True Briton (1) 1915 - 1919

Folkestone Herald 24-7-1915

Friday, July 23^rd: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Lieut. Co. R.J. Fynmore, Mr. J.J. Giles, Col. G.P. Owen, and Mr. H.C. Kirke.

Edward William James, the licensee of the True Briton Inn, was summoned for permitting drunkenness on his licensed premises on July 8^th.

The Magistrates` Clerk (Mr. J. Andrew) said there was a letter from Mr. G.W. Haines, the solicitor for the defence, asking for the summons to be adjourned to Tuesday, as he was away.

The case was adjourned accordingly.

Folkestone Express 31-7-1915

Friday, July 23^rd: Before E.T. Ward Esq., Lieut. Col. R.J. Fynmore, Col. G.P. Owen and J.J. Giles and H.C. Kirke Esqs.

Edward William James, licensee of the True Briton Hotel, was summoned for permitting drunkenness on his licensed premises.

A letter was received from Mr. Haines, defendant`s solicitor, saying he was unable to be present, and asking that the case be adjourned till Tuesday.

The request was granted.

Tuesday, July 27^th: Before E.T. Ward Esq., Lieut. Col. R.J. Fynmore, J.J. Giles Esq.,Col. G.P. Owen and H.C. Kirke Esq.

Edward William James, licensee of the True Briton, Harbour Street, was summoned for permitting drunkenness on his licensed premises. The case was adjourned from Friday. Mr. G.W. Haines now appeared for the defendant, who pleaded Not Guilty.

Inspector Lawrence said at half past eight on Sunday, July 18^th, in company with P.C. Whitehead, he visited the True Briton Hotel, and there saw a soldier lying on a seat with his head towards the counter and his feet towards the window. There were sixteen or eighteen soldiers and three or four civilians in the bar. He went to the oldier and found he was almost helplessly drunk. Defendant`s son-in-law was serving at the back of the bar, and witness asked to see the defendant. There was also a young woman behind the bar serving. Defendant came through from the South Street side, and witness said to him “You see the condition of this man?” He said “Yes, but I have not seen him before”. He at once got hold of him and ejected him. Witness said “I shall have to report this”. As soon as the soldier got through the door he staggered across the pavement, and, falling down, was unable to get up. He was brought to the police station, where he was charged with being drunk and incapable. Witness and P.c. Whitehead then returned to the True Briton, where he saw defendant and his son-in-law, Mr. S.G. Vaughan. To the defendant he said “I shall report you for permitting drunkenness on your licensed premises”. He replied “I am very sorry. I hope you will look over it this time. I have always been very careful. I have not seen him before”. Mr. Vaughan said “I am almost sure I served this man a minute or two before, and he appeared quite sober then”.

The Clerk: Who was in charge of the bar?

The Inspector: Vaughan said he was in charge of the bar.

Cross-examined by Mr. Haines: Did you see defendant`s wife there? – No.

She might have been there and you not notice her? – Yes, she might have been there.

Was there anybody sitting between the counter and the soldier? – No, sir.

There was nothing intervening? – No, sir.

Was there anybody standing round the counter? – Yes; two soldiers were standing against the counter by the man`s head.

This is not a large bar? – A fairly decent sized one, I think.

It was fairly well packed? – I should say it was about half full.

Did any soldier who was sitting next to the man make any statement to you? – Yes. One said “Leave him alone; we will take care of him”.

Did the soldier say the man was more tired than drunk? – No, sir.

Did he say he had been on parade all day? – No, sir. The only thing he said was that if we left him alone they would take care of him.

Did anyone say about how long he had been there? – No, sir.

May I take it that the whole of the front of the counter was occupied? – It was, except where the seat was.

Did the landlord tell you that only a few minutes before he had been round collecting glasses, and did not see him? – No, sir. He said he had not seen him before we called his attention to him.

By the Chairman: the seat ran right up to the bar.

By Mr. Haines: To have seen the man`s head, anyone behind the bar would have had to lean right over the counter.

P.C. Whitehead corroborated the evidence of the Inspector.

Cross-examined, witness said the landlord assisted in ejecting the man, and two soldiers also assisted.

John William Barker, a mariner, of 18a, Great Fenchurch Street, said he was in the True Briton on the evening in question. The bar at that time was packed, mostly with soldiers. A soldier came into the bar from the street, he “scrunched” through the other soldiers, and “whopped” down on a seat. He then heard someone say “Sit up here”. Witness then left the bar, and after being away about a quarter of an hour he returned and saw a soldier lying sideways on a seat.

The Clerk: Was it the same man?

Witness: I could not swear it was the same man. Continuing, he said he saw the police come in. He thought it was Mr. James who said “Sit up here”, but he did not see the defendant before the police arrived. Witness stood by the mantelpiece, because one could not get near the counter for soldiers.

What condition should you say the soldier was in when he came into the bar?

Witness: I should think he had had a little drop to drink by the way he pushed between the soldiers.

Is that as far as you go? – That is as far as I know.

Did you make a statement to Inspector Lawrence? – Yes.

Did you tell the Inspector this: “After sitting there he lay down on the seat”? Is that true? – I don`t know.

Did you say that to the Inspector? - I don`t know what I said. This is a week ago. I don`t know. I cannot say.

Did you say “After about ten minutes the landlord came into the bar, pulled him up, and sat him on the seat”? – I don`t know.

Come on! Did you make a statement or not? - I did. I cannot answer for what I said a week ago.

But you have got to answer for what you said a week ago. Did you make a statement to Inspector Lawrence, and did you sign it? – Yes.

Was the statement made to Inspector Lawrence true or not? – I don`t know, sir. I don`t know what I told him. I told him something.

Was it truth or lies that you told him? – I don`t know. I don`t know what I told him.

You don`t remember what you told him? – I don`t, sir.

I will read to you what you told him. (Reading) “He lay down on the seat, and after about ten minutes the landlord came and pulled him up and sat him on the seat”. Is that true? – I don`t know.

You don`t know what? – Whether I told the policeman.

Is it true when you say Mr. James came into the bar, pulled the man up and put him on the seat? – I cannot say, because I don`t know.

Cross-examined by Mr. Haines: You remember what happened on this Sunday? – Well, I say I was in there from 7 to 8 as near as I can tell.

I put it to you. Did you say that defendant, while you were there, came into the bar, took hold of the man and sat him up? – No, I did not.

The Clerk: Then why did you tell me a minute or so ago that you did not remember whether you saw him? Get out of the witness box. You are not fit to be there at all!

Mr. Haines, addressing the Bench for the defence, quoted the law bearing on the case, and observed that no-one knew more than the publicans themselves in this part what they had to put up with. There was a great rush just before closing time, and in a small bar, where the people were packed like sardines, it was almost impossible to see everyone who came in. On this occasion defendant was going from bar to bar, clearing up glasses, and generally superintending, and he thought that after hearing the evidence the Justices would be satisfied that defendant took all reasonable precautions. These were abnormal times, and it was quite likely that anyone in the bar would not know a man was lying there in the condition alleged. Mr. James had held the licence for two or three years, and there was no complaint against the conduct of this house.

Defendant, in the witness box, said they had their work pretty well cut out to serve the customers. On this particular evening he had the assistance of his son-in-law and his wife (defendant`s daughter), and witness`s wife, and in the South Street bar was his other daughter. Witness was about, superintending. He had been in the bar collecting glasses about five minutes before the police came, and the soldier referred to was not there then. He did not see him until the police called his attention to him. Then one of the two soldiers said “He has not been served here. He is tired; he has been on parade”. Witness asked the two soldiers to assist in taking him out. The soldier got up, never said a word, and went out.

Mr. Haines: Have you taken every step to prevent drunkenness in your house? – Yes.

Supposing you had seen this man come in and ask to be served, would you have considered his condition such that he ought to be served? – No, we would not have served him. We are very careful.

Do you think he would have been noticeable, having regard to the counter and the number of men there? – No; it would be impossible to see him, especially of he was lying on the seat.

Supposing you had been behind the bar, do you think you would have been able to see him? – No.

By reason of the number of men in the bar? – Yes.

The Clerk: How long after you had gone round to collect the glasses did the police arrive? – In a few minutes; five or six minutes.

Before you came round to the Harbour Street front of the house had you been behind this particular bar? – Yes, I came through.

When you were behind, did you look over your customers? – Yes.

You didn`t see this man? – No.

If a man was lying on the bench, would you expect to see him? – No. I could not very well see him from the bar. If he had been there when I went round I should have seen him, but he was not there then.

Mrs. James, wife of the defendant, gave similar evidence. She said she was in the bar continuously, but she did not see the man until he was going out after the police had arrived. If anyone had been lying on the seat on the right hand side she would not have been able to see him.

The Justices having retired, the Chairman, on their return into Court, addressed the defendant as follows: The Bench have considered this case, and they quite appreciate the very great difficulty licence holders have, and they are perfectly willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. We quite understand the great difficulty, and you might not have seen this man; but, at the same time, we consider the police have acted quite rightly in bringing this case forward.

The summons was therefore dismissed.

Folkestone Herald 31-7-1915

Tuesday, July 27^th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Lieut. Col. R.J. Fynmore, Mr. J.J. Giles, Col. G.P. Owen, and Mr. H.C. Kirke.

Edward William James, the licensee of the True Briton, Harbour Street, was summoned for permitting drunkenness on his premises on July 18^th. The case had been adjourned on Friday, owing to defendant`s solicitor being unable to appear. Mr. G.W. Haines now represented the defendant, who pleaded Not Guilty.

Inspector Lawrence said that at 8.30 on Sunday, the 18^th inst., in company with P.C. Whitehead, he visited the True Briton Hotel. He saw a soldier lying on a seat with his head towards the counter and his feet towards the window. There were several soldiers and civilians in the bar, which fronted Harbour Street. There were about 16 or 18 soldiers and three or four civilians. The bar was about half full. He pulled the soldier up and found he was almost helplessly drunk. Defendant`s son-in-law and a young woman were serving at the back of the bar. Witness asked to see the defendant, who came through from the bar in South Street. Witness pointed out the condition of the man to defendant, who said he had not seen him before, and at once ejected the soldier. Witness said he would have to report the matter. As soon as the soldier got to the door he staggered across the pavement and fell down in the road, and was unable to get up. They brought him to the police tation and charged him with being drunk and incapable, and then returned to the True Briton, where witness saw defendant and his son-in-law, and told defendant he would have to report him for permitting drunkenness. He replied “I am very sorry. I hope you will look over it this time. I have always been very careful, and I had not seen him before”. The son-in-law said “I am almost sure I served this man a minute or two before, and he appeared sober then”. The son-in-law also said he was in charge of the bar.

Cross-examined, witness said there was nobody sitting between the counter and the soldier. He must have been seen from the bar. There were two soldiers standing against the counter in front of the man`s head. A soldier said to witness “Oh, leave him alone; we`ll take care of him”. The soldier did not say the man was more tired than drunk. The whole of the counter had men standing in front of it.

By the Bench: The seat ran right up to the bar, and no-one could stand between the counter and the seat.

By Mr. Haines: The persons behind the bar could not see the man`s head, as it was right up against the counter.

P.C. Whitehead gave corroborative evidence.

John William Barkes, of 18a, Great Fenchurch Street, a mariner, said he was in the True riton Hotel on the 18^th inst., from 7 to 8 p.m. The bar was packed at that time, mostly with soldiers. He saw a soldier come into the bar from the street and sit down on the seat. He heard someone say “Sit up here”, and he thought it was Mr. James. Witness went out after that. He was gone about 15 minutes, and when he went back again a soldier was lying sideways on the seat. He could not say if it was the same man. He saw the police come in. The bar was full. Witness heard the Inspector speak to defendant`s daughter behind the bar. Before that he had not seen anyone approach the soldier on the seat. He had not seen Mr. James at all before the police arrived. Witness was standing against the mantelpiece. He could not get near the counter. He would say the soldier had a little drop to drink when he entered the bar, from the way he pushed through the others.

Answering the Magistrates` Clerk (Mr. J. Andrew) witness said Inspector Lawrence had taken a statement from him, which he had signed.

Did you say to Inspector Lawrence, "The soldier lay down on the seat and after a few minutes the landlord came into the bar, and pulled him up and sat him on the seat?” - I don't know.

Oh, come. Remember you are on your oath. – I can`t answer what I said a week ago.

But you have got to answer. Was the statement you made to Inspector Lawrence the truth or not? – I don`t know, sir. I know I told him something.

Was it the truth or lies that you told him? – I don`t know.

The Chairman: When you told him that was it the truth? – I don`t know what I told him.

Witness persisted that he did not know whether Mr. James came into the bar and pulled the man up on the seat.

The Magistrates` Clerk, in reply to the Chairman, said the statement signed by witness was made on July 20^th.

In cross-examination witness said he did not see the defendant come into the bar and take hold of the man and sit him up.

The Magistrates` Clerk: Why did you tell me a minute since that you did not remember whether he did or not? You had better stand down. Get out of the witness box. You are not fit to be here.

Mr. Haines, in his address on behalf of the defendant, urged that he had taken all reasonable steps to prevent drunkenness, and that he was not aware that the man was in the bar. He said no-one more than the publicans themselves knew what they had to put up with at present, and he thought they would sooner see the places closed on Sunday evenings, because the bars were packed like sardines with the soldiers, although, considering the number of men that were served he did not think there was any great complaint about the military, remembering also the great number there were in the town. There was always a great rush just before closing time, which was 8.30 down there, and in a small bar where customers were standing all round it was almost impossible to see everyone who came in at busy times. The conditions of the trade were abnormal at the present time.

Defendant, giving evidence, said he had held the licence for three years. Of late there had been a very large business done with the soldiers, and he had all his work cut out to serve them. On the Sunday evening in question his son-in-law, Mr. Vaughan, his wife (defendant`s daughter), and Mrs. James were assisting in the Harbour Street bar, and witness was going from one bar to another. Another daughter was serving in the South Street bar. A few minutes before the police came in defendant could not get into the Harbour Street bar from the counter, owing to the crush, so he had to go round. When he got round to the front of the bar he looked round and collected some glasses. There were people sitting on the seat, but nobody lying drunk there. The soldier in question was not there then. Defendant went away to the South Street bar. When the police drew his attention to the soldier he was sitting between two others. One of them said the man had not been served there, and added that he was tired, having been on parade. Defendant assisted the soldiers to put the man out, and when he reached the street witness could see that he was drunk from his walk. He had taken every step to prevent drunkenness on the premises. He would not have served the man if he had seen him standing at the counter. It was impossible to see the man on the seat from behind the bar, as the place was so crowded.

Mrs. Winifred James, defendant`s wife, said she was continuously in the bar on the evening in question. It was packed full. She did not see the man until he was put out, as there were so many standing in the bar.

After the Bench had retired for a brief period the Chairman said they appreciated the very great difficulties that licensees had now, and they were perfectly willing to give the defendant the benefit of the doubt. They quite understood the great difficulties he had, and thought he might not have seen the man. At the same time they considered that the police had acted perfectly rightly in bringing the case forward.

Folkestone Express 16-10-1915

Tuesday, October 12^th: Before J.J. Giles Esq., Col. Owen, and H.C. Kirke Esq.

Mabel Collins was charged with giving a bottle of whiskey to a soldier, contrary to the Defence of the Realm Act, with intent to render the soldier less capable of efficiently performing his duty. She pleaded Not Guilty.

Corpl. Ernest Allen, of the Canadian Military Police, said the previous evening at 7.15 he was in South Street, when he saw the prisoner with Pte. Bale, of the 9^th Canadian Infantry, standing outside the True Briton. He heard Bale ask Collins if she could get him a bottle of whiskey. She replied, and Bale handed her some money. The prisoner went into the Hotel, and a few minutes later she returned and said to Bale “I require 6d. more to complete the purchase”. He handed her a silver coin, and Collins went into the hotel again. She returned into the street with the bottle of whiskey (produced) and handed it to Pte. Bale. They went up the steps leading to the Bayle Parade, and he, together with Corpl. Dawson, followed them. He then saw them sitting on the steps with three other girls, and two soldiers who were standing nearby. He went up to the accused and said “You have just been and bought this bottle of whiskey for this soldier”. She replied “I did, but I did not do it with any wrong intent”. He gave Bale into the custody of a military picquet. He took charge of the prisoner, who was eventually handed over to the civil police. The cork of the bottle of whiskey had been drawn, but he did not know whether any had been drunk or not.

The Chief Constable (Mr. H. Reeve) said he had not been able to communicate with the Town Commandant concerning the case, so he had not been able to get his permission to proceed summarily against the prisoner. He therefore asked for a remand so that he could communicate with the authorities.

The prisoner was therefore bound over until the next day.

On Wednesday morning the defendant failed to answer her name when called, and it was stated that she had left the town.

The case was adjourned sine die.

Folkestone Herald 16-10-1915

Tuesday, October 12^th: Before Mr. J.J. Giles, Col. G.P. Owen, and Mr. H.C. Kirke.

Mabel Collins was charged with giving a bottle of whisky to a soldier with intent to make him less capable of performing his duties. She pleaded Not Guilty.

Corporal Ernest Allen, of the Canadian Military Police, said on Monday evening, about 7.15 p.m., he was in South Street, when he saw the prisoner and a soldier named Charles Bale, of the 9^th Canadian Infantry, outside the True Briton. While they were there the soldier asked defendant to get him a bottle of whisky. He gave her some money, and she went into the True Briton. She returned in a few minutes, asking for more money to meet the purchase. Bale gave it to her, and later she came out with a bottle of whisky (produced). She gave it to Bale, and witness followed them up the Parade Steps. In the meantime he called Corpl. Dawson, who accompanied him. The defendant and Bale sat together on the steps with three other girls. There were two other soldiers standing nearby. He went up to the woman and told her he had seen her give a bottle of whisky to Bale. She said she did, but she did not do it with any wrong intent. Witness handed Bale over to the military authorities, and then sent for a constable. When arrested Bale was in possession of the whisky. The cork had been drawn from the bottle, but he did not think any of the liquor had been drunk.

The Chief (Constable (Mr. H. Reeve) said he had not been, able to communicate with the Town Commandant, as he was away, and therefore he had not got his authority to proceed summarily. He asked that accused be remanded till Wednesday. He had no objection to her having bail in her own recognisances.

The Bench remanded defendant till Wednesday in her own recognisances in the sum of £5.

At the hearing on Wednesday, before Mr. J.J. Giles, Colonel G.P. Owen and Mr. H. Kirke, accused did not surrender to her bail, and in view of her non-appearance the case was adjourned sine die.

Folkestone Express 15-1-1916

Local News

On Monday afternoon six members of the Fire Brigade with horsed reel, responded to a call at the True Briton, Harbour Street, to an outbreak of fire in a bedroom on the first floor. Fortunately they were able by means of chemicals to extinguish the flames before much damage was done. The fire was caused by a match being accidentally dropped on the floor.

Folkestone Herald 15-1-1916

Local News

An outbreak of fire occurred at the True Briton Inn, Harbour Street, on Monday afternoon. The Fire Brigade was called by telephone, and six firemen arrived. They found that the scene of the outbreak was a first floor bedroom. The blaze was soon quelled, but not before the window sash and frame burned, as well as the furniture, mat, and lumber, the cost of the damage being estimated at £2 10s. The outbreak is thought to have been caused by a match accidentally dropped on the floor.

Folkestone Herald 4-3-1916

Friday, March 3^rd: Before Lieut. Col. R.J. Fynmore and Alderman A.E. Pepper.

Edward William James, the landlord of the True Briton, was summoned for permitting drunkenness.

The Chief Constable said he had had a letter from Mr. G.W. haines, who was instructed to defend, asking for an adjournment, and the case was deferred till next Tuesday.

 

Folkestone Express 11-3-1916

Local News

Mr. Edward William James, landlord of the True Briton, was summoned at the Folkestone Police Court on Tuesday, for permitting drunkenness on his premises. Mr. G.W. Haines appeared for the defendant, and pleaded Not Guilty.

Corporal Charles Baker, of the C.M.P., said on February 22^nd he was on duty with Corporal Blake, when they were called to the True Briton at 7.45 p.m. There they saw two soldiers, both of whom were drunk. They were fighting, one of them having his coat off. Witness took one of the men to the guard room, and Corporal Blake took the other.

Corporal Joseph Blake, of the Imperial Military Police, said they were called to the True Briton by a corporal of the picquet, and there he saw the two soldiers (who were drunk) fighting. The men were taken to the guard room and charged with drunkenness.

Cross-examined: He could not say who sent for the corporal of the picquet.

Sergeant Lawrence Davies, of the C.M.P. said he was in charge of the guard room when the two men were brought in. They were drunk, and one was in his shirt sleeves.

Cross-examined: He judged that the man was drunk by his actions and by his appearance, and he smelt of liquor. A sober man would know better than to make a disturbance.

But he had control of his muscles? – More. A man may have so much drink in him that he is stronger than when he is sober.

Sergt. Sales said on February 24^th he called at the True Briton, and there saw the defendant, to whom he said “A report has been submitted to the Chief Constable by the military police respecting two soldiers who, it is alleged, were found drunk and fighting on your premises  at 7.40 on February 22^nd. A summons may be issued against you for permitting drunkenness”. Witness cautioned defendant, who then said “They were not drunk. They came in shortly after opening time and only had two or three drinks. One of them began to get quarrelsome, and I refused to serve him with any more drink. He also used bad language, so I sent for the picquet and had them ejected. I have always done my best to conduct my premises properly”.

The Chief Constable pointed out that the onus was on the defendant to prove that he had taken reasonable steps to prevent drunkenness.

Mr. Haines, addressing the Magistrates, said it was not likely, if defendant was permitting drunkenness, he would have invited the military police to the house to see the commission of an offence. The Bench knew the difficulties which licensed victuallers had to face, the short hours in which to carry on the business, and how the men came in. He would endeavour to prove that the defendant took all reasonable precautions it was possible to do, and he would further point out that “permitting” involved knowledge.

Defendant, giving evidence, said he had held the licence of the True Briton for four years. There were two bars, one facing Harbour Street and the other facing South Street. There was someone in charge of each bar and witness himself kept going backwards and forwards supervising the business. On the evening in question he heard his daughter say “I shan`t serve you any more” His daughter was in charge of the Harbour Street bar. He thought something was wrong and went to see. He noticed the soldier, the cause of the commotion, who was using rather bad language because witness`s daughter said he would have to pay for a glass he had broken. Because she refused to serve him he became violent, and said he was coming across to help himself. Witness requested him to leave the premises. He said he would not go before he was served, and witness said “If you won`t leave I shall have to send for the patrol to take you out”. Still he would not go, although his friend persuaded him “not to make a disturbance for nothing”. The more he was persuaded the worse he got. The man was not in his shirt sleeves when he left the house. The picquet were called, and the two men were ejected. Directly witness heard the voice he came to the bar. The man in question was not drunk.

Cross-examined by the Chief Constable: He sent for the picquet about 7.40. He told the police sergeant that the men came in just after opening time and that they had two or three drinks. One of the men was violent, but his language was worse. He was not drunk; he was more “excited and mad”.

What do you think made him mad? – I do not know whether it was because my daughter refused to serve him.

Would you say he was sober? – I could not see any effects of drink on him. He was more mad.

Do you say he was sober? – I do not say he was sober.

Was he “half and half”? – He might have been.

By the Clerk: The men remained in the house from 6.20 until they were ejected.

Mrs. M.E. Vaughan, daughter of the defendant, said on the occasion in question the bar was fairly well packed. She had not noticed the two soldiers until one of them commenced to use abusive language to the people he was talking to. Witness cautioned him about it, but he took no notice. Next time he called for a drink she refused to serve him. He threatened to come over and get the drink himself. He also broke a glass, and witness said he had better pay for it. Witness informed her father, and the picquet was sent for.

Cross-examined by the Chief Constable: Were they drinking “double deckers”? – Yes.

That is a double dose? – Yes, a double quantity.

How much is it? – Sixpennyworth.

So that if you served three “double deckers” they had 1s. 6d. worth of whisky? – Witness could not be positive that she served the men with three “double deckers”.

The Clerk: Let us get this right. Did you serve them with three “double deckers”? – They may have had a double first and then singles.

The Chief Constable: What did you serve these particular men with? – I do not know exactly what I served them with.

It might have been a “double decker” each time? – It might have been. I am sure the man was not drunk.

Mr. Haines: If a man was under the influence of drink, would you serve him with a “double decker”? – No! I should not!

The Bench, after having considered the case in retirement, dismissed the summons. They announced that they had very grave doubts as to whether they should not convict, but taking the whole of the circumstances into consideration, they had decided to give defendant the benefit of the doubt.

Folkestone Herald 11-3-1916

Tuesday, March 7^th: Before Mr. J.J. Giles, Colonel G.P. Owen, and Alderman A.E. Pepper.

Edward William James, the landlord of the True Briton, was summoned for permitting drunkenness on his licensed premises. Mr. G.W. Haines appeared for the defendant, and pleaded Not Guilty.

Corporal Charles Baker, of the C.M.P., said on the 22^nd February, about 7.40 p.m., when on duty with Corporal Blake, they were called to the True Briton. They found two soldiers in the public bar entered from Harbour Street drunk. One had his coat off, and they were fighting. The first man was Pte. Hockins. The people got in his way when he went to get the man out. Witness, however, got them out, and they fell into the picket. Corpl. Blake also got his man out. Both men were absolutely drunk, and they were taken to the guard room.

Cross-examined, witness said the men were charged with being drunk. The man did not walk. They were pushed and dragged together. They were very violent and bad-tempered.

In reply to the Chief Constable, witness said Corporal Blake and he went back to the bar and got the coat, tunic, and hat left there.

Corporal J. Blake, of the I.F.P., said he was called to the True Briton by the Corporal of the picket. He there found two soldiers inside, both drunk, with their arms round one another, and fighting. One was without his coat. Witness did not see anyone in charge of the premises. He saw a woman behind the bar. He did not speak to anyone. The men were taken to the guard room.

Cross-examined, witness said he could not say who sent for the picket. The picket was near the house.

Sergt. L.G. Davis, of the C.M.P., said he was in charge of the guard room on the evening in question. The men were both drunk, and resisted. They were very violent indeed.

Cross-examined, witness said he based his opinion as to their being drunk upon their appearance and smell.

In reply to the Magistrates` Clerk, witness said the men were left in the guard room till the following morning.

Sergt. Sales deposed that on the 24^th February he went to the True Briton and saw the defendant. He said to him “A report has been submitted to the Chief Constable by the military police respecting two soldiers, who, it is alleged, were drunk and fighting on your premises on the 22^nd. A summons may be issued against you for permitting drunkenness”. Defendant replied “They were not drunk. They came in shortly after opening time, and only had two or three drinks. One of them got quarrelsome, and I refused to serve him with any more drink. He used bad language, so I sent for the picket and had them ejected. I have always done my best to conduct my premises properly”.

The Chief Constable (Mr. H. Reeve) said the law was that onus lay on the landlord to show that he and those under him did everything in their power to prevent drunkenness.

Mr. Haines said if his client was permitting drunkenness it was not likely that he would call in the military police. The men might have been drunk, but the defendant would tell them that he acted mainly because of their language and the temper they were exhibiting. They all knew the difficulties the licence holders had at the present time. The onus was on them to satisfy them that they had done everything to perform their duty.

Defendant, on oath, said he had held the licence for four years. He had two bars, one facing Harbour Street, and the other South Street. He went backwards and forwards supervising the business. During the evening of February 22^nd he heard his daughter, who was in charge of the Harbour Street bar, say “I shan`t serve you with any more”, and he went over to see what was the matter. He then heard a soldier using strong language. He had knocked a glass down, and his daughter told him he would have to pay for it. His friend went up to him (the soldier), who said he would serve himself. Witness then went to the man and spoke to him. The soldier had his overcoat off, but he was at no time in his shirt sleeves. The coat was on the bench. The man refused to go unless he had another drink, and witness told him if he did not go he would send for the picket. The man`s friend advised him not to make a disturbance. A soldier went for the picket, who came and took the friend out first and then the other man. Directly witness heard a noise he came out from the other bar. He complained principally of their language. It was a very short time after he spoke to the man that the picket arrived. He was continually to and from between these tow bars.

Cross-examined, witness said he sent for the picket a little after 7.30 p.m. He admitted he told Sergt. Sales these men came in just after opening time. They had been served with two or three drinks. He did not serve these particular men himself. There were two others serving in this bar. The picket had great difficulty in getting the man out. It could not be said the man was drunk. He could not see any effect of drink on the man. The soldier might have been half and half. He first saw the man about 6.30. They remained in the bar till they were ejected.

In reply to the Magistrates` Clerk, witness said he could not see anything wrong with the men. He had heard no bad language previously.

Mrs. Mary Elizabeth Vaughan said she assisted her father at the True Briton. On February 22^nd the bar was fairly well packed. She had not noticed the two men till they used abusive language. She served them with two or three drinks. They had some whisky. The man started swearing amongst the people in the bar. She cautioned him once, and when he asked for another drink she refused him, as he would not stop swearing. He threatened to come across and serve himself. She then went and called for her father. He knocked a glass off, and she told him he had better pay for it. Her father went and spoke to the man, and the picket was sent for.

Cross-examined, witness said the men were Canadians, and were drinking “double deckers”. That would be double quantity. If they were served with three “double deckers” they would have 1s. 6d. worth of whisky. She served these men three times, she thought. Witness did not think the man used bad language through the whisky.

In answer to the Chief Constable, witness said she did not think she served these men every time with double deckers. She may have only served them once with double deckers.

The Chairman said, after giving the case serious consideration, the Bench had their doubts as to whether they should convict. Taking all the circumstances into consideration, the summons would be dismissed.

Folkestone Herald 19-1-1918

Local News

At the Folkestone Police Court yesterday the Bench granted a temporary transfer of the licence of the True Briton Hotel, Harbour Street, from Mr. James to Mrs. Lucas. It was stated that Mrs. Lucas` husband was a sergeant major in the Army, but was expecting his discharge at any moment. Meanwhile his brother would reside on the premises.

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: True Briton, from Mr. James to Mrs. G.F. Lucas 

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:

True Briton, from Mr. James to Mrs. Lucas.

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.

Folkestone Express 1-6-1918

Friday, May 24^th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Lieut. Col. Fynmore, Col. Owen, and Mr. H. Kirke.

Arthur Norman Foote, a Canadian soldier, was charged with obtaining money by false pretences with worthless cheques.

Mrs. A.E. Chipperfield, boarding house keeper, 18 and 19, The Leas, said the prisoner came to her house on the 16^th May and left on the 20^th. On Saturday morning he came to the breakfast room and said he had been to Lloyd`s Bank and found that she banked there. He had told them at the bank that he had lost his overcoat with his bank book. They therefore advised him to get a blank cheque from the witness`s book. She gave him the cheque (produced), which was blank. He put it in his pocket and went away.

Gertrude Florence Lucas, the licensee of the Harbour Hotel (sic), said the prisoner came to the hotel on Sunday about seven in the evening. He was in company with another soldier, who was a regular customer named Byron. The prisoner, who was a stranger to her, had the cheque in his hand. Byron said “Will you cash this cheque for my friend?” She replied “No, I never cash cheques”, and Byron said “It will be all right. You take my pay book and number”. The prisoner handed her the cheque, and Byron said the prisoner owed him £1, and wanted to pay him before he went. She cashed the cheque, which was for £3 10s., and made out in the name of M.C. Marriott, handing the money to the prisoner, but before doing so she asked him if it was his name, and he replied “Yes”. Foote told her he was employed at the West Cliff Hospital. Prisoner handed a £1 note to Byron, and put the remainder in his pocket. Byron told her that the cheque was all right, and if he had not been there she would not have cashed it. She actually cashed the cheque on Byron`s word.

Miss A.C. Featherstone, dealer in artists` material, 55, High Street, said the prisoner came into her shop on May 13<sup>th</sup> and purchased some drawing paper, for which he paid. He then asked her if she could oblige him with a blank cheque, and said he had a banking account at Lloyd`s, Montreal, but his papers had not come through. He further stated that he had some pay due to him, but he would not get it till the end of the month. She gave him the cheque (produced), which was blank. Prisoner then left the shop.

Mr. J.W. Jeafferson, Secretary to the Y.M.C.A. Luton Hut, said the prisoner was in the canteen of the hut on May 13^th, and he asked him (witness) to cash the cheque (produced). He questioned him as to whether the cheque was good, and he replied it was. He asked him to endorse it with his name, number and present location. He endorsed it. He cashed the cheque, which was for £3. On the Wednesday following he took the cheque to the bank, but payment was refused. The prisoner was in hospital clothes at the time.

Mr. H.F. Carpenter, accountant at Lloyd`s Bank, said the two cheques purported to be drawn by “C.F. Lewis” and “Charles Lewis”. They had no customer of that name on the books of the bank. Payment had been refused for the cheques.

Foote pleaded Guilty to both charges. He said he was much ashamed at his conduct. He was in a position to pay the money back, as he had £60 in credit. He had been in hospital since December, and they would not give him leave. He had no money, so he used that method in order to get some, as they had not given him any.

The case was remanded until the following day in order that an officer could attend.

Saturday, May 25^th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Col. Owen, and Mr. H. Kirke.

Arthur Norman Foote, remanded from the previous day, was again placed in the dock.

An officer from Moore Barracks Hospital said the man had been under his care for two months, being a mental case. He had been sent to the Lord Derby Hospital at Warrington, where he was kept for ten days, and was then sent back to the West Cliff Hospital for treatment for his eyes. He was then returned to Moore Barracks Hospital, but broke away from there. His (witness`s) opinion was that the prisoner would not be able to distinguish right from wrong.

The prisoner was bound over for three months to be of good behaviour. The Chairman also expressed the hope that Foote would reimburse the people with the money he had taken.

Folkestone Herald 1-6-1918

Saturday, May 25^th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward and other Magistrates.

Private Arthur Newman Foote was charged on remand with obtaining sums of £3 10s. and £3 by means of worthless cheques.

Eliza Ann Chipperfield, boarding house keeper, 18 and 19, The Leas, said prisoner took a room at her house on May 16^th, and left on the 20^th. On Saturday, the 18^th, he came to her and said that he had been to Lloyd`s Bank and found that she banked there. He had told them he had lost his coat with his own bank book in it, and they told him to ask witness for a blank cheque, which would give them better information to find his own coat and bank book. He asked witness for a blank cheque, and she gave him the one produced.

Gertrude Florence Lucas, landlady of the Harbour Hotel (sic), said on Sunday evening, May 19^th, defendant entered the saloon bar with another soldier named Byron, whom she knew as a customer. Prisoner was a stranger to her. Byron said “Will you cash this cheque for my friend?” Witness said she never cashed cheques, but Byron said it would be all right; she might take his pay book and number. Accused then handed her the cheque for £3 10s., and she changed it. It was signed in the name of Lewis, and the payee`s name was Marriott. Prisoner said Marriott was his name, and that he was employed at the West Cliff Hospital. Both men had a drink, and then left the house. She cashed the cheque because Byron told her it was all right.

Annie Clara Featherstone, dealer in artists` materials, 55, High Street, said on Monday, May 13<sup>th</sup>, prisoner came to her shop and purchased some drawing paper, which he paid for. He then asked her if she could oblige him with a blank cheque, as he had a banking account with Lloyd`s at Montreal, but his papers had not come through. He also said he had some pay due to him, but he could not get it till the end of the month. She gave him the cheque form produced.

Mr. J.W. Jefferson, Secretary to the Y.M.C.A. at the Luton Hut, said on Monday afternoon, May 13^th, he saw prisoner in the Hut. Accused asked him to cash the cheque produced (for £3). Witness asked him if it was good, and he replied that it was. Witness asked him to endorse it with his name, number and present location. He endorsed it and witness cashed it. He went to pay it into the bank on May 15^th, but it was refused. As far as he could remember, prisoner was in hospital clothes.

Mr. H.F. Carpenter, accountant at Lloyd`s Bank, Folkestone, said one of the cheques was drawn by “C.F. Lewis” and the other by “Charles Lewis”. They had no such customer at the bank. Both had been presented, but payment was refused.

Detective Sergeant Johnson stated that when charged at the police station prisoner said “Yes” and smiled.

Accused admitted both charges, and said he was much ashamed of himself. He was quite in a position to pay the money back, as he was £60 in credit. He had been in hospital since December and had had no money from the Canadian Government during that time. He wanted money to go on leave, and this method of getting it had been suggested by two friends of his. He knew that he would be found out in a few days, but had hoped to be able to pay the money back before that time.

An officer stated that the prisoner had been in the Moore Barracks Hospital and had been sent to Warrington to be kept under observation as a suspected mental case, being later returned to Moore Barracks Hospital. He thought prisoner was a man who could not distinguish between right and wrong. Each hospital patient was allowed 10s. a month for smokes, stamps and other small things, and if they wanted money for a special purpose they could get it by applying to the Medical Officer. It was probable that prisoner`s statement that he was £60 in credit was correct.

Prisoner was bound over for six months, the Chairman observing that he ought to reimburse those from whom he had had the money.

Folkestone Herald 8-6-1918

Correction

With regard to the case of a Canadian soldier passing worthless cheques, reported in our last issue, it should be stated that Mrs. Lucas, who changed one of the cheques, is the licensee of the True Briton Hotel. The Harbour Hotel was not associated with the case at all.

Folkestone Express 27-7-1918

County Court

Tuesday, July 23^rd: Before Judge Shortt.

Ash and Co. v Edward William James: This was a claim for £43 6s. 9d., agreement and goods sold. Mr. Arrowsmith, Canterbury, appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr. Douglas De Wet represented the defendant.

Mr. G.P. Brothers, Secretary to the plaintiff firm, brewers, of Canterbury, said the defendant first became the tenant of their house, the True Briton, Folkestone, on January 1^st, 1913. There was no claim for beer supplied, but for crates and empty bottles alleged not to have been returned. Every three or four months a statement was sent in to customers showing the deficit in the bottle account. When defendant left the True Briton in January last there was owing on the bottle account £25 10s., after allowing credit for bottles found on his premises. At the termination of the agreement an inventory was taken of goods, and certain goods were missing, the value of which had been assessed and would be proved.

Cross-examined: For some period the defendant paid neither rent nor rates, and afterwards he paid only rates. Witness had in certain cases known the  bottle and crate account to run on for 20 years. As far as possible the bottles bore the name of the firm. They paid a commission of 2d. per gross to the carman on returned empty bottles. The prices on bottles and crates in January last year were: 3s. 9d. per dozen pints, 2s. 9d. per dozen half pints, and crates 2s. 4d. Previously the prices were: pints 2s. 6d. per dozen, half pints 2s. per dozen, crates 1s. 6d. or 1s. 9d.

Re-examined: The price of bottles had increased since the war.

Mr. Edgar Brett, haulage contractor, of Canterbury, said he had been under contract with Messrs. Ash and Co. to cart beer to Folkestone since April, 1912. During the tenancy of Mr. James at the True Briton witness delivered the beer, having been absent only about four occasions. Then his man followed out the usual practice. It was the custom to give a receipt for the number of empty bottles and crates taken away.

Cross-examined: Sometimes, when the roads were very bad, the beer was sent by rail, witness or his man accompanying the consignment and seeing it duly delivered at the houses.

Mr. Loftus Banks, valuer and house agent, said he acted in this district for the plaintiff firm. He acted in the letting of the True Briton to the defendant in January, 1913. Witness witnessed the defendant`s signature to the furniture agreement. When defendant entered into possession, the inventory mentioned in the agreement was gone through and checked, and brought up to date. Defendant left the True Briton in January, 1918, when the inventory was again checked, with the result that he found goods were either missing or damaged. He valued the missing or damaged goods at £27 3s. 8d. A copy of this claim was sent to Mr. James, who subsequently met witness on the premises in March. They then found certain goods which he had entered as missing, and, allowing credits, reduced the claim to £20 13s. 9d. He found on the premises bottles which he valued at £9 6s. 6d.

Mr. Edward W. James, in the witness box, said he entered into the possession of the True Briton on May 1^st, 1913, and left there on January 18^th, 1918. He never signed an inventory, and when he left he paid Messrs. Banks and Son a cheque for £20 odd, which was the amount due from him, and was in full settlement of everything. He did not receive a receipt for this £20, being satisfied with the cheque as the receipt. Mr. James and Messrs. Banks` representative went over the house and checked the inventory, and no complaint was made at the time of any missing or damaged articles. He later accompanied Mr. Banks himself to the cellars and pointed out a large wooden box in which was a lot of crockery that had been damaged in the big flood. There had been five floods, but the third was a very big one, and the Corporation workmen, in pumping out the cellars, had broken some of the crockery. He told Mr. Banks the cause of the crockery being broken, and Mr. Banks said “Oh! We will pass that”. These articles now formed part of the claim in this action. He received no claim at all until February 20^th, although he left on January 18^th, and he went and saw Mr. Banks on March 12^th and repudiated the demand, pointing out that several of the things had been removed from one room to another, this being necessitated through the brewers making the kitchen in one of the bedrooms instead of the basement owing to the floods. With reference to the bottle and crate account, he did no “crate trade” and the crates never left his premises. Therefore it was wrong to say that 127 crates were missing. On the night of the change of tenancy there was a question of missing bottles and crates, and he took all his receipts for crates and bottles and handed them to Mr. Banks, and said if he checked them he would find the stock on the premises, for he owed nothing on this account. Mr. Banks refused to do this, but told defendant to bring the receipts to his office. He did not do this, as the proper place for receipts was on the premises and they were his property.

Mrs. James gave evidence that, on the night of the change, she accompanied Mr. Banks` representative over the house to go through the inventory. Everything was correct, and no complaint was made by Mr. Banks or his representative.

Mr. De Wet submitted that the plaintiffs had failed to prove any part of their claim. As regarded the claim for missing and damaged articles specified in the inventory, it was made clear that the inventory had never been signed by the defendant, nor by the previous tenant, for whom it was prepared. It was also clear that exactly the same inventory, re-copied, was going to be used by the brewers for the new tenant. If the new tenant had not refused to sign this, the present action would not have been brought. As to the bottles and crates, Mr. De Wet submitted that had Mr. Banks checked the receipts (as he was requested to do) it would have been seen that the bottle and crate account would have been level. Moreover, the cheque which was given him by the defendant on the night of the change was in full settlement of everything owing by him to the brewers. It was unfortunate that the defendant did not collect his receipts for bottles and crates up again. He left them on the table, and they were destroyed with other papers which were thought to be no longer required.

His Honour said from the evidence before him he was quite satisfied that the bottles and crates had been delivered to the house. Therefore he gave judgement for the full amount of the claim. With regard to the claim under the inventory, he was not satisfied with the evidence, and would not give a verdict for anything under this heading.

His Honour gave judgement for the plaintiffs for £25 10s. 1d. and costs.

 

Folkestone Herald 27-7-1918

County Court

Tuesday, July 23^rd: Before Judge Shortt.

Ash and Co. v Wm. Edward James; Claim of £46 3s. 9d., value of articles under agreement and goods sold.

Mr. Arrowsmith, of Canterbury, was for plaintiffs, and Mr. Douglas De Wet for defendant.

Mr. Percy George Brothers, Secretary to Messrs. Ash and Co., said the defendant became tenant of the True Briton on January 1^st, 1913, and entered into an agreement for the hire of the furniture. Tenants were supplied with beer in bottle and on draught. The bottles were booked against the tenants, and they were allowed credit for those returned. A balance was struck periodically, and the statement of the balance sent to the tenant. The balance against defendant at the time of leaving the house was £25 10s. 1d. All the returns of bottles were brought to them by the carman, who gave a receipt to the tenant for all bottles handed back. Defendant had paid for all the beer delivered. At the termination of the tenancy, an inventory was taken of the goods and furniture, and some were found to be missing, a certain amount being assessed for the missing articles.

By Mr. De Wet: Defendant for some time had the house free of rent and rates, and then he paid rates. They held a deposit of £100 from defendant. In some cases the firm had allowed the bottle account to run on for twenty years, but not in the case of a tied house. Occasionally they sent bottles out which were not marked with the firm`s name. If the bottles were not marked another market could be found for them.

By His Honour: The bottles were charged at the present increased price. The firm had bought bottles at the increased price during the war. Since the restrictions they had bought no bottles.

Mr. Edgar Brett, haulage contractor, of Canterbury, said he had done work under contract for the plaintiffs since April, 1912. All haulage from the plaintiffs to Folkestone came under the contract. He had delivered all beer to the house since defendant had had it, except possibly on four occasions, when his man had made the delivery. He always counted the empties, and gave defendant a receipt for them.

Mr. Loftus Banks, valuer, said he checked the inventory of furniture and goods when the defendant went into the house. All the goods mentioned in the inventory were in the house when the defendant went in. On his leaving the inventory was again checked, and witness was not satisfied with it. He personally checked the inventory in the following week, and found some of the goods either missing or damaged beyond repair. He valued these goods at £27 3s. 8d., and that figure he sent to the plaintiffs. A copy of the claim was sent to defendant about February 21^st, and he asked if he would like to meet him. Ultimately, on March 12^th, they met on the premises, and found some of the goods which had been claimed for, and credit was given for these, making the claim £20 13s. 8d. There were some broken pieces of goods in the cellar. He allowed £9 6s. 6d. for bottles found on the premises. Witness settled up accounts with Mr. James with regard to the £100 deposit, leaving £18 2s. 10d. due from the defendant, which he paid. The receipt for the sum was marked “Disputed bottle account allowed to stand over for settlement”.

Mr. De Wet here said defendant had no receipt.

By Mr. De Wet: The inventory of July 23^rd, 1912 was made for a former tenant, and was not signed either by the former tenant or by Mr. James when he went in. It was not till February 20^th that he checked the inventory himself. His representative checked it on the night of the change in January, 1918, and he prepared a fresh inventory, which was a copy of the old inventory of 1912, which, however, Mrs. Lucas, the new tenant, refused to sign, as she could not see some of the goods mentioned as being in certain rooms. He admitted that this was the reason for his visit on February 20^th.

Defendant stated that he had never signed any inventory, and that on January 18^th, 1918, he gave Mr. Banks a cheque for over £20, and not for £18, which cheque he produced. Nothing was said to him about there being anything further owing. He did not receive any receipt, and considered the returned cheque sufficient receipt. There was some question about the bottle and crate account, and Mr. Banks a fortnight previously asked him to send his delivery receipt to the office, which he had refused to do. On the evening of the change he handed to Mr. Banks all these receipts and asked him to check them, when he would find nothing owing. This Mr. Banks refused to do.

Mrs. James said she went over the inventory with Mr. Banks` representative, and pointed out where articles had been moved. The inventory was passed, and nothing was said or claim made for anything missing or damaged.

His Honour said he was dissatisfied with the claim as to furniture, and would allow nothing on that heading. He would allow £25 10s. 1d. for the bottles and crates, with costs.