any decision was come to, it was essential that there should be an enquiry into the needs of the neighbourhood and the pros and cons of the other houses by the justices below.

The Chairman: I should certainly say that the course had been sanctioned by the King`s Bench Division in the case The King v Tolhurst.

After further argument by Mr. Bodkin, the Chairman said it was suggested that the course in the Farnham way was a proper way, but not the only way. He ruled Mr. Bodkin`s contention out, so far as he was concerned. The justices below had made a prima facie case out against the houses, and it was for them to answer the case.

Mr. Bodkin asked if the Committee would state a case upon that point.

The Chairman said they could not stay their hands on the possibility of an appeal.

The Star

Mr. Percy George Brothers, secretary to Messrs. Ash and Co., said the Star belonged to his firm, and was purchased by them eighty years ago. The average trade for the last four years was 131 barrels. Last year it was 139 barrels. The house was opposed on the same grounds in 1893, but the licence was renewed upon the firm undertaking to do certain alterations to the inside of the house.

Henry Thomas Tickner Else said he had been tenant of the house since May 25^th last year. The trade was 134 barrels last year, and he had sold almost two and a half gallons of spirits a week. He made a profit of 4s. a gallon on spirits broken down for use. He took in lodgers, and had on an average about nine men living with him. Some of the lodgers were fishermen. They paid him 3s. a week. He also had a small stable at the back, which brought in about £5 a year. The rent of the house was £18 10s., and the licence duty was £17 5s. 3d., which was reduced to £14 10s. last year owing to the back entrance being closed up. The house was rated at £20. If the licence was renewed he was quite content to remain in the house.

Mr. Hohler, on behalf of the owners of the Star, said the trade showed a profit on the year of £138 10s. He submitted the right house had not been referred.

The Committee retired, and on their return the Chairman said he still held that the procedure of the justices below was in accordance with the law. The Committee had considered each case separately without regard to any of the other cases which had been heard, and they decided to refuse the renewal of the licences except that of the Perseverance, which they would renew.

Folkestone Express 22-7-1905

Local News

The question of the amount to be awarded in respect of the licences which have been cancelled by the Court of Quarter Sessions came before the Licensing Committee last week.

Mr. R.M. Mercer, who appeared on behalf of Messrs. Ash and Co., in respect of the Star Inn, Folkestone, expressed his willingness to present his case that day.

Mr. Shea, of Ramsgate, thought it better not to do so.

Mr. Mercer stated that the amount agreed upon was £350.

The Court then adjourned for the presentation of further evidence.