Folkestone Herald
10-1-1920
Local News
We regret to announce the death of Mr. Sidney (Sid)
Saunders, of the Fountain Hotel, Seabrook. Deceased, who was widely known, went
out on Tuesday night on business and did not return. The next morning the
deceased was found in a small greenhouse, having passed away suddenly in the
night. His death was due to natural causes. Much sympathy is expressed with the
family. The late Mr. Saunders came to Folkestone many years ago as a carpenter,
and was formerly proprietor of the East Cliff Tavern. He subsequently became
proprietor of the White Lion Hotel, Cheriton, the Railway Bell Hotel,
Folkestone, and the Fountain, Seabrook.
Folkestone Herald
23-1-1926
Local News
At the East Cliff Tavern on Monday about seventy customers
and friends sat down to a capital supper prepared by Mr. and Mrs. Mark Price.
Subsequently a pleasant programme of music was gone through, the chair being
taken by Mr. L. Field. Amongst those who contributed to the programme were
Messrs. Baba Pantry, Horace Brickell, George Allen and Herbert Robertson. A hearty
vote of thanks was accorded to Mr. and Mrs. Price. A collection raised a
handsome sum for Dr. Barnardo`s Homes.
Obituary
We regret the death, at the Swan Inn, Dover Road, of Mrs.
Annie Buller Saunders, at the age of sixty years. Deceased was the widow of the
late Mr. “Sid” Saunders, who was successively landlord of the Railway Bell
Hotel, Folkestone; the White Lion, Cheriton; East Cliff Tavern, and the
Fountain Hotel, Seabrook. Her happy and cheerful disposition endeared her to
all. To do a good and deserving turn to others afforded her real joy. To her
only child, Mrs. Herbert, the wife of Mr. S. Herbert, of the Swan Inn, sincere
sympathy is extended.
The funeral took place at the Cemetery.
Folkestone Herald
2-10-1926
Canterbury County Court
Saturday, September 25th: Before Judge Terrell.
Messrs. George Beer and Rigden Ltd. sued Martin Grey Price,
the tenant of the East Cliff Tavern, Folkestone, for £2 16s. 10., balance of an
account. There was a counterclaim by the tenant against the brewers for £33 5s.
for alleged overcharges at the rate of 5s. per barrel of beer, from October,
1925, until August, 1926. Mr. R.F. Fletcher, barrister, appeared for the
plaintiffs, and Mr. S. Lamb, barrister, was for the defendant.
Mr. Fletcher said that was an action by Messrs. George Beer
and Rigden for goods sold and delivered to the defendant, who was the tenant of
one of their houses. It was a remitted action. The original amount of the claim
was £119 8s. 6d. The writ was issued on the 28th April for beer
supplied in March and April, and the case came before the Master in the High
Court. A sum of £86 11s. 8d. was paid by the defendant, who admitted liability
for that amount, but contested liability of the balance, and he said he had
paid £30 on account. It was quite true he had paid £30 in April by cheque,
which cheque had been promptly dishonoured. Upon those facts the Master made an
order on June 20th for the payment of a further sum of £30, and the
balance of £2 11s. 10d. The position today was that the plaintiffs had
recovered the whole of their account except the £2 16s. 10d., and that was the
amount with which His Honour had to deal that day, together with the
counterclaim of £33 10s. He did not intend to worry His Honour about the small
sum of £2 16s. 10d., and he would leave it to his learned friend to prove his
counterclaim.
Mr. Lamb: I thought my learned friend would take that course
as he does not want to put his client in the box, while he wants me to put mine
in. Continuing, Mr. Lamb said that his client, Mr. Martin Price, was the tenant
of the East Cliff Tavern, Folkestone, which was one of the plaintiffs` houses,
and had been there since 1919. Up to October, 1925, the plaintiffs had been in
the habit of supplying the defendant with draught beers at what he would call
the current market price, but from the 2nd of October they started
to add 5s. a barrel to the price, and the £2 16s. 10d. was what the extra
charge of 5s. per barrel amounted to out of the sum of £119 odd which the
plaintiffs were seeking to recover. The position therefore was this: that the
£2 16s. 10d, which his friend had now at the last moment abandoned, was the
whole gist of the matter. Defendant was refusing to pay that because he said
that amount was the extra charge of 5s. a barrel made upon him in March and
April. The counterclaim began in October, 1925, and went on until April of the
present year, and for that period they were claiming in respect of overcharges
a sum of £33 5s., omitting the sum of £2 16s. 10d., which was the substance of
dispute in the claim. Therefore the position now was that the plaintiffs were
abandoning their claim to the overcharge for March and April, but he claimed
that the principal involved was the same in both cases of overcharges.
Replying to His Honour on points of law, Mr. Lamb stated
that the agreement entered into by the plaintiffs and defendant in 1919 was
that the brewers were to supply goods at current prices in the district, and
they had to prove they were justified in making an extra charge.
His Honour: The agreement means reasonable prices, which are
the current prices in the district.
Mr. Lamb said that up to October, 1925, Mr. Price was
supplied with draught beers at the same price as the other houses in
Folkestone. There were three other houses in Folkestone owned by these brewers,
and the whole of the tenants were in Court that day, and their evidence would
be that they were supplied with draught beers at a price which was 5s. a barrel
less than was charged to the defendant. Theirs was the current price of the
district and a reasonable price.
His Honour: You say that up to October, 1925, they did not
charge that extra 5s., and it is for them to justify that extra charge?
Mr. Lamb: Yes, but owing to the course they have taken the
onus is on me for the moment. This is really a question of principle.
His Honour stated that once he had settled the question of
principle he would hand the matter over to the Registrar as a matter of
accounts.
Mr. Fletcher: The Registrar will not be troubled, Your
Honour, if my friend establishes his principle.
His Honour (to Mr. Lamb): But between the 2nd of
October, 1925, and the 1st of April, 1926, you apparently paid the
excess charge. How can you get it back now?
Mr. Lamb: I say we paid it under protest.
His Honour: That is of no avail whatever.
Mr. Lamb: I claim them back as damages. I say they committed
breach of contract for which I claim damages.
His Honour: Can you pay an excess price and then get it back
by way of damages? You are claiming damages because you paid too much. How can
they be responsible for that?
Mr. Lamb: Because they forced us into it, and committed a
breach of their contract.
His Honour: They charged you a certain sum, and you paid it.
Mr. Lamb: They said “If you don`t pay pay us that price, we
shall not supply you with beer”.
His Honour: If they did that, you could get your beer
elsewhere.
Mr. Lamb: I am complaining of their refusal to supply me
with beer at the contract price.
His Honour: What damages can you claim for that?
Mr. Lamb: It is made up by the extra 5s. a barrel they
charged.
His Honour: That is not damages, because you could have gone
elsewhere. If you had gone elsewhere and got it at a price 5s. less than they
charged you would have suffered no damage. The fact is you have gone on paying
the 5s. extra which they charged. Judge Terrell quoted cases, and told Mr. Lamb
he had better look into them. He could have gone into the market and bought
cheaper, and would not then have suffered any damage.
Mr. Lamb: The answer to that is that I could not have got
these beers anywhere else. Other brewers do not brew George Beer and Rigden`s
beers.
His Honour: But you could have got other and the same class
of beers.
Mr. Lamb: But why should I do it? I have a contract with
Beer and Rigden.
His Honour: Supposing they had said “We won`t supply you
with beer at all”. You would have gone and bought it elsewhere. What would have
been your damages? Supposing you could have said “Beer and Rigden`s beers are a
higher class than other beers, and my custom fell off because I could not
supply Beer and Rigden`s beers”, then you might get damages if you could
establish that. If a brewer of a house said he was not going to supply his beer
at the market price, and charges you more, then you have the right to go
elsewhere.
Mr. Lamb: There is a penalty clause in teh agreement.
His Honour: But they could not claim that at all in such a
case.
Mr. Price, on oath, stated that he first went into the house
twenty years ago. The agreement produced was entered into when the amalgamation
of the brewers (Beer and Rigden) took place, and the terms were identical with
those in his previous agreement. Up to the 2nd of October last he
was being supplied with draught beer at a certain price, but after that date he
was charged an additional 5s. per barrel. As a result of that, up to August
last year they had overcharged him to the amount of his counterclaim.
In answer to Mr. Lamb, Mr. Price admitted that in April he
gave a cheque to the brewers for £30 and he claimed it was met the same day. He
could not say why it was dishonoured. He knew that the brewers` other houses in
Folkestone were being supplied with beer since the 2nd of October at
5s. a barrel less than he was charged. He could not say why they had charged
him more than their other tenants.
His Honour: Haven`t you heard, or enquired? – They won`t
say. They gave me notice to quit some time back.
A letter was put in, written by Mr. Harris, representative
of the brewers, dated September 16th, 1925, in which it said: The
notice expired on 7th August last, and we shall be glad to hear from
you when it is convenient to give up possession, as we cannot allow the matter
to remain in abeyance any longer.
It was stated that the rent had been paid ever since 1925,
and was all paid up.
His Honour: Then there is a new tenancy created?
Mr. Lamb said the tenant took up the position that he did
not want to leave the house he had been in so long. They could not get him out
under the Rent Restriction Act, and they were helpless. If they wanted to get
him out, they had to cast round for some other means.
In cross-examination, Mr. Fletcher asked whether witness
suggested that he knew no reason why the brewers should wish to get rid of him
as a tenant.
Witness: I do not.
Mr. Fletcher: Then I shall have to put a question to you I
should otherwise have refrained from putting. In the summer of last year were
you suffering from a bad state of health? – I was.
And was that stae of health connected with and brought about
by excessive drinking? – It was, Sir, I am sorry to say, but it is a thing of
the past now.
It was not a thing of the past when this notice to quit was
running? – It was.
Notice was given to you on the 6th of May? – Yes.
Were you at that time recovering from an illness caused by
excessive drinking? – Yes.
Do you know that on the 21st of May your
solicitor wrote this: “My client has brought me your letter of the 6th
inst., with notice enclosed. I am directed to point out he cannot give up
possession at such short notice, owing to his recent illness, and the fact that
he has not yet completely recovered”. There is an application for an extension
to October. Do you still tell the Judge you know no reason why the brewers
should wish you to terminate your tenancy? – Yes.
A tenant who is suffering from DTs is hardly a satisfactory
tenant to the brewers, is he? – I had somebody there to take care of me.
Let me ask you one or two questions about your cheques. The
beer supplied to you during March and April was supplied on credit? – It was,
but the supply was not ordered by me, but was what they sent on.
From October last year to the end of March this year had
your dealing been so unsatisfactory from a financial point of view that they
refused to supply you except for cash on delivery? – Yes.
In fact, your cheques had been returned many times? – only
three times; and I can say this, that they produced the cheque before the time.
Witness was asked about a cheque of his given in December,
1924, for £134 14s. 11d., which was returned three times, and he replied “It
was met afterwards”.
Mr. Fletcher: Yes, on the threat of a writ addressed to your
solicitors? – It was paid.
His Honour: It was dishonoured three times.
Witness: Why, before the cheques are met, should they
telephone to the bank before the money is there? Can you tell me that?
Mr. Fletcher: Is it not a fact that your cheques were not
returned on a number of occasions in 1925? – What do you call numbers?
Four, five, six, seven times. Now, Mr. Price, be careful. I
suggest they have been returned 5, 6, or 7 times? – Yes, they have always been
met afterwards.
Witness was questioned about the cheque for £30 mentioned in
the High Court, which he gave and which was returned, and in connection with
which he swore an affidavit on May 19th to the effect that he on
April 21st paid the plaintiffs a cheque for £30, the receipt for
which was in his solicitor`s hands.
Witness said he did not know at the time that it had been
returned.
His Honour: I expect he assumed the receipt was in his
solicitor`s hands, if he did not know the return of the cheque.
Mr. Fletcher asked witness if he was not given notice that
the price of his beer was going to be increased, and he replied that he did not
know until he got his bills. It came as a complete surprise to him.
Pressed upon the point, witness said he remembered he did
not get notice of the fact, and that he also signed an order form, which showed
the increased price upon it.
His Honour: You ordered the beer?
Witness: Yes, and paid for it before I saw it.
Mr. Fletcher: And all the beer in respect of which you are
making your counterclaim was ordered, delivered, and paid for in the same way,
was it not? – Yes.
Witness, replying to Mr. Fletcher, further admitted that
when he could not get beer from his brewers he dealt with Messrs. Fremlin Bros.
Mr. Fletcher: And I believe you made a very good thing out
of it? – Yes.
You got it cheaper than you could have done from Beer and
Co.? – Yes.
Witness was next questioned about the number of special
orders he sent necessitating deliveries very much oftener than it was the
custom of the brewers to send to Folkestone, and he denied that it was the
brewers` custom to send to their tied houses at Folkestone once a week. He
admitted that during last February and March they had to deliver twelve times
to him. He received a letter from the brewers on July 22nd, stating
that he must place his orders at the regular times or they would have to charge
him for the extra expenses of delivery.
In re-examination by Mr. Lamb, witness said he had been
obliged to sell one consignment of beer before he could get another, and that
was why the deliveries had been more frequent at his house. That had been going
on since October. Since his illness he had taken no spirits at all.
Mr. Lamb said he had the tenants of the other three tied
houses of Messrs. Beer and Rigden there, if there was any question as to the
prices they paid.
Mr. Fletcher: I only challenged these things to make sure
the tenant went into the witness box. The figures are admitted.
Mr. Lamb: Then that is my case.
Mr. Fletcher submitted that he had no case to answer, and said
at the moment he should not call any evidence.
His Honour said he would have to consider the case and would
reserve judgement.
Folkestone
Express 20-11-1926
Local News
At the Canterbury County Court on Saturday, His Honour Judge Terrell,
K.C., had before him again the adjourned action in which Messrs. George Beer
and Rigden, Ltd., brewers, sued Martin Grey Price, of the East
Cliff Tavern, Folkestone, one of their tenants, for £2 16s. 10d., balance of an account. There was a counter-claim by the tenant for
£35 for alleged over-charges for beer.
Upon the case being called, Mr. L.F. Fletcher, for the plaintiffs, said that His Honour had appointed that day for hearing his friend
Mr. Lamb and himself, argue upon certain points. It was an argument both
Mr. Lamb and he had looked forward to with very great pleasure, and he was sure
it would have been an extremely interesting one. But this had to give way to
the interests of their client and Mr. Lamb and he, after a discussion on all
the points, had arrived at a settlement which he thought was very satisfactory
and honourable to both parties. The terms had been endorsed on their
respective briefs, and in order that an opportunity might be given for carrying
them out properly, he would suggest that His Honour should adjourn the case.
His Honour: Would it not be better if I gave a stay
of all proceedings with leave to either party to apply again if necessary?
Mr. Fletcher agreed, and Mr. Lamb, on behalf of the
defendant, concurred in Mr. Fletcher’s remarks. They regretted they would not
have His Honour’s assistance in the circumstances in discussing the law of the
case, especially as he was engaged in another case of an exactly similar
nature, but involving a much larger sum.
His Honour: I may say I had written my judgment and
gone very fully into the law and all cases dealt with upon the subject.
Mr. Fletcher: I wonder if we might be allowed to
see it at some time, your Honour? It would prove most interesting to both Mr. Lamb
and myself.
His Honour: I shall be very happy for you to do so.
His Honour then handed to Mr. Fletcher his considered and written judgment for
counsels’ perusal.
Folkestone Herald
11-12-1926
Local News
At the Folkestone Police Court yesterday, the licence of the
East Cliff Tavern was transferred to Mr. Twigg, now licensee of the Packet Boat
Inn, Radnor Street.
Note: Date is at variance with More
Bastions in both cases.
Folkestone
Express 18-12-1926
Local News
At the Police Court on Friday the licence of the East
Cliff Tavern was transferred to Mr. Twigg, licensee of the Packet Boat in
Radnor Street, of which he has held the licence for six years.
The Clerk said steps were being taken immediately to
find a tenant of the Packet Boat.
Note: Date is at variance with More Bastions
in both cases.
Folkestone
Express 8-1-1927
Wednesday, January 5th: Before Mr. G. I. Swoffer and other
magistrates.
The following licence was transferred: East Cliff Tavern, from Mr. Martin Grey Price to Mr. John
W. Twigg.
Folkestone Herald
8-1-1927
Wednesday, January 5th: Before Mr. G.I. Swoffer,
Mr. W.R. Boughton, and Colonel P. Broome-Giles.
The Magistrates granted the application for the full
transfer of the licence of the East Cliff Tavern from Martin Grey Price to John
W. Twigg.
After the application had been granted the outgoing licence
holder said that he simply refused to have it done.
The Chairman: It is no good your objecting. The transfer is
granted. The Magistrates cannot help themselves. I am sure they would like you
to understand what the position is. You signed the notice for a transfer. Mr.
Twigg got a protection order and you were present. You must fight it out with
the brewers. The Magistrates cannot help you. They can do nothing at all.
Mr. Price: It was done so quick on me. I have a word to say,
though. It was a dirty bit of business.
Folkestone Express
16-12-1939
Local News
Several summonses for offences against the
Lighting Order were heard at the Folkestone Police Court on Friday.
John Twigg, East Cliff Tavern, Folkestone, was the last
defendant.
P.C. Richardson said at 7.10 p.m. on the 2nd
December he was on duty in East Cliff when he saw two lights shining from the
defendant`s premises. At one point the light was shining over the roadway for a
distance of 20 feet. A man passing by read the names on some parcels which he
was carrying. Defendant said he thought he could have a little light.
Defendant said it was very difficult for them, as they had a
fence on either side. The light came from the bottle and jug department to show
people the way.
A fine of 10/- was imposed.
No comments:
Post a Comment