Clarence Hotel 1915 -

Folkestone Express 3-4-1915

Monday, March 29^th: Before Lieut. Col. Fynmore and Colonel Owen.

Andrew Whitehouse, a private in the South Staffordshire Regiment, was charged with being drunk and disorderly on Saturday evening. He pleaded Guilty.

P.C. Johnson said at 7.45 on Saturday evening he was in Dover Road, when he was called to the Clarence Hotel, where he found the prisoner drunk and fighting with another soldier. Whitehouse was ejected by some other soldiers, but when outside he continued to fight and make use of obscene language.

Prisoner said he was very sorry. It was the first crime he had against him, and it was the first time he had ever been in a police court.

Mr. Mooring, the landlord, said on Saturday evening his barmaid called him into the bar, as there was likely to be a fight between some soldiers. He went there, and noticed the prisoner amongst the men. He saw there was a squabble, and he tried to persuade the prisoner to go out. He would not go out, so he (witness) went to see if he could find a policeman. His barmaid refused to serve Whitehouse.

The Chairman said the Magistrates were very glad to hear that the man had been refused drink.

An officer from the regiment said that was the first time they had had the slightest trouble from Whitehouse. There was probably some misunderstanding, and it was very unfortunate that the prisoner got a little too much drink.

The Chief Constable (Mr. Reeve) said that was the first case from the regiment.

The Magistrates discharged Whitehouse with a caution to behave better in future.

Folkestone Express 17-4-1915

Tuesday, April 13^th: Before R.J. Linton, A. Stace, G. Boyd, and E.T. Morrison Esqs., and Rev. Epworth Thompson.

John M. Mooring was charged with allowing children under 14 years of age to be on his premises at the Clarence Hotel during the sale of intoxicating liquors.

The Magistrates` Clerk said that Mr. Haines was defending, and as he was engaged at the Quarter Sessions, he asked for an adjournment till Friday.

The case was adjourned till Friday.

Angelina Sutton and Mary Ann Bradford were summoned for allowing their children, under 14, to be on licensed premises during the sale of intoxicating liquors. They pleaded Guilty.

P.S. Sales said about 6.35 p.m. on April 5^th he was on duty in Dover Road with P.C. Kennett, when he saw two empty perambulators outside the Clarence Hotel. He went into the hotel, and there, in a room at the back, he saw the two defendants with their children, with a glass of stout each. There were several soldiers in the room. He asked them what they were doing there with the children, and they said “We were asked in by the barmaid”. He told them that he would report them.

Defendants said they were asked in out of the rain by the barmaid.

The Chairman said it was a serious offence, but they were going to deal leniently with them. They would be fined 5/- each, and allowed a week to pay.

Folkestone Herald 17-4-1915

Tuesday, April 13^th: Before Mr. R.J. Linton, Councillor G. Boyd, Councillor A. Stace, Mr. E.T. Morrison, and Rev. Epworth Thompson.

John M. Mooring was summoned for allowing a child under 14 years of age to be on licensed premises during the sale of intoxicating liquors.

The Magistrates` Clerk (Mr. J. Andrew) said he understood that Mr. G.W. Haines was appearing for defendant, but he was at present at the Quarter Sessions. He understood Mr. Mooring would like an adjournment.

The case was postponed till Friday.

Angelina Sutton was summoned for allowing a child under 14 years of age to be on licensed premises during the sale of intoxicating liquors. She pleaded Guilty.

Sergt. Stiles said that about 6.35 p.m. on the 5^th inst. he was in Dover Road in company with P.C. Kennett. He noticed two empty perambulators standing outside the Clarence Hotel. In company with P.C. Kennett he went in, and in a room at the back of the bar he saw the defendant and two other women with two children. He asked defendant what she was doing in there, and she replied that she was asked in there by the barmaid. He took her name and address, and told her he would report her for a summons. There was a number of soldiers also in the room at the time. He knew that the room was used as a bar. He would call it a private bar. The barmaid left the room as he came in. The women had three glasses of stout before them. The age of one child was 3 years, and the other seven months.

Defendant said she went in and asked for an umbrella. She was told she had not got one, and asked for two glasses of stout. The barmaid told her to go into a room at the back. She would not have gone into the room, only she was told. There was no-one in the room when she went in.

Mary Ann Bradford was summoned for a similar offence, and pleaded Guilty.

Sergt. Stiles gave similar evidence. When he saw defendant she had a glass of stout in front of her. She said she had been told to go in there by the barmaid.

Defendant said she went in there to ask for two umbrellas, as it was raining. As it was raining the barmaid asked us to go into the room at the back.

Sergt. Stiles, re-called, said the room was used exclusively for the sale of intoxicating liquors.

The Chairman said the defendants knew they had done something they should not have done. They should not have taken the children in. The Magistrates were going to be lenient with them. Defendants would be both fined 5s. each without costs, and allowed a week for payment.

Friday, April 16^th: Before Mr. G.I. Swoffer, Mr. R.J. Linton, Councillor G. Boyd, Mr. E.T. Morrison, and the Rev. H. Epworth Thompson.

John Melburn Mooring, the licensee of the Clarence Hotel, Dover Road, appeared in answer to an adjourned summons for allowing a child under 14 years of age to be on licensed premises during the sale of intoxicating liquors. Mr. G.W. Haines appeared for the defence.

Sergt. Stiles repeated his evidence given in the case against the parents of the children on Tuesday. He now added that he had a conversation with Mrs. Sutton, and sent for the landlord (defendant). The landlord came into the room, and he said to him “What are these children doing in here, landlord?” He replied “They have no business in here”. He said to defendant that the women told him they were invited in there by the barmaid. He said “I am sure they were not; she knows her business better than that”. The barmaid later came into the room, and he said to the barmaid, in the presence of the landlord “These women say you invited them into the room”. She said “I asked them into the passage”. The passage was on the right and the bar was on the left. The room mentioned was mainly used for the purpose of the sale of intoxicating drinks. He would call it a tap room. He had visited it on a good many occasions, and generally found a good number of persons in there.

Cross-examined, witness said it was raining, and he was sure there were three women in the room. There were four bars attached to the premises. There were three drinking bars in the Dover Road.

John Melburn Mooring, the defendant, said he knew the provisions of the Children`s Act. He kept a barman, a barmaid, and a potman to assist. The servant girl, Lillian Wooston, assisted in the bar sometimes when they were busy. He had seen that the Act was carried out, and the notice produced was exhibited in the room. He had got a similar notice up in the other bars. On the day in question he was visiting his various bars. He was at the top bar when someone came and told him the police sergeant wanted to speak to him. He had heard what the last witness had said, and it was correct. It was done quite without his knowledge, and if he had been there he would not have let them in. He had instructed his assistants with regard to the act. It was the barmaid`s duty to look after the bar. His servant, Lillian Wooston, helped on this occasion. His barmaid had been with him for 18 months, and she had been serving for 8 months. It would be possible for a woman to get a drink at the wicket without the barmaid knowing that children were in the room.

Louisa Brook said she was barmaid at the Clarence Hotel, and had been there for eight months. At the time the servant was with her washing glasses. She had received instructions from defendant about not allowing children under 14 on licensed premises. There was no bell in the tap room, and people often came and fetched their drink. She could not see from the hatchway into the tap room. Mr. Mooring generally fetched away the glasses. On the evening in question she remembered two women coming in. They did not have any children with them. They asked for the servant Wooston. She did not serve any drinks from the hatchway, and she did not hear anyone ask for a drink. Wooston was washing glasses, and they were fairly busy at the time. A woman might come to her bar, and she might supply her without knowing that she had any children in the room. On this occasion Mr. Mooring was in the top bar.

Lillian Wooston, the servant, said that at any time she assisted at the bar. On Easter Monday she went into the Dover Road bar. She was washing up dirty glasses. She had no instructions for serving people; only when they were busy. She knew Mrs. Sutton, who was her cousin. On Easter Monday she came into the passage of the Clarence. She asked for an umbrella. Witness replied that she had not one, and then Mrs. Sutton asked for two stouts. She did not see any children. About five minutes later she came back from the kitchen, and said it would not do any harm to bring the children into the passage. Five minutes after she found the police and Mr. Mooring there.

Mr. Haines addressed the Bench for the defence. He said that the master of the house was not liable for any acts done by his servants.

The Chairman said the Bench considered the case was proved, and defendant would be fined £1.

Folkestone Express 24-4-1915

Friday, April 16^th: Before G.I. Swoffer, R.J. Linton. G. Boyd, and E.T. Morrison Esqs., and the Rev. Epworth Thompson.

James Milburn Mooring, the landlord of the Clarence Hotel, was charged with permitting a child under 14 years of age to be on licensed premises.

P.S. Sales said at 6.35 p.m. on the 5^th inst. he was in Dover Road when he saw two empty perambulators on the roadway near the Clarence Hotel. He, with P.C. Kennett, visited a room at the Clarence Hotel, and saw three women and four children. He saw Mrs. Sutton in charge of her child, named Angelina, who was apparently about three years of age. As he went into the room he saw the barmaid leave it. He had a conversation with Mrs. Sutton, and he sent for the landlord (the defendant), who came into the room. He asked him what the children were doing there, and he replied “They have no right in here”. He then told the defendant that the woman had informed him that the barmaid had asked them in, and he replied “I am sure she did not; she knows her business better than that”. The barmaid came into the room, and he said to her “These women say you asked them into this room”, and she replied “I asked them into the passage”. He told the landlord he should report him, and he replied “I did not know they were in here”. A passage from the Belle Vue Street entrance separated the room from the bar, and he should describe the room as a tap room. He had visited the room on a number of occasions, and he had always found people in it drinking.

Cross-examined, witness said the day was Easter Monday, and it was raining. There were four bars in the house, three of them being on the Dover Road side of the house.

Defendant went into the box. He said he knew the provisions of the Children`s Act. He kept a barmaid, barman and potman and his wife and himself also helped, in addition to the servant, Lilian Wooston. In the room was the notice (produced) intimating that no child under the age of 14 was allowed in it. A similar notice was exhibited in all the rooms. On Easter Monday he was visiting the various rooms, and he saw P.S. Sales in the room. What he said was correct. What was done on that occasion was without his knowledge, and if he had known the child was there he should have ordered it out of the house. The barmaid was behind the bar. There was no-one in charge of the room that evening. It was the barmaid`s duty to attend to the room, and a servant was there to wash up and collect the glasses. He had given the barmaid instructions not to allow children on the premises. For anyone in the room to get served with drink they would have to come out into the passage and knock at the wicket. It would be possible for a woman to get a drink at the wicket without the barmaid knowing who was in the room.

Louisa Brookes, the barmaid, said she had received instructions not to allow children on licensed premises, and had always acted up to those instructions. People in the particular room had to come to the wicket in the passage to get served. On the evening in question she remembered the two women coming in, but there were no children with them. They were friends of Lilian Wooston, for whom they asked. Wooston was washing glasses at the time. She did not serve anyone in the bar from the room. Mr. Mooring at the time had just gone up to the Peter Street bar, and was visiting all the rooms in the house.

Lilian Wooston said she was a domestic at the Clarence Hotel. On Easter Monday she was washing up in the bar. She had instructions to serve when they were busy. At half past six Mrs Sutton, who was a relative, came into the passage and asked her if she could lend her an umbrella or a Mackintosh, as it was raining, and her child was outside. She said she had not an umbrella or a Mackintosh, and just afterwards went down into the kitchen. Five minutes later she saw the two women with the children, and she told them to bring the children into the private passage, as it was pouring hard. Previous to that she served the women with a glass of stout each. She left the women and children in the private passage.

Mr. Haines contended that it must be proved that the defendant had knowledge that the children were there, and such knowledge had not been brought home to him. He submitted that the master was not responsible for the acts of his servant if done outside of the scope of their authority and against his distinct instructions.

The Chairman said the Bench were unanimously of opinion that the defendant had committed an offence, and he would be fined £1, or in default 14 days`.

Mr. Haines asked the Magistrates to state a case, as the defendant would probably appeal.

Folkestone Herald 19-6-1915

Friday, June 18^th: Before Mr. J. Stainer, Mr. G.I. Swoffer, Mr. R.J. Linton, Mr. G. Boyd, Alderman W. Dunk, Councillor C. Ed. Mumford, and the Rev. H. Epworth Thompson.

John Tappenden was summoned for refusing to quit licensed premises. He pleaded Guilty.

Mr. J.M. Mooring, the licensee of the Clarence Inn, said that on Monday, about 1 o`clock, defendant was in the bar. He was very noisy, and he wanted some drink. Witness told his barmaid not to serve him. He asked defendant to leave the premises, but as he would not leave the barmaid put him out. He came in again, however, and witness sent for the police. In the meantime defendant left the premises. The police required him to lay information for the good name of his house.

Miss Louisa Brooks, the barmaid, gave corroborative evidence, and said that defendant was the worse for drink. Defendant had been in the bar previously in the morning, between 9.30 and 10 o`clock.

Defendant said he was sorry. He had a drop of drink, as he had a toothache.

Inspector Simpson (acting Chief Constable) said defendant had been there a good many times before. The last time he was before the Bench was in January last year.

The Bench fined defendant £1, or 14 days` imprisonment.

Folkestone Express 26-6-1915

Friday, June 18^th: Before J. Stainer Esq., and other Magistrates.

John Tappenden was summoned for refusing to quit the Clarence Hotel when requested to do so. He pleaded Guilty.

Mr. J.M. Mooring, the licensee of the Clarence Inn, said on Monday the defendant came into the house. He was very noisy, and wanted some drink. He told the barmaid not to serve him, and he also asked him to leave the premises. He would not do so. The barmaid then pushed the defendant out of the house, but he returned, so he (complainant) sent for the police. Tappenden left the house before the police arrived. He considered the defendant had had enough to drink.

Louisa Brooks, barmaid in the employ of Mr. Mooring, said she was in charge of the bar on Monday when the defendant came in the worse for drink. She asked him to leave the bar, but he asked for a drink. She refused to serve him, He got noisy, so she pushed him out of the bar and bolted the door. He, however, struck the glass panel in the door and broke it. Defendant had been in the house about half past nine in the morning, but he only had one drink then.

Tappenden said he was very sorry. He had the toothache and took one more drink that ne hought to have done.

Inspector Simpson said the defendant had been there several times, but the last occasion was in January, 1914, when he was fined 10s. and bound over in the sum of £5 to be of good behaviour for six months. That was for being drunk on licensed premises.

The Magistrates imposed a fine of £10, or 14 days` hard labour, the Chairman remarking that they were determined to protect the licensed victuallers.

Folkestone Herald 25-9-1915

Friday, September 24^th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Lieut. Col. R.J. Fynmore, Colonel G.P. Owen, Mr. H.C. Kirke, and Alderman A.E. Pepper.

John Melburn Mooring, the landlord of the Clarence Hotel, Dover Road, was summoned for allowing intoxicating drink to be consumed on his premises after eight o`clock at night. Mr. G.W. Haines appeared for defendant, who pleaded Not Guilty.

 

P.C. Burniston stated that on Thursday, 16^th September, about 9.45, in consequence of what Corporal Russell, of the C.M.P., told him, he went to the side entrance of the Clarence, in Bellevue Street, with the corporal. The door was locked. Upon his ringing the bell, Mr. Mooring opened the door. Witness said “This officer has informed me that six soldiers and one woman have been on your premises since eight o`clock”. Defendant replied “Not to my knowledge. See my wife”. Mrs. Mooring came into the passage, and he repeated the same words to her. She said “I have taken in three soldiers who are on pass, and they have gone to bed”. Defendant heard this. Witness said he would make a search, and they all four, the defendant, Mrs. Mooring, the corporal, and himself, went upstairs to the top floor. On this landing there were four or five bedrooms, and each was num­bered. He went into bedroom No. 12, ac­companied by the others. There were two beds in the room, and he there found two Canadian soldiers, Pte. A. Baker and Pte. W. Sophie, of the C.M.R., stationed at Shorncliffe. They were lying on the beds; one was awake, and the other asleep. They had their tunics land puttees off. Corporal Russell asked if they were on pass, and they replied they were not. He looked round the room, and found under one of the beds a quart bottle, containing fresh ale. There were two glasses on the washstand, each containing a small quantity of fresh ale, with fresh froth adhering, as if recently drunk from. Mr. Mooring, when he dis­covered these men, said, “When these men entered the room they said they were on pass”. Witness then went to bedroom No. 11, and found the door locked. The door was opened by a woman named Bennett, who was in her nightdress. She was a prostitute. They all four entered the room, and under the bed Corporal Russell found Lance Corporal Clement Tyler. He was not dressed. His uniform was between the sheets. On the dressing table he found a bottle of fresh ale. There were also two glasses close by, and they appeared to have been recently used. There was also a bottle on the washstand, containing whisky. Whilst he was in this room Mrs. Mooring said “This woman has been with me for nine weeks as a visitor, occupying this room, and she must have smuggled this soldier here”. Defendant did not make any explanation. Witness then went to another bedroom, No. 13. He found there a Canadian soldier, who was on pass, he having four days` leave. The two in bedroom No. 12, and the man in No. 11 were arrested by the Military Police. The corporal had a drink from each bottle. Witness said to defendant and Mrs. Moor­ing: "This is fresh ale, and the liquor in the glasses is fresh. How do you account for it being up here?" Mrs. Mooring said: “It must have been left there by the people who occupied the bedroom No. 12 last night”. Witness’s question and Mrs. Mooring's answer referred to bedroom No. 12 only. There was no reference made to the liquor found in the woman’s room. Defendant at no time offered any explanation as to the drink being found up there. Witness then took possession of the bottles. He tasted the ale in both, and it was quite fresh.

Cross-examined, witness said the two sol­diers in bedroom No. 11 did not say they had not had any beer. He appreciated the importance of the froth on the glasses. One bottle of ale was taken out from under the bed, and another bottle from the washstand. He did not know the two soldiers had paid for their room. The public bars of the hotel were in darkness.

In answer to the Chief Constable (Mr. H. Reeve), witness said that in bedroom No. 12 the bottle had not got the stopper in. The Corporal of the Military Police picked it up.

In reply to the Magistrates' Clerk (Mr. J. Andrew), witness said the lance-corporal in the woman's room did not make any asser­tion that he had taken the loom for the night.

Corporal W. Russell, of the C.M.P., said on September 16th he saw that the bars of the Clarence Hotel, in Dover Road, were shut up at 8 p.m. About 8.10 p.m. he saw two soldiers go to the side door in Bellevue Street. One of them rang the bell, and about a minute later the light was switched on, and they were admitted. When they got inside, the light was put out, and the door locked. He continued his observation, and about 15 or 20 minutes later he saw the soldier and a woman go to the side door in Bellevue Street. The light was switched on, and they were admitted. The light was put out, and the door locked. He continued his obser­vation, and next he saw the lights in two rooms over the side door were switched on and off at different intervals. He thought they were the same rooms which he visited later with P. S. Burniston. About twenty minutes later three soldiers went to the same door. The lights were switched on, and the three soldiers went in. The light was then switched off, and the door locked. Altogether after closing hour, he, saw six sol­diers and one woman enter by that side door.

Witness corroborated P.S. Burniston's evi­dence, and added that Mr. Mooring said he had had trouble with the woman Bennett bringing soldiers there before. The woman had apologised and said she would bring no more. He could not see who opened the door.

P.C. Taylor deposed to seeing two soldiers leave the Clarence by a side door about 9.50 p.m. on September 16th. They were hurrying A few minutes before this he had seen P.S. Burniston an the street. He had left just a few minutes before.

Cross-examined, witness said the night was not particularly dark. He had been stand­ing at the corner about five minutes.

Pte. Clement Tyler, of the 48th Highlanders (Canada), until recently lance-corporal, said he was stationed at Sandling. On Thursday, September 16th, he was in the Clarence Hotel, where he met a woman named Bennett. This was about 7.30. After having two drinks each, they left the front bar together about ten minutes afterwards. Later he accompanied the lady to the side door. The woman opened the door with a key, and they went up to a bedroom. When they reached the bedroom the woman left the room and returned about two minutes afterwards with a small bottle of whisky and two bottles of beer. They drank some of the beer, which was fresh. He only opened one bottle, and he did not think the second bottle was opened. Just before P.S. Burniston came in there was a knock at the door. The woman opened the door and picked up a tray with some food pn it. It was a woman's voice at the other side of the door. There was no drink on the tray. That took place about a quarter of an hour before the police arrived.

               

In reply to the Magistrates` Clerk, witness said when he left the bar he was not sober. He had met this woman in the bar two nights before, but did not on that occasion accom­pany her to any other part of the house. He gave the woman no money at all.

Cross-examined, witness said when the food came up on the tray there was only one plate with one knife and fork. He was positive he went upstairs before eight o'clock. The bottles of beer were full. He was quite sure the woman brought two bottles, not one. He got under the bed because the woman told him to.

In reply to Mr. Andrew, witness said his meeting with the woman in the bar was accidental. He had not intended to stay at the Clarence Hotel all night till he had the conversation with Bennett. He did not ask the defendant or anyone acting for him for a bedroom for the night.

Mr. Haines said the case was a serious one, and needed careful handling. Considerable evidence had been given that morning which he knew nothing about. In the event of a conviction, his client might want to appeal at the Quarter Sessions. As they knew, the Quarter Sessions were on Monday, and he would like to have longer to consider his case than that. He asked them to adjourn the case to that day next week after the Quarter Sessions.

The Chairman said the case would be adjourned to Wednesday next.

 

Folkestone Express 2-10-1915

Friday, September 24^th: Before E.T. Ward Esq., Lieut. Col. Fynmore, Col. Owen, H.C. Kirke Esq., and Alderman Pepper.

John Milburn Mooring was summoned for a breach of the Licensing Order, ordering the closing of licensed premises at eight o`clock, inasmuch as he permitted intoxicating drink to be consumed on his licensed premises after eight o`clock p.m. on September 16^th. Mr. Haines, who appeared for the defendant, pleaded Not Guilty.

All witnesses in the case were ordered out of Court.

Police Sergeant Burniston said on Thursday evening, the 16^th of September, about 9.45, he saw outside the Clarence Hotel, Dover Road, Corporal Russell, of the Canadian Military Police. Defendant was the licensee of the Clarence. In consequence of something Corporal Russell told him, he went to the side entrance of the Clarence, in Bellevue Street. The door was locked, so he rang the bell, and the door was opened by Mr. Mooring. He said to him “This officer (meaning Corporal Russell) informs me that six soldiers and one woman have entered your premises since eight o`clock”. Corporal Russell was standing near at the time. Mr. Mooring replied “Not to my knowledge. See my wife”. Mrs. Mooring came into the passage, and he repeated to her what he had said previously. She said “I have taken in three soldiers who are on pass, and they have gone to bed”. He then said “We are going to make a search”. The Corporal, Mr. and Mrs. Mooring and he went upstairs, and on the second floor they went into bedroom No. 12, and found lying on two beds Pte. Alfred Baker and Pte. William Scobay, of the Canadian Mounted Rifles. The only clothing they had off was their tunics and boots. Corporal Russell asked them if they were on pass, and they said they had not one. He looked round the room and found a quart bottle which was half full of fresh ale. It was under the bed. There were also two glasses, which were standing on the washstand in the room, and each contained fresh froth of beer, indicating that they had been drunk out of. Mrs. Mooring told him that when the soldiers engaged the room they told her they were on pass. He had no doubt that the bottle and the glasses contained fresh ale. He went to No. 11 bedroom, the door of which was locked. He knocked at the door, which was opened by a woman named Bennett, a prostitute, in her nightdress. They entered the room, and under the bed, which had apparently been occupied, they found a Canadian Scot, named Lce. Corpl. Clement Tyler, who was in his shirt. Between the sheets of the bed he found the man`s uniform. On the dressing table he found the bottle (produced), which contained a quantity of fresh ale. There were two glasses nearby, and he should say from the froth on them that they had recently been drank from. There was also a small bottle containing whiskey on the table. Whilst in the room, Mrs. Mooring said “This woman (meaning Bennett) has been occupying the room for nine weeks as a visitor, and she must have smuggled this soldier here”. Mr. Mooring made no comment. They proceeded to No. 13 bedroom, and found a Canadian soldier on pass. The three men without a pass were arrested by the military police for being absentees. The Corporal tasted the contents of each bottle, and he (witness) said to Mr. and Mrs. Mooring when on the landing “This ale is fresh, and the liquor found in the glasses is fresh. How do you account for it?” <rs. Mooring said “It must have been left there by the people who occupied the bedroom (No. 12) last night”. No reference was made to the drink found in the other rooms. He took possession of the bottles of drink. He did the same as the Corporal with regard to the tasting of the ale, which was quite fresh.

Cross-examined by Mr. Haines, witness said the two men did not give any explanation of the drink being in the room. He did not know the two soldiers had paid for the room. The public bars of the hotel were in darkness, and he should say business was not going on in them.

Questioned by the Clerk, Sergt. Burniston said the soldier in the room No. 13 made no assertion that he had taken the room for the night.

Corporal William Russell, Canadian Military Police, said on Thursday, September 16^th, he saw the bars of the hotel closed at eight o`clock. About ten minutes past eight he saw two soldiers go to the side door of the hotel in Bellevue Street. One of them rang the bell, and a minute later the door was opened and they were admitted. Afterwards the lights were switched off and the door was locked. About fifteen or twenty minutes after, a soldier and a woman went to the side door and rang the bell. They were admitted and the door was locked after them. The next thing he saw was the lights in the two rooms above the side door were switched on and off several times. He could not swear whether those were the same rooms he visited later with Sergt. Burniston. Twenty minutes after the woman and soldier entered, three more soldiers went to the door and were admitted. Altogether he saw six soldiers and one woman enter the house after closing time. At a quarter to ten, until which time he kept observation on the house, he saw Sergt. Burniston, with whom he went to the house. Witness then corroborated the Sergeant`s evidence. He further stated that in the course of the conversation Mr. Mooring said that they had had trouble with the woman bringing a soldier there before, and she had apologised for doing so, and said it would not occur again. He did not know who opened the side door when the soldiers went there.

P,C, aylor said on Thursday evening, September 16^th, at about 9.50, he was standing in Bellevue Street, opposite the Upper Clarence Tap, where there was a public bar, when he saw the door opened to two soldiers dressed in khaki come out and hurry towards the Dover Road. A few minutes previously he had left Sergt. Burniston in Bellevue Street.

Cross-examined, witness said he had no idea Sergt. Burniston was going to search the premises.

Clement Tyler, a private in the 48^th Battalion, said until recently he was lance-corporal. On Thursday, September 16^th, he was in teh Clarence Hotel, where he met a woman named Bennett in the bar about half past seven. They probably had two drinks. They left the front bar together ten minutes later, and went to the side entrance. The woman opened the door, and they went upstairs to a bedroom. Directly after they got into the room the woman went out, and was away about two minutes, returning with a small bottle of whiskey, similar to the one produced, and two quart bottles of beer. He drank some whiskey and beer, and the latter was fresh. He only opened one bottle of beer, and he did not think the other one was opened. Before the police came someone knocked at the door, and he heard a woman`s voice. The woman Bennett got out of bed and opened the door, and she then brought a tray containing some meat and tomatoes and bread, which she consumed. There was no drink on the tray. That was about a quarter of an hour before the police came.

In reply to the Clerk, witness said when he left the bar he was the worse for drink. Two nights before he met the woman in the house, but he did not go to any other part of the house. He left the bar with the woman before closing time. He gave the woman no money at all.

Cross-examined by Mr. Haines, witness said that only one plate was put on the tray, and only one knife and fork. He was positive that he did not mistake one bottle for two, although he was not sober. (Laughter)

The Clerk: What made you get under the bed?

Witness: The woman told me to.

Had you any intention to stay for the night in the hotel until you met the woman? – No.

Answering further questions, witness said he saw Mr. Mooring in the bar, but he did not ask him if he could have a bed there for the night.

Mr. G.W. Haines said that was a most serious case to his client, and it might involve, if the Magistrates convicted, some legal points being considered so that the defendant could appeal. The Quarter Sessions were fixed for Monday, which would only allow a few days. Therefore he asked the Magistrates to adjourn the case until after the Quarter Sessions.

The case was then adjourned until Wednesday.

On Wednesday, E.T. Ward Esq. and other Magistrates sat for over two hours hearing the evidence for the defence.

Mr. Mooring was the first witness called. He said he knew of the Suspension Order, by which a licence holder was not allowed to sell intoxicating liquors or allow the consumption of them after eight o`clock. He had given all his employees instructions not to sell or serve anyone after eight o`clock, and he always closed his premises at that hour. On September 16^th his son, his wife and himself were working in the lower bar, and his barman was engaged in the upper bar in Bellevue Street. His wife managed the hotel portion of his business. There were seven bedrooms altogether for letting. He closed the doors on September 16^th at eight o`clock. Shortly after eight o`clock he answered the door, he believed, to a soldier, who had arranged with his wife to have a room in the house. He let the man go upstairs by himself. He believed that was the only time he answered the door that night. After eight o`clock he supplied no-one in the house with any intoxicating liquor of any kind. He supplied beer in half pint, pint and quart bottles, but on that particular night he did not do so, for he had ran short, and he was sold out of bottled beer of every description.

In reply to the Clerk, the defendant said the bottles produced were Messrs. Mackeson`s, but there was nothing on them to show whether they were from his stock.

Defendant further stated that the woman Bennett had occupied a room in the house for about seven or eight weeks. She had no occupation. She left on September 17^th. She had occupied the room in which she was found for six or seven weeks. She said she was the wife of an invalided soldier, and she had only occupied the room one night with a man, who, he understood, was her husband. She paid 14/- a week for the room, and paid in addition for her breakfast and supper, which she had on the premises. He was in the bar from six o`clock on September 16<sup>th</sup>. The woman Bennett came in between seven and seven thirty, but he could not say with whom she was sitting. He did not notice Private Tyler there at all. He did not see Bennett leave the bar, so he could not say what time she left. Tyler was not the woman`s husband, and not the man who had occupied the room with her on a previous occasion. His barmaid did not serve any drink that evening. Dinners were supplied in the hotel, but there was not a separate hotel bar to the place. He did not admit more than one soldier, and he was not quite sure whether he had admitted him. After closing time he was down in the cellar for about half an hour. After the washing up was done he did his accounts in a little room nearer Ramell`s. He heard the bell at the side door ring between eight and nine once or twice. He did not go to the door to answer the ring. He did not think he let Sergt. Burniston or Corporal Russell into the house. He did not know that the woman Bennett was in the house before the arrival of the police. He did not think anyone could get any drink from the bar without him knowing it after eight o`clock, because he locked the door. His wife and son could not have served any drink before nine o`clock.

Cross-examined by the Chief Constable, defendant said the barman locked the door of the upper bar in Bellevue Street at about twenty minutes past eight. There was access from the landing where the bedrooms were to the upper bar without going downstairs at all. Therefore, if he (defendant) was downstairs he would not know what was going on upstairs. He did not give the officers any explanation of the two bottles of beer found in the bedrooms, and he could give no explanation that day.

Re-examined, defendant said the rooms were frequently let, and the house was very often full up.

Replying to the Chairman, Mr. Mooring said he kept no account or register of his lodgers. In addition to the people mentioned in the house they had a lady friend staying with them. Two of the rooms were double-bedded.

Mrs. Amy Mooring, the wife of the defendant, said she mostly attended to the hotel part of the business. She had good cause to remember September 16^th. In the morning two cyclists, one of whom was a middle-aged man, and the other a young man, came into the hotel between ten and eleven. They said they had come from somewhere near London, and asked if they could have a bedroom, as they were going to stay the night. The elderly man expressed himself as being overdone, and wanted a rest. He thereupon went up to his bedroom, which was the room where the two soldiers were found. It was in the front of the house, and was known as the blue room because of the blue carpet. The younger man went out and bought some postcards, returning sometime in the afternoon. He then asked for a bottle of beer, and she gave him a quart bottle of Mackeson`s. He also had two glasses, and she thought perhaps he took it upstairs to his friend. Later the younger man said his friend felt much better and they would go on to Dymchurch instead of staying the night. They left between six and seven o`clock. She did not go into the bedroom afterwards. The barmaid, who assisted her in the housework, did not go into the room, for it was her afternoon out. Her only suggestion for the bottle and the two glasses being found in the room was that they were left there by the two cyclists. She served no-one with drink after eight o`clock on the 16<sup>th</sup>. The side door was generally locked, or they would have soldiers walking in. Mrs. Bennett nor anyone else had a key. After eight o`clock she was engaged in washing up and answering the door. There were two rooms over the side door, one of which was the room in which they lived. She went in and out of that room, and switched the light on and off several times after eight o`clock. A little after eight o`clock she heard the bell ring, so she went to the door. She then saw the two soldiers who were found in the room. They asked her if she could put them up for the night. She said she could, and they paid her 4/- in advance. They then asked her where they could get supper, and she directed them to Tontine Street. They then went out of the house again within three minutes. They might have been gone an hour before they returned. She answered the bell again. They asked her if they could have some cigarettes, and she got them from the bar. She asked them if they were on pass, and one of them said “Would you like to see it?”, and put his hand up to his pocket. She replied “I have not my glasses, but I will trust to your honesty”. She thought he had a pass. She did not show them to their room, because they said they had been there before, and that it was the room with two beds in. She thought they were going into the back bedroom. Later, she answered the door to a soldier with a red cross on his arm. She opened the door to the soldiers, and her husband had nothing to do with it. The last soldier had a pass. He asked if she had a room to let, and she eventually showed him to the room. It was not until then that she found the other soldiers were in the front room. She also let a woman in who was helping her to do the work, but she did not remember the time exactly. She only had three soldiers come in the house, and two of them went out and returned again. With regard to Mrs. Bennett, she called out and asked her if she could have some supper, so she took it up to her. That was about half past eight. Mrs. Bennett generally occupied the next door to the blue room, and they generally called it the white room. Mrs. Bennett generally came in about nine o`clock, but when she had her supper it all depended on the time she came in. She did not see Mrs. Bennett on that particular night for she called over the banisters to know if she could have some supper.

Mr. Haines: Did she say for how many?

Mrs. Mooring: I took it up for one. I did not expect there was anyone else there.

What did she say when you went upstairs with her supper? – When I knocked at the door, she shouted “It`s all right; put it down”, so I put it down.

Where did you put it? – On the mat outside.

How long after that did the police arrive? – About half an hour.

Did you sell or serve any intoxicants that night after eight o`clock? – No-one asked for it.

The Chairman: Did you let Mrs. Bennett in that night?

Witness: No, I did not.

Answering the Clerk, Mrs. Mooring said she had not seen Bennett or Lance Corpl. Tyler in the bar before closing time. Mrs. Bennett very seldom had anything to drink with her supper. She did not open the door of the room when she took the supper up to her. She had no knowledge whatever that there was anyone in the room with Mrs. Bennett. She did not know that Bennett was in the house until she called for her supper. The door of the bar was locked by Mr. Mooring, who had the key. When she got the cigarettes for the soldiers the key was in the door. There was no-one else in the house in addition to Mr. Mooring and herself. The barman left the house about a quarter past eight. He returned about half past nine or ten. She did not know whether he was in the house when the police arrived. Her son went out about ten minutes past eight, and returned about ten o`clock. She knew nothing about the two bottles of Mackeson`s ale.

Can you account for one of them being found in Bennett`s bedroom? – She had one sometimes in the morning.

What about the bottle of whiskey? – I do not know anything about that at all.

Replying to further questions by the Clerk, Mrs. Mooring said she used the words to the Sergeant “She (Bennett) must have smuggled the soldier in”.

Cross-examined by Mr. Reeve, witness said sometimes Mrs. Bennett had a pint bottle, but at others had a quart bottle of ale. She thought she had last served Bennett with a quart bottle on the morning of the 16^th. Mrs. Bennett always paid for her drink on delivery. She always paid for her lodgings a week in advance. She paid for her supper when she had breakfast next morning. She simply paid 14/- a week for her bedroom. She never had dinner or tea in the house. She did not know Bennett was in the house till she called her for supper. She was sure she was in before closing time, because she could not have got in without her (witness) seeing her, as the door was locked and she had no key. The last time she had seen Mrs. Bennett that day was when she served her with the bottle of beer. The reason she had a quart bottle that day was because they had no pints in stock. She could not say when the woman took the bottle of beer up to her room. She swore that Bennett and the soldier that night were not let in by the door after closing time, for no-one answered the door but herself that night. Mrs. Bennett could have got out from her room to the bar in Bellevue Street without witness knowing it. She did admit a woman – Mrs. Blakey – who was helping her to do the work. That woman had been staying in the house from the previous Wednesday, the 15^th. She was a woman about 50 years old, and could not very well be mistaken for Mrs. Bennett. Before the police came she also admitted a French madame, who was lodging with them. She did not know the madame`s name, for she never gave it to her. She had been staying with witness several weeks, and she stayed in the house on the 16^th. When the woman came to the house first she asked her to fill up the usual form, but madame replied that she had been up to the Town Hall, and it was not necessary for her to fill up the form as they knew where she was coming. Gefore she left she gave her the form to fill up, and she said she would, but she went away without doing so. The woman was about 33 years of age. That woman had room No. 10, and it looked into Bellevue Street. She entered the house between eight and nine. The two cyclists were strangers to her. She showed them up to their bedroom. The bottle of beer was taken upstairs about five or half past, and the man left the house between six and seven.

The Chief Constable: Are you certain the younger man took the bottle upstairs?

Witness: I am not sure about it.

Proceeding to reply to the Chief Constable, witness said she saw a glass in Mrs. Bennett`s room. She was not quite whether she picked it up and emptied the contents in the wash bowl. She saw the glasses in the blue room, and froth was adhering to them. Froth sometimes hung around glass for a long time. She told the police that the beer and glasses must have been left in the room by some cyclists who came for the night. She was positive she told the police officer about the cyclists being in that room.

Questioned by the Clerk, Mrs. Mooring said she did not think they had a bottle like the small whiskey bottle like the small whiskey bottle, which was not one of theirs. Mrs. Bennett drank whiskey, and she (witness) had often sold her whiskey in a bottle, but not of the shape like that. Mrs. Bennett told her she had the whiskey because she did not feel well in the night. She was absolutely certain she did not sell her any whiskey that day.

Mr. Haines argued that the prosecution had not proved their case. The onus was on them to prove that the defendant had sold the drink, and that it was consumed after eight o`clock. He contended strongly they had not done so.

The Magistrates retired, and on their return the Chairman said the Bench had very carefully considered the case, which was one of some difficulty, but they thought there must be a conviction.

The Chief Constable (Mr. Reeve) said the defendant was summoned on April 16^th for allowing a child to be on licensed premises, and was fined £1.

The Chairman said in that case the penalty would be £10, leviable by distress, or a month`s imprisonment.

Folkestone Herald 2-10-1915

Wednesday, September 29^th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Lieut. Colonel R.J. Fynmore, Colonel G.P. Owen, Mr. H.C. Kirke, the Rev. H. Epworth Thompson, and Alderman A.E. Pepper.

John Melburn Mooring, of the Clarence Hotel, again appeared to answer a summons for allowing intoxicating liquors to be consumed on his premises after 8 o`clock. The Court was full, a large number of local publicans being present. Defendant, who pleaded Not Guilty, was defended by Mr. G.W. Haines.

Mr. Mooring now gave evidence. He said he had given all his employees instructions not to sell or serve anything after 8 o`clock. He always shut his premises at 8 o`clock. On Thursday night, September 16^th, his son and his wife were working with him. His son was engaged in the lower bar, and the barman was serving in the upper bar. His wife managed the hotel portion of the business. He did a considerable amount of letting. He had seven bedrooms. He remained in the lower bar and did not go up to see if the Bellevue Street entrance was closed. He himself answered the side door after 8 o`clock. He thought it was a soldier, but he was not sure. His wife then came on the scene. He did not make any arrangements with regard to the letting. The soldier said he had already taken a bed for the night. He did not want to know the number of his room, as his (defendant`s) wife had shown him into it previously in the day. That was the only soldier he let in. The man did not ask for any intoxicants. After 8 o`clock he did not serve anyone in his house with intoxicating liquor. The house belonged to Mackeson and Co., of Hythe. He did not have a single bottle of beer of any description in the house on Thursday night after 7 o`clock. He had sold right out, and had to refuse several customers.

In reply to the Magistrates' Clerk, wit­ness said there was nothing to show the bottles found in his rooms came from his stock. The woman Bennett had occupied a room in his house for seven or eight weeks. To his knowledge she was there on the 16th, but she left on the morning of the 17th. She always occupied the same bedroom, except in the first week. She had a lady visitor, and her husband came to see her one night. She was a married woman. She [described herself as the wife of an invalid soldier at one of the camps. He had not seen this soldier on any other night.

The Bench: Is this a residential hotel?

The Magistrates` Clerk said it was not. There were only seven bedrooms there.

In further reply to Mr. Andrew, witness said Bennett paid 14s. a week for her room. She had her breakfast there. She had been in the bar between 7 and 7.30 on September 16^th. He did not know whether there was anybody with her. He did not notice Tyler in the bar. Tyler was not the woman`s husband. He had not occupied a room with her on a previous occasion. Besides himself and his wife, there was only his son who could have served drink that night. After 8 o`clock he did not serve drink to anyone.

The Magistrates` Clerk: Your house is described as the Clarence Hotel. It was formerly the Clarence Inn. What constitutes your house  an hotel?

Defendant: We take in lodgers.

The Magistrates’ Clerk: You do not claim it is a residential hotel?  Do you supply dinner?

Defendant said they did supply dinners. He had a separate room apart for his lodgers. He had not got an hotel bar. He did not see Bennett downstairs before the police arrived. During the period mentioned, from 8 to 9, if any lodger had called for drink he would have supplied it. About 8.30 or 9 he locked the bar door. His wife or son could not have served the drink. The bar was locked as soon as they finished washing up the glasses. The barman locked the bar in Bellevue Street. There was access from that bar to the upper storey without having to come downstairs at all. He was downstairs in the lower bar; he did not know what was going on upstairs.

The Chief Constable: What explanation can you give for the two bottles of beer being upstairs?

The witness said at the time he could not give an explanation, and he had no explanation to offer then.

In reply to Mr. Haines, witness said the barman`s name was Price. The bedrooms were let nearly every night.

Mr. Haines: Are you full up every night? – Nearly every night.

Have you accommodation for cyclists? – Yes.

Mr. Andrew asked defendant how many lodgers he had in the house on the night of the 16^th.

Defendant said there were five and a lady friend. The number included the four soldiers.

In reply to the Chairman, defendant said he did not keep a register of his visitors. He was unable to tell them how many lodgers they had every night.

Mrs. Amy Mooring, wife of defendant, said she attended to the hotel part of the business. On the 16th September, in the morning, she remembered two cyclists called at the hotel, a middle-aged gentleman and a young man. They arrived about 11 o'clock. They were both tired, and told the defendant that they had come some dis­tance. They wanted to know whether she could let them a bedroom. They said they were going to stay for the night. The mid­dle-aged one, who said he felt very tired, went upstairs to rest. She showed him to a bedroom. She put them in Room 2. Later the two soldiers were found in that same room. The younger one went out to buy some postcards and he did not return till the afternoon. When he came back he asked for a bottle of beer, and she gave him a quart bottle of Mackeson's. He had two glasses, and he appeared to take it up to Room 2. Later the younger one said that, as his companion was feeling much better, they had decided to go on to Dymchurch. They left somewhere between 6 and; 7 o'clock the same evening. Witness did not go into their bedroom after they had gone. She re­membered how the bottle of beer was found there later in the evening by the police, and that was how she suggested it got there. She herself often served in the bar. On the night in question she did not serve any­thing on the premises after 8 o'clock, except two packets of cigarettes to two soldiers. She locked the side door so that soldiers could not get in. The woman Bennett did not have a key. After 8 o`clock that night she washed up and answered the door. There were two windows over the side door, and one was her husband`s and her living room. There was electric light in it, and when she went in and out she switched the light on an doff, so as to save light. A little after 8 o`clock p.m. there was a ring at the door, and she answered it. There were two soldiers there, and they were the two who were found in the room together. They said “Can you out us up for the night?” She replied “Yes”. They said “Shall we pay now?”,  and witness again replied "Yes” .They gave her a 10s. note and she went into the bar to get change.

They asked her if she could give supper, and she replied "No”. They then went down to a house in Tontine Street where they got some fish and chips. They were not in the house three minutes. They came back in about an hour's time, and she let them in. They did not ask for any intoxicating drink. When they first came in witness asked them if they were on pass. They both put their hands to their tunics as if to take out the passes. She then said, as she had not got any glasses to read, she would trust to their honesty. When they put their hands to their tunics she thought that they had passes. She did not show them up to the room, as they said that they had been there before. She did not mean them to go into the room where the two cyclists had been, but into a back room. On all occasions when she opened the door her husband was not with her. He had nothing to do with the proceedings. Later another soldier came, and she asked him if he had got a pass, and he said he was on three or four days` leave. She let no other soldiers in that night. The woman Bennett called out during the evening, asking for some supper. When she took up Bennett's supper she had no idea anyone was with her. She did not know Bennett was in till she called out for her supper. Her husband had the key of the bar, and when she went to get the cigarettes the key was in the lock. The barmaid was out, and did not come home till after the police had arrived. The barman Price went out about 8.15. He returned about 9.30, but she did not know if he was in the house when the police arrived.

The Chief Constable: You say Mrs. Bennett has a bottle of beer in the morning. Does she have a quart bottle at a time?

Witness said that generally she did. The last time she had a bottle was on the morning of the 16^th.

In reply to the Chief Constable, witness said she did not know the name of the two cyclists.

Mr. Haines, addressing the Bench, said there had been a great deal of asphyxiating gas and side issues. The licensing order said that drink was not to be served after 8 o`clock at night and not before 11 o`clock the next day. There was, however nothing to prevent a soldier walking in. The prosecution had got to prove the actual sale. The beer was found in those rooms, but the prosecution had to prove that they sold it to them. There was nothing at all before them that the beer had been bought at his client`s house. The police had said they had seen six soldiers go in, but it was evident that they had seen two go in twice. With regard to the soldier with Bennett, they must be thoroughly satisfied that Bennett bought the beer at his client's house. There was no evidence that the beer had been consumed that night except by the froth. He, how­ever, gave the sergeant' fullest credit for looking at the froth. (Laughter) The beer might possibly have been left by the cyclists. They could not convict his client on the evi­dence of Tyler alone. It must be proved that between 8 and 11 o'clock that beer was not only drunk, but purchased, and that there was a wilful endeavour to evade the Act.

The Bench, after a short deliberation re­turned. The Chairman said they had care­fully considered the case, which was one of some difficulty, and they felt there must be a conviction.

The Chief Constable said that on the 16^th April defendant was fined £1 for allowing a child under fourteen to be on the premises.

The Magistrates now fined defendant £10.

Folkestone Herald 4-12-1915

Tuesday, November 30^th: Before Mr. J. Stainer, Mr. G.I. Swoffer, Mr. R.J. Linton, Mr. G. Boyd, Mr. E.T. Morrison, and the Rev. Epworth Thompson.

Mr. G.W. Haines applied, on behalf of Mr. H.J. Hindley, for the temporary transfer of the licence of the Clarence Hotel, Dover Road, from Mr. Mooring to Mr. Hindley.

The Chief Constable (Mr. H. Reeve) said he could offer do objection. The house was now out of bounds to the military. The bar at the other end of the street had been closed for some time.

The application was granted.

 

Folkestone Express 15-1-1916

Wednesday, January 12^th: Before E.T. Ward, Lieut. Col. Fynmore, G.I. Swoffer, R.J. Linton, G. Boyd, R.G. Wood, E.T. Morrison and J.J. Giles Esqs.

Mr. G.W. Haines applied for the transfer of the licence of the Clarence Hotel to Mr. W.J. Hindley from Mr. Mooring. He stated that temporary authority had been granted by the Magistrates to Mr. Hindley.

The Chief Constable (Mr. Reeve) said he had no objection to the transfer, but he must remind Mr, Haines that he was not tying himself down to any action which might be taken at the annual licensing meeting.

The Chairman, addressing Mr. Hindley: You were warned when you obtained the temporary authority, and you take it at your own risk.

Mr. Hindley: Yes.

The transfer was then granted.

Folkestone Herald 15-1-1916

Wednesday, January 12^th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Lieut. Col. R.J. Fynmore, Mr. G.I. Swoffer, Mr. R.J. Linton, Councillor G. Boyd, Councillor R.G. Wood, Mr. J.J. Giles, and Mr. E.T. Morrison.

Mr. G.W. Haines, on behalf of Mr. Mooring, made an application for the transfer of the licence of the Clarence Hotel, Dover Road, from Mr. Mooring to Mr. W.J. Hindley. Mr. Haines said there was no objection.

The Chief Constable (Mr. H. Reeve) said he had no objection, but he was not binding himself down.

The Magistrates granted the application.

                                                              

 Folkestone Express 12-2-1916

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 Herald 12-2-1916

Annual Licensing Sessions

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

The Chief Constable (Mr. H. Reeve) submitted his report (for details see Folkestone Express).

The Chairman said they were sorry that the report was not so satisfactory as it generally was. The drunkenness had increased, as they saw. There had been 129 convictions last year, as against 65 in 1914. There had been four convictions against licensees. They were glad to see, howver, that, with a few exceptions, the houses had been well-conducted. The Bench looked to the licensees to continue this, and so prevent drunkenness. With regard to the four houses which had convictions against them, the renewal of the licences would be deferred to the adjourned licensing sessions. With reference to the licence of the Clarence Hotel,, as 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.

The Magistrates fixed the adjourned licensing meeting for Monday, March 6^th.

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.

Mr. G.W. Haines, on behalf of the owners (Messrs. Mackeson and Co.) and the occupier (Mr. J.W. Hindley) made a formal application for the renewal of the Clarence Hotel, it having been adjourned from the annual licensing sessions.

The Chief Constable said in that case the Justices would remember at the annual licensing sessions he told them that he intended to serve a notice of objection to the renewal of the licence on the ground of misconduct. They then instructed him to oppose the licence on the ground of redundancy. Both notices had been served, and he had given very careful consideration to the matter. He had interviewed Mr. Haines with regard to it, and with the permission of the Bench he proposed to proceed on the grounds of redundancy, withdrawing the notice of misconduct.

Mr. Haines said there was going to be no active opposition to the application on the grounds of redundancy.

Mr. Reeve said the house was situate on the main Dover Road, and at the corner of Bellevue Street. It had a frontage in Dover Road and the side frontage extended from Dover Road to St. Peter Street. The present licensee was Mr. W.J. Hindley, who obtained the transfer on January 12^th that year. On that occasion the licensee admitted he knew the whole of the circumstances connected with the house, and was prepared to take over the responsibility. That was the sixth tenant in eleven years. The registered owners were Messrs. Mackeson and Co., Hythe. The Hotel and premises were rated at £75 10s. The accommodation for the public consisted of two public bars, one facing Dover Road, and the other facing St. Peter Street. It had a frontage of 31ft. 6in. in Dover Road, 21ft. in Peter Street, and about 126ft. in Bellevue Street. There were three entrances from Dover Road, one into the saloon bar, which is about 13ft. 6in. by 9ft., one into a private bar 8 ft. square, and one at the corner of Dover Road and Bellevue Street, which opened into a public bar running parallel with Bellevue Street about 21ft. 6in. long by about 7ft. wide. In Bellevue Street there was a door leading to a passage which led into the back yard. There were doors in the passage leading into a public bar and a smoke room, both of which were about 12ft. square. At the corner of Bellevue Street and St. Peter Street a door opened into a bar about 21ft. long, and another door in St. Peter Street opened into an adjoining bar 15 ft. long. Those two bars were divided by a partition about 7ft. 6in. high. At the rear of the first bar there was a small smoke room about 11ft. 6 in. square. At the rear of the two bars on the same level there was a long club room running parallel to Bellevue Street, extending over some stabling and also the archway leading from Bellevue Street into the back-way. The club room was about 42ft. 6in. long and 15ft. wide. At the Dover Road end of the premises there were seven bedrooms and a sitting room. At the St. Peter Street end of the premises there were four bedrooms. Owing to the peculiar construction of the premises it was, in his opinion, most difficult for the licensee to give the necessary supervision to both parts of the premises, and also rendered them difficult to proper police supervision. For seven years the house had been largely used by soldiers in the evening. On October 14^th last an Order was made by the competent military authority under the Defence of the Realm Regulations closing the premises for the sale of intoxicating liquor to members of H.M. Forces. That Order still remained in force. The next house in the Dover Road to the east of the Clarence was the Harvey Hotel, 120 yards away. The rateable value of that house was £84. In the opposite direction the nearest house was the Imperial Brewery Tap, belonging to Messrs. Mackeson, 190 yards away, and the rateable value was £64. Both those houses had large public bars and were doing a similar class of trade to the Clarence. In addition there were about 100 yards from the Clarence Hotel off the main road three other on-licensed houses, the Honest Lawyer, a beerhouse, the Mechanics Arms and the Belle Vue in St. John`s Street. In his opinion the licence of the Clarence was unnecessary for the needs and requirements of the neighbourhood, and the other houses he had already named provided ample accommodation for the legitimate needs of the locality. In his judgement the premises, even without the licence, owing to their situation and frontage, would be a valuable asset. There were two convictions recorded last year, one on April 5^th for allowing a child under 14 years of age to be on the premises, the then licensee being fined £1, and on December 15^th for allowing intoxicating liquor to be consumed on the premises after hours, the licensee, Mr. Mooring, then being fined £10.

Mr. Haines said he would like to point out that a number of the entrances to which the Chief Constable had referred were blocked up.

The Chairman said the licence would be referred to the Compensation Authority for consideration.

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.

In the case of the Clarence Hotel, Dover Road, Mr. G.W. Haines, appearing for the licensee (Mr. Hindley), and the registered owners (Messrs. Mackeson, of Hythe), formally applied for the renewal.

The Chief Constable said they would remember at the general annual licensing sessions he said he intended to serve a notice on the ground of misconduct. The Bench also instructed him to oppose the licence on the ground of redundancy. Both notices had been served, and he had given the matter very careful consideration, and had had an interview with Mr. Haines. With the permission of the Bench he would withdraw the notice with regard to misconduct and proceed only on the grounds of redundancy.

The Bench agreed this course.

Mr. Haines said he had been into the matter, and they had come to a certain conclusion. They did not object on the grounds of redundancy.

The Chief Constable, on oath, said the house was situated on the left hand side of Dover Road at the corner of Bellevue Street. There were frontages to Dover Road, Bellevue Road and Peter Street. At the transfer sessions on January 12^th, 1916 the licence was transferred to Mr. J.W. Hindley, who then admitted he knew the circumstances of the case, and said he was prepared to take the responsibility. He was the sixth tenant in eleven years. The total assessment was £75 10s. The house had an old on licence within the meaning of the Act of 1910. There were two public bars, one facing Dover Road, and the other facing St. Peter Street. There were three entrances from the Dover Road, by one door into a saloon bar, another door opened into a private bar, while the other door, which was at the corner of Dover Road and Bellevue Street, opened into the public bar, which ran parallel to Bellevue Street. This was the main entrance. In Bellevue Street there was a door which opened into the passage, leading through the back yard and private portion of the premises. In this passage there was a door on the left hand side opening into the public bar. There was another door in the passage on the right hand side, opening in a small room, which had a door at the opposite end opening into an archway to Bellevue Street, leading into a back yard. At the corner of Bellevue Street there was a door which opened into a bar, and there was another door in Peter Street which opened into a bar. These two bars were compartments divided by a partition. At the rear of the first bar there was a small smoking room, which looked into Bellevue Street. Neither of these two bars nor the smoking room had been used by the public for some time, and a quantity of furniture was stored in them. At the rear of these two bars and on the same level there was a long cloakroom, which, running parallel to Bellevue Street, extends over some stabling. This cloakroom is about 42ft. 6ins. long and 15ft. wide. At the Dover Road end of the cloakroom there was a small sitting room and also a flight of stairs leading down to the rear of the Dover Road end bars. There was also a small sitting room at the rear of the Dover Road end bars. Upstairs at the Dover Road end of the premises there were 7 bedrooms and a sitting room. At the Peter Street end there were four bedrooms upstairs. The kitchen and scullery were in the basement of the Dover Road end. At the rear was a yard, with stabling and loft. A portion of the stabling was let out to weekly tenants. The only means of access from the Dover Road end bar to the Peter Street end bar was by ascending a flight of stairs and passing through the long cloakroom. This was owing to the public bars at the Peter Street end being on a higher level than the bars on the Dover Road end. Owing to the construction of the premises it was most difficult for the licensee to give the necessary supervision to both bars on the premises, and it also rendered the bars difficult for proper police supervision. For several years the house had been largely used by soldiers in the evening. On the 14^th October, 1915, an Order was made by the Competent Military Authority under the Defence of the Realm Act closing the premises for the sale of intoxicating liquor to members of His Majesty`s Forces, and that Order still remained in force. The next licensed house to the east of the Clarence Hotel in Dover Road was the Harvey Hotel, 120 yards away, which had a rateable value of £84. In the opposite direction was the Imperial Brewery Tap, in Tontine Street, belonging to the same owners. It was 190 yards away, and had a rateable value of £64. Both of these houses had large public bars, and did the same kind of business as was done at the Clarence. Within 100 yards of the Clarence, lying off the main road, were three licensed houses, the Honest Lawyer, a beerhouse, in Bellevue Street, the Mechanics Arms, and the Bellevue Inn, in St. John`s Street. In his opinion the licence of the Clarence was not necessary for the means and requirements of the neighbourhood, as the houses he had already named provided ample accommodation for the legitimate needs of the locality. In his judgement these premises without a licence, owing to their situation and stabling, would be a valuable asset. There were two convictions against the house. On the 5^th April, 1915, Mr Mooring, the landlord was fined £1 for allowing a child under 14 years to be on the premises, and on September 16^th he was again fined £10 for allowing the consumption of liquor during prohibited hours.

The Chairman said the licence would be referred to the Compensation Authority, a provisional licence being granted meanwhile.

Folkestone Express 30-9-1916

Wednesday, September 27^th: Before E.T. Ward Esq., Councillor Morrison, Councillor G. Boyd, G.I. Swoffer Esq., J. Stainer Esq., and the Rev. Epworth Thompson.

The licence of the Clarence was transferred from the licensee to his wife, the licensee having been called up under the Military Service Act. It was stated that arrangements had been made for a man to be on the premises between the hours of 6 and 8.

Folkestone Herald 30-9-1916

Wednesday, September 27^th: Before Mr. J. Stainer, Mr. G.I. Swoffer, Councillor G. Boyd, Mr. E.T. Morrison, and the Rev. H. Epworth Thompson.

The licence of the Clarence Hotel was transferred from Mr. W. Hindley, who has been called up for military service, to his wife.

Folkestone Express 18-11-1916

East Kent Licensing

A meeting of the East Kent Licensing Compensation Committee was held at Canterbury on Monday, Lord Harris presiding, for the purpose of settling shares in connection with the compensation for scheduled houses.

No agreement could be arrived at in the case of the Clarence, Dover Road, Folkestone, of which the brewers are Messrs. Mackeson and Co., Ltd., Hythe, and the tenant, Mr. William Joseph Hindley.

Mr. W. Cobay, of Hythe, on behalf of the brewers, said he was sorry he could not come to an agreement with Mr. Cobb. He was quite willing to agree if Mr. Cobb would open his purse strings a little, but he could not entertain his present figures.

Lord Harris: You are really out for War values?

Mr. Cobay said he maintained they were entitled to some War value, over and above the ordinary compensation. He had based his figures on the Hardy case, and had taken the years 1913-14-15, which was a year and a half before the War and a year and a half of War.

Lord Harris: Will you submit a figure?

Mr. Cobay said he would submit £5,000 without prejudice.

Lord Harris (to Mr. Cobb): Are you prepared to amend your figures, Mr. Cobb?

Mr. Cobb: Not to that figure, or anything like it, my Lord.

Lord Harris: Then the matter must go to Somerset House for settlement.

Folkestone Herald 18-11-1916

East Kent Licensing

The question of compensation in the case of the licence of the Clarence Hotel, Dover Road, Folkestone, came before a supplemental meeting of the East Kent Justices at Canterbury on Monday. Lord Harris was in the chair.

The brewers owning the Clarence are Messrs. Mackeson and Co., of Hythe, the tenant being Mr. William Joseph Hindley.

Mr. W. Mark Cobay, of Hythe, on behalf of Messrs. Mackeson and Co., said he was sorry he could not come to an agreement with Mr. Cobb. He aws quite willing to agree, if Mr. Cobb would open his purse strings a little, but he could not entertain his present figures.

Lord Harris: You are really out for War values?

Mr. Cobay contended that his clients were entitled to some War value, over and above the ordinary compensation. He had based his figures on the Hardy case, and had taken the years 1913-14-15, which was a year and a half before the War and a year and a half of War.

Lord Harris: Will you submit a figure?

Mr. Cobay said he would submit £5,000 without prejudice.

Lord Harris (to Mr. Cobb): Are you prepared to amend your figures, Mr. Cobb?

Mr. Cobb: Not to that figure, or anything like it, my Lord.

It was decided to refer the case to Somerset House for settlement.

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.

Mr. Haines mentioned the case of the Clarence Inn, the amount of compensation for which had not yet been fixed. He asked for the renewal of the licence until the amount was decided.

The Chairman said the licence would be renewed until that 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.

The Clarence

The question of compensation not having been settled in regard to these premises, a licence was asked for and granted.

Folkestone Herald 11-8-1917

Local News

Amy Hindley, of the Clarence Hotel, was summoned for a breach of the Defence of the Realm Regulations by serving an overseas soldier with drink on August 4^th.

P.C. Thoms said he saw the man drinking a glass of beer in the hotel bar. He called for defendant, who said she was the licensee, and asked if she knew the man was an overseas man. She said she had not served that particular man. She always asked every soldier for his pass. The soldier said he had not been asked for his pass; he had no pass on him, only a pay book.

By the Clerk: There were about four people serving behind the bar. He heard defendant say to two soldiers that she could not serve them. The man served was with them, and dressed exactly like the other two. The soldier pointed out one of the barmaids as the one who had served him, but the girl denied it. He told the soldier he had better drink no more of the beer, to which he replied “What, after paying for it?”

By the Defendant: Scotch Canadians had ribbons on their caps. These men had no ribbons, and wore khaki aprons, covering the whole of their kilts.

Sergt. Major John James Pilgrim stated that the last witness identified the soldier in his presence. The man was an overseas man, of the Highland Light Infantry.

Defendant said the constable came to the house about 7.50. A civilian said a Canadian soldier gave the liquor to the overseas man, but as this civilian was a munition worker he could not attend the Court that day. There were a large number of Scotch Canadians in the bar at the time. She asked for an adjournment for the man to attend.

The case was adjourned till Monday.

 

Folkestone Express 18-8-1917

Friday, August 10^th: Before Mr. G.I. Swoffer, Councillor G. Boyd, Councillor Stace, and the Rev. Epworth Thompson.

Mrs. Amy Hindley, of the Clarence Hotel, was summoned under the Defence of the Realm Regulations for serving an Overseas soldier with intoxicating drink.

The police evidence showed that a Highland soldier was in the bar on the 4^th inst. with a glass of beer in his hand. When spoken to, defendant said she asked all the soldiers if they had passes and stated that she did not serve the man. The soldier said no-one had asked him for a pass; in fact he had not got one. Other soldiers were refused by the defendant. The constable said to the soldier “You had better not drink any more of that beer”, and he replied “What! After paying for it?”

Evidence was also given as to the identity of the soldier in question.

Defendant stated that a Canadian soldier gave the Highlander a pint of beer, and she could call evidence as to this if the case was adjourned.

The case was adjourned until Monday.

Monday, August 13^th: Before G.I. Swoffer and G. Boyd Esqs.

Amy Hindley, the licensee of the Clarence Hotel, again appeared before the Magistrates on a summons for serving an overseas soldier with intoxicating drink. The case was adjourned from Friday.

A Corporal of the C.M.P. said he accompanied P.C. Fox to the Clarence Hotel, and saw the Scotch soldier there with a pint glass containing beer. He did not see the soldier drink any of it. He corroborated P.C. Fox`s evidence as to the conversation he had with the soldier and Mrs. Hindley.

Defendant said she did not serve the soldier, who said that the other woman (her mother) had served him. She, however, denied that she had served him. She (defendant) had told several overseas soldiers that they could not be served, and there was a notice up in the bar to that effect.

Mrs. Foulkes said she resided with her daughter. When the man said she served him she told him that she asked him for his pass. She did not remember seeing the man`s face before, but she would not swear that she did not serve him or that she did serve him. She had supplied some Scotch Canadians.

Charles Gilham, a mariner, said on Saturday night week he was in the Clarence Hotel bar. He heard the landlady refuse five Scotsmen, and when another one came in a Canadian Scotsman handed him a pint of beer. He told the constable and the military police what had occurred when they got out.

The Chairman said they thought the defendant did not take sufficient care. There was no doubt she had refused several soldiers, and owing to that fact the fine would not be so heavy. She would have to pay a fine of £2.

Folkestone Herald 18-8-1917

Monday, August 13^th: Before Mr. G.I. Swoffer and Councillor G. Boyd.

Amy Hindley, licensee of the Clarence Hotel, again appeared to answer to a summons for serving an overseas soldier with intoxicating liquor, contrary to the Defence of the Realm Act, on August 4^th.

A Corporal of the C.M.P. stated that he accompanied P.C. Fox to the Clarence, where he saw a Scotch soldier with a half pint glass of beer in his hand. The soldier told the police officer he was an overseas man and had been served by one of the barmaids. He also said he had not been asked for a pass, and had not got one.

Defendant said the soldier pointed to her mother and said she had served him. The mother denied that. She had had overseas men in and out all the evening, and had had “one continual worry” of refusing to serve them.

Alice Spikes, mother of the defendant, said she told the man she would not have served him without a pass. She did not remember whether she served this man or not. She had served Scottish Canadians during the evening.

Charles Gilburn, a sailor, stated that he was in the Clarence on the night in question. Three Scotchmen came in, and later two more, and all were refused drink. One Scotchman then came in and asked for nothing at all. A Canadian soldier bought a glass of beer and handed it to the Scotchman. When the policeman came the Canadian went out.

The Chairman said the Magistrates thought defendant had not taken sufficient care. She would be fined £2.