Shakespeare Hotel 1915 - 1919

Folkestone Express 26-6-1915

Monday, June 21^st: Before Lieut. Col. Fynmore and Colonel Owen.

Rhoda Rowley was charged with being drunk and disorderly on Sunday evening. She denied the offence.

P.C. Whitehead spoke to having to eject the prisoner from the Shakespeare Hotel at 7.50, and to seeing her twice again and cautioning her about her conduct. He told her to go home. At 8.50 he found her being ejected from a restaurant in Cheriton Road, so he took her into custody, as she was very noisy.

Special Constable Kearns gave evidence as to being called to the restaurant to eject the prisoner.

P.S. Prebble said when the prisoner was brought into the police station she was very drunk.

Prisoner strenuously denied being drunk, and asked the Magistrates how she sould be drunk on two cups of tea.

Inspector Simpson said Rowley had been convicted three times since April 15^th, the last being at Hythe, when she was sentenced to seven days` hard labour on June 7^th. The woman had been a pest since she had been there.

Rowley: I was very excitable, and was not drunk.

Sent to prison for 14 days` hard labour.

Folkestone Express 8-1-1916

Saturday, January 1^st: Before G.I. Swoffer Esq., Alderman Dunk, Councillor Stace, and Councillor G. Boyd.

John James Keith was charged with supplying whisky to a soldier.

Corpl. Burr, of the Military Foot Police said he was in Guildhall Street on the pervious evening when he saw the prisoner enter a wine and spirit stores, No. 5, and come out with what appeared to be a bottle of whisky. He went to a soldier, and they walked in the direction of the Playhouse. He then saw the accused hand the soldier the parcel. Witness went up and took it away, finding it to be a bottle of whisky.

Private G. Joyce, of the 6^th Howitzer Brigade, said he met the man in the Shakespeare Hotel, and asked him if he could get him a bottle of whisky, giving him a 10s. note. Later prisoner gave him a bottle, and then the Corporal came up and took it away.

Mr. F.J.W. Harris, manager to Mr. Birch,, wine and spirit merchant, 5, Guildhall Street, said he believed the prisoner was the man to whom he sold two bottles of whisky on the previous evening. He asked him whether the spirit was for a soldier, and he said “No”. He had not known him previously as a customer.

Prisoner said he only came out of the infirmary a week ago. He had got consumption, having been laid up for two years He had two or three drinks, or he would not have done what he did.

The Chief Constable said the man had been several times before the Court, there being nine convictions, the last three years ago.

Asked by the Clerk why he elected to come out of the Infirmary, prisoner said because it was Christmas time.

In consideration of his state of health, the Magistrates sentenced prisoner to three months` imprisonment without hard labour, the Chairman remarking “You come out of the Union and extort money by buying liquor for soldiers. It is a very serious thing, and if it had not been for your health you would have had a very heavy sentence”.

To Mr. Harris, the Chairman said: The Magsitrates think that you ought to have taken more care.

Mr. Harris protested.

Councillor Boyd: The look of that man ought to have been sufficient for you.

The Bench congtaulated Corpl. Burr on the way he had given evidence, and also the manner in which he dealt with the case.

Folkestone Herald 8-1-1916

Saturday, January 1^st: Before Mr. G.I. Swoffer, Councillor G. Boyd, Councillor A. Stace, and Alderman W. Dunk.

John James Keith was charged with purchasing a bottle of whisky for a soldier, contrary to the Defence of the Realm Act. He pleaded Guilty.

Corpl. Bird, of the Military Foot Police, said on Friday evening, about 7.15, he was in Guildhall Street. He saw the accused go into Mr. H.G. Birch`s wine shop. When he came out he was carrying a parcel wrapped in paper, which appeared to contain a bottle. A soldier had been standing outside the shop all the time. Accused, when he came out, went up to this soldier, and they started to walk along towards the Playhouse. Witness saw the prisoner give the parcel wrapped in paper to the soldier. He then went up to them and took the liquor from the soldier, asking “What is this? Is it whisky?” The soldier replied “Drink” Witness said to the soldier “Did you ask him to get it for you?”, and the soldier replied in the affirmative. The bottle of whisky produced was the one which prisoner gave to the soldier.

Pte. Joyce, of the 6^th Howitzer Brigade (Canadians), stationed at St. Martin`s Plain, said he asked the accused to get him a bottle of whisky, and he gave him a 10s. note. When prisoner came out of the shop he gave him the bottle of whisky.

Mr. F.J.W. Harris, manager for Mr. Birch, said he thought the man in the dock was the man to whom he had sold a bottle of Johnny Walker. He believed that he sold two bottles of whisky to the prisoner. He was paid with a 10s. note. Witness asked him if the whisky was for a soldier, and the accused replied “No”.

Prisoner said he was very sorry for what he had done. He had got consumption, so if they sent him to prison he would not be able to do anything. He had only just come out of the Infirmary. If he had known of the trouble it would have caused, he would not have got the whisky.

The Chief Constable (Mr. Reeve) said there were nine convictions for small offences against the accused. He was last there three years ago.

The Bench, after some deliberation, sentenced the accused to three months` imprisonment, teh Chairman remarking that it was a shameful thing that he should come out of the Infirmary and then extort money out of soldiers by buying liquor for them.

The Chairman, addressing Mr. Harris, further said they were of opinion that he had not taken sufficient precaution. He ought to have known that the prisoner did not want the whisky for himself. If he did not take more care in the future he would get himself into serious trouble.

Folkestone Express 24-2-1917

Friday, 16^th February: Before Mr. G.I. Swoffer, Councillor G. Boyd, Councillor Stace, and the Rev. Epworth Thompson.

Mr. J.G. Smiles, proprietor of the Shakespeare Hotel, was summoned for permitting drunkenness on his licensed premises. Mr. Rutley Mowll appeared for the defence and pleaded Not Guilty.

Lieut. Albert C. Holmes, of the Military Police, said on Saturday, February 3^rd, at 7.40 p.m. he and Sergt. Major May visited the bar of the Shakespeare. The bar at the time was full of soldiers. One of the soldiers, Private Warman, was very drunk. He was staggering, and was very noisy. Another soldier, O`Connor, was leaning across the counter. Witness heard Private Warman call for three “Gold Tops” and saw Private O`Connor put down some money on the counter and receive change from the barmaid. Almost immediately three glasses of beer were put in front of O`Connor, one of which was passed to Warman. Witness sent Sergt. Major May for the picket, and the two men, Warman and O`Connor, were taken in charge, both of them being drunk.

Cross-examined by Mr. Mowll: Witness thought he remembered saying to the constable “These two men are drunk”. Witness did not invite the civil police to prefer a charge of drunkenness against the men. He did not hear the manageress ask Warman to leave the house. Warman could use his feet. Nor did he remember calling the attention of the manageress to O`Connor.

Sergt. Major William May also declared that the two soldiers, Warman and O`Connor, were drunk. Warman called to the barmaid for three “Gold Tops”, and three glasses of ale were placed in front of O`Connor One was handed to Warman by O`Connor. O`Connor took the other, and a Corporal who was standing by had the third. Witness called the barmaid and asked to see the landlord, but no notice was taken. He was sure she heard him. Witness went for the pucket, and on returning saw Warman with a glass of beer in his hand. He then called P.C. Whitehead, and drew his attention to O`Connor and Warman. The constable asked to see the landlady, and the manageress came behind the bar. Whitehead drew her attention to the condition of the soldiers, ho were ordered by the manageress to leave the bar. The men were then arresyed by military police and picket and taken to the guard room.

Cross-examined: There were not above 30 soldiers in the bar. Warman`s speech was very thick. Witness did not hear Warman ask for “his pals”. The police cinstable said to him “They have had sufficient”.

Did the constable say that Warman had not had enough to drink for him to prefer a charge of drunkenness against him? – That was afterwards.

But did the constable say that? – Yes.

Witness did not know that the constable refused to charge the landlord with permitting drunkenness.

P.C. Whitehead said at 7.50 p.m. on the 3^rd he was on point duty at the Shakespeare, when he noticed a crowd outside one of the doors. He saw the witness May, who called him inside and pointed out to him a soldier who had been drinking, but was not drunk. Witness sent for the manageress, and said to her “I should advise you to get this man off the premises”. She requested him to go out, and he went as far as the door and then attempted to return. She said “Now, don`t be silly”. The soldier then said “I want my pals I came in with”. The manageress said “Come along you men who are with this man, he wants you”. Five or six soldiers then went out. Lieut. Holmes and Sergt. Major May left, and in consequence of what he was told he returned to the manageress and said Lieut. Holmes was going to report her for permitting drunkenness. She said “I knew nothing was wrong till you sent for me”. Witness asked the barmaid, Lena Sharp, if she had served Warman, and she replied “No, I have not seen him before”.

By the Chief Constable: There were from 20 to 25 men in the bar, which was fairly full. The man was “just on the swing”. His speech appeared to be very clear. Witness saw the man drinking from a glass.

You did not think the man was in a fit state to be on licensed premises? – No, sir, he was not.

Why? – Because he had had sufficient to drink, and I considered if he was got off the premises it would prevent him getting into further trouble.

Although you saw him drinking, you did not think he was a fit person to be on licensed premises? – No, sir.

By the Clerk: Witness did not see a second man in the bar showing signs of drink. The man referred to walked without assistance.

Now, was this man drunk? – He was not drunk.

The Chief Constable: Was he sober? – The man was quite capable of taking care of himself.

Sergt. Carpenter, who was with the picket, said a soldier named Warman was placed in his charge. He came out of the door of the Shakespeare as though he was under the influence of drink.

A Corporal who was in the guard room said the two men, when brought in by the picket, were both obviously drunk.

Cross-examined: Later on the civil policeman came in and was asked to sign the charge sheet, as a witness, but he said he could not without the permission of the Chief Constable.

Sergt. Allen, who was in charge of the guard room, aid the two men were “very drunk”. Lieut. Holmes and Sergt. Major May preferred the charge. Warman had to be held while he was being searched.

Mr. Mowll, in addressing the Bench, referred to the evidence of P.C. Whitehead and said if the Magistrates believed him there was nothing more to be said. What effect the fresh air had on the men after they came out of the house did not alter the point which the Bench had to decide – whether there was, in fact, drunkenness on these premises. His submission was that the prosecution had proved the defence.

The Bench held, however, that the case must go on.

Miss Lena Sharpe, barmaid in charge of the private bar at the Shakespeare, said on Saturday, February 3^rd the bar was full. The first she knew about “this affair” was when the manageress (Mrs. Herrington) was asked for by P.C. Whitehead. Witness was asked if she had served the man in question, and she said she had not. The man was very quiet indeed; she did not knew he was in the bar until her attention was called to him. He had no difficulty in walking when asked by Mrs. Herrington to leave the bar. The man was not drunk.

Cross-examined: Her attention was not called to a second man in the bar. If the first man had a glass in his hand, it must have been handed to him. She did not serve three “Gold Tops” at once. The man was sober, and if he had called for a drink she would have served him.

Mrs. Maud Herrington, manageress of the Shakespeare, said her husband was manager until he was called up. On the evening of the 3^rd the last witness asked her to go into the private bar, and there she saw P.C. Whitehead, who asked her to come to the public side of the bar. Here, Lieut. Holmes drew her attention to a man, and witness spoke to Miss Sharp about him. There was nothing wrong in the man`s appearance to lead anyone to think he was drunk. Witness was requested to ask the man to leave, and she asked him if he would go for a walk. He walked to the door, but came back and lighted a cigarette against the cigarette of another soldier. The man asked for his chums, who went out at the same time. Witness`s attention was not drawn to any other man.

Cross-examined: There was nothing to prevent a drunken person entering any of the bars. Most decidedly she thought the man was in a fit state to be served; she would have served him herself if he had asked.

You asked the man to leave? – Yes.

Why? – Because I was requested for the man to be removed off the premises.

Because he had had too much to drink? – So the officer said.

Did you protest? Did you tell the officer that in your opinion the man had not had too much to drink? – Yes.

By Mr. Mowll: Mr. Smiles, the proprietor, had given her and others instructions as to be very strict about the question of drunkenness.

By the Chief Constable: Mr. Smiles, her employer, had not authorised her to engage any extra assistance on busy evenings to see that no drunken person entered the house.

Gunner Pegden, C.F.A., who was in the bar at the time, said not one of the men was drunk.

Private John Salmon Thompson, who was also there, said the man was not assisted out of the bar; he walked as steadily as anyone could walk. The man, in his estimation, was perfectly sober.

Cross-examined: The soldier was not showing the slightest sign of drink. He only saw him during the time it would take a man to walk four yards.

Driver Thomas Wallis, C.F.A., said he went into the bar about seven o`clock. He remembered the civil and military police coming in and the manageress being called. Witness saw nothing whatever to indicate that the man in question was drunk.

Cross-examined: Witness had him under observation about two minutes.

Gunner Charles Burnham, C.F.A., declared that the man walked out of the bar “perfectly alone and straight and sober”.

Cross-examined: Witness had the man in view about three minutes.

Mr. Mowll observed that the case was a somewhat singular one, owing to the conflict of evidence, and he was going to ask the Bench to dismiss the summons upon the evidence before them. He suggested, without hesitation, that the whole of the evidence for the defence would justify the Magistrates in forming the conclusion the constable did at the time – that this was not a case where there was drunkenness on the premises.

The Bench retired to consider the case in private. On their return the Chairman (Mr. Swoffer) said: We are unanimously of opinion that the men were drunk, but, in the absence of evidence as to the period of time they had been in the house, and the opportunity the barmaid had of observing their condition, we do not convict. We consider that a house of this character ought to be in the charge of a competent, responsible manager.

Local News

At the Folkestone Police Court on Friday, following the decision in a case against a licensee (which is reported elsewhere), Captain G. Aylwen, the new A.P.M. said it was fair to let the publicans know that, although he was not here to make trouble, if he found trouble he would take it in both hands. As a result of his observations during the past week, he had found that there was a large amount of drunkenness which was never detected and which never came before the Magistrates, but with which the Military had to deal. And drunkenness led to other things which were recognised as being very serious. Men – quite decent fellows – came over here, never having had a drink before, and got into some public houses where there appeared to be absolutely no supervision. They came out mad drunk, were taken to the Guard Room, and time and time again his police had very great trouble in dealing with them. If the publicans were willing to cooperate with him he would always send military police; but what could he do unless the publicans applied to him? He would like to point out that under the Police Standing Orders, military policemen did not enter a public house unless they were sent for, and unless he or his assistant “looked for trouble” there was no supervision. His assistant, Lieut. Holmes, was looking for trouble on the occasion referred to in the case which had just been decided, and that was the line he (Captain Aylwen) would take up. He wanted to help the publicans in every way, but, in return, they must help him. In this town there were a certain number of troops every night, and it was difficult to deal with that number when so many had never been used to drinking. It was pretty obvious that the extent of drunkenness was large, and it also went to prove there was a large amount of drinking outside public houses. Therefore he would appeal to publicans to keep some sort of check on liquor which was taken out by people who kept houses and shops, because it often fell back on the publicans.

Councillor Boyd: That means other licences?

Captain Aylwen: It means any premises, such as cafes and places where liquor is consumed.

Continuing, the officer said he thought a man should be told off to supervise at each public house. The publicans were making money as they had never done before, and there was no increase of staff. It was up to the publicans to put someone in authority and see that the thing was carried out.

The Chairman of the Bench (Mr. G.I. Swoffer) said the Magistrates were pleased to hear Captain Aylwen`s remarks, and the Bench were willing to support him in every way possible. The licensed victuallers, being sensible men, would do the same.

Folkestone Herald 17-2-1917

Friday, February 16^th: Before Mr. G.I. Swoffer and other Magistrates.

Joseph George Smiles was summoned as the holder of the licence of the Shakespeare Hotel, for permitting drunkenness there on February 3^rd. Mr. Rutley Mowll represented defendant.

Lieut. Albert C. Holmes, officer in charge of the C.M.P., said on Saturday evening, about 7.45, he and Sergt. Major May visited the Shakespeare Hotel. The bar was very full of soldiers. In the middle of the bar witness saw one soldier, named Warman, very drunk, staggering and very noisy. Another, O`Connor, was leaning across the counter, also drunk. He heard Warman call for three “Gold Tops”, and saw O`Connor put some money on the counter and receive some change from the barmaid. Three glasses of beer were put before him, one of which he retained, the others being taken by other soldiers. Witness sent May out for the picket, which arrived in less than ten minutes, and the two men were taken in charge.

By the Chief Constable: P.C. Whitehead came into the bar at the same time as the picket.

By Mr. Mowll: He thought he remembered saying to the constable “These men are drunk”. The constable did not tell him that they were not drunk. Witness did not invite the constable to prefer a charge of drunkenness against the men. He did not hear the manageress ask Warman to leave the house. Warman could use his feet, and walked out of the house with the picket, but one of the picket had hold of him.

Sergt. Major May, of the A.P.M. staff, deposed that on entering the bar he saw two soldiers, both drunk. O`Connor was leaning against the counter, and Warman was staggering about. Warman called for three drinks, which were placed in front of O`Connor, who handed one to Warman and one to another man. Witness called to the barmaid and asked to see the landlord, but no notice was taken. Witness fetched the picket, and on his return called in P.C. Whitehead and drew his attention to Warman and O`Connor. Whitehead sent for the manageress, and drew her attention to the two soldiers, whom she ordered to leave the bar. Witness then arrested the two men and handed them over to the picket.

By Mr. Mowll: He was sure the barmaid heard him call her. Warman`s speech was thick. Witness did not hear him ask for his pals to go out with him. Witness held him by the right arm as he went out, as Warman required his assistance to walk out of the bar. The constable said that Warman had not had enough to drink for him to prefer a charge of drunkenness in the case. Witness did not know that the constable had refused to charge the licensee with permitting drunkenness, but he knew the constable refused to sign the charge sheet against the two men.

By the Chief Constable: When men were charged by the military it was usual for the military to sign the sheet.

Mr. Mowll: Then I can`t understand why the constable was asked to do it.

P.C. Whitehead said he noticed a crowd outside the bar of the Shakespeare, and May called him inside. May pointed out a soldier, who had been drinking, but was not drunk. Witness sent for the manageress, and advised her to get the man off the premises. She requested the man to go out. He went as far as the door and made an attempt to return, when she said “Don`t be silly; go out”. He said “I want my pals that I came in with”. She said “Come along, you men that are with this man; he wants you to go out with him”, and they all walked out. May and Lieut. Holmes went outside, and in consequence of what he said witness told the manageress the lieutenant was going to report her for permitting drunkenness. She replied “I knew nothing was wrong till you sent for me”. Witness asked the barmaid if she had served the man before, and she replied “No, I have not seen him before).

By the Chief Constable: There would be about 25 people in the bar, which was fairly full. The man was “just on the swing”, and his speech appeared to be very clear.

In your opinion he was not in a fit state to be on licensed premises? – No, he was not.

Why? – Because I thought he had had enough, and if he went then it would save trouble.

Did you see another man in the bar under the influence of drink? – No.

By the Clerk: The man left the bar without assistance, and Sergt. Major May never touched him. Witness saw no second man taken from the bar by the picket.

Was this man drunk or not? – He was not drunk.

The Chief Constable: Was he sober? – He was quite capable of taking care of himself.

Sergt. W. Carpenter, R.C.D., stated that when called the picket stood outside the door of the Shakespeare Hotel, and the man Warman was placed under his charge. The man was handed out by the Sergt. Major, who had hold of his arm, and witness could see perfectly well that he was drunk.

Corpl. F. Glann, C.M.P., said he was on duty at the guard room when O`Connor and Warman were brought in. They were both obviously drunk.

By Mr. Mowll: The civilian constable would not sign the charge sheet.

By the Chief Constable: He only asked the constable to sign as a witness.

Sergt. Allen, who was in charge of the guard room, said both were very drunk when brought in.

Mr. Mowll remarked that P.C. Whitehead, the only witness who was trained to detect drunkenness, had said definitely that the man was not drunk. The fact that the effect of the fresh air might have made the men worse before they got to the guard room did not mean that the men were drunk on the premises. When one of the principal witnesses for the prosecution denied what the other witnesses had said, the prosecution could not turn and say his evidence was not to be believed. He submitted that there was no case to meet.

The Bench decided that the case must go on.

Lena Sharp, barmaid in charge of the private bar, said the bar was full on the evening in question. The first thing she could remember was being asked by the constable to call the manageress. Witness was asked if she had served a certain soldier, and she replied that she had not. The man was very quiet, and left the bar very quietly when the manageress asked him to do so. He could walk perfectly well, and was certainly not drunk.

By the Chief Constable: She did not serve three drinks at once to any soldier. The man was sober, and if he had called for a drink she would have served him.

Mrs. Herrington, manageress of the Shakespeare, said that the previous witness asked her to go into the private bar, where there was a number of soldiers. P.C. Whitehead was there, and an officer drew her attention to a soldier. To her mind the man was not drunk. He was far from being excited, and there was absolutely nothing in his appearance to indicate that he was drunk. When asked to leave, the man walked to the door, turned back for a light for his cigarette, and then went out with two chume.

By the Chief Constable: There was nothing to prevent a drunken man walking into the bar if he wished to. She considered the soldier to be in a fit condition to be served. When the officer said the soldier had had too much to drink, witness protested, and said he had not. Nothing was said about a second soldier.

By the Magistrates` Clerk: Sergt. Major May never touched the man while he was in the bar.

By Mr. Mowll: Mr. Smiles had given her instructions to be very strict as to permitting any drunken man to be in the house.

The Chief Constable: Has your employer authorised you to engage assistance to keep drunken men off the premises when you are busy? – No, the barman looks after that.

Gunner A.A. Pegden, C.F.A., said he saw a soldier requested to leave the bar. He did so, walking without assistance. In witness`s opinion neither this man nor anyone in the bar was drunk.

Gunner J.S. Thompson, R.F.A., stated that when the soldier left the bar he walked as steadily as anyone could walk, and in witness`s estimation was sober.

By the Chief Constable: He saw him walk about four yards. The man showed no signs of drink.

Driver Thomas Wallace, C.F.A., and Gunner Bernham, C.F.A., also said the soldier was not drunk.

Mr. Mowll said he had no hesitation in suggesting that this was a case that ought to be dismissed on the evidence. It was a singular case, inasmuch as there was a great conflict of evidence. P.C. Whitehead, a witness for the prosecution, had stated of his own accord that the man was not drunk. This statement was not bullied from him in the course of cross-examination, as he (Mr. Mowll) asked him no questions. The outside evidence had no bearing on the case, as a man might become very difficult out in the air to what he was within doors. With the exception of two witnesses, the whole of the evidence was in favour of the defence.

After retirement, the Chairman said the Bench were of opinion that the men were drunk, but as there was no evidence as to how long they were in the bar and what opportunity the barmaid had of observing their condition, the case would be dismissed. The Bench thought a house of this kind should be under the control of a resident manager.

Capt. Aylwin, A.P.M., said there was a great amount of drunkenness which had to be dealt with by the military authorities, and which ledt to other troubles of a serious nature. Men who had never had any drink before got drunk, and were mad when they came out. He and his officers were going to be out looking for trouble, and to take hold of it with both hands when they found it. If the publicans cared to work with him he would assist them to the utmost of his power, and he wanted to give them a square deal if they would do the same by him. He thought some check should be kept on the liquor sold for outside consumption and also that a man should be put in public houses to keep out drunken men.

Folkestone Express 9-2-1918

Annual Licensing Sessions

Wednesday, February 6^th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Lieut. Col. Fynmore, Messrs. G.I. Swoffer, G. Boyd, A. Stace and H. Kirke, Colonel Owen and the Rev. Epworth Thompson.

The following licence was transferred: the Shakespeare, from Mr. Smiles to Mr. F.C. Hatfield.

Folkestone Herald 9-2-1918

Annual Licensing Sessions

Wednesday, March 6^th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Lieut. Col. R.J. Fynmore, Mr. G.I. Swoffer, Councillor G. Boyd, Colonel G.P. Owen, Councillor E. Stace, Mr. H. Kirke, and the Rev. H. Epworth Thompson.

The following transfer was confirmed:

The Shakespeare, from Mr. J.H. Smiles to Mr. Hatfield.

Folkestone Express 9-3-1918

Adjourned Licensing Sessions

Wednesday, March 6^th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Lieut. Colonel Fynmore, Messrs. G.I. Swoffer, G. Boyd, A. Stace and H. Kirke, Colonel Owen and the Rev. H. Epworth Thompson.

The Clerk (Mr. Andrew) said there were several licences to come before the Magistrates for really automatic renewal. The Queen`s Hotel and the Wellington beerhouse were referred from the annual sessions, since when the following licences had been transferred; The Price Albert, the Shakespeare, the True Briton, and the Harbour Inn. The licences were granted.