Jubilee Inn 1920 - 1924

Jubilee Inn c1920 Credit Rosie Barham

Folkestone Express 28-5-1921

Local News

On Wednesday at the Police Court the following transfer was granted: the Jubilee Inn, Radnor Street, from Mr. J.E. Gales to Mr. Hugh McKay, a Folkestone man, who for 26 years has been employed by the S.E.R. Company at the Harbour.

Folkestone Herald 28-5-1921

Local News

At the Folkestone Police Court on Wednesday, Councillor W.J. Harrison being in the chair, the licence of the Jubilee Inn, Radnor Street, was transferred from Mr. J.E. Gales to Mr. H. Mackay.

Folkestone Express 6-9-1924

Tuesday, September 2^nd: Before the Rev. Epworth Thompson, Miss Hunt, and Col. Broome-Giles.

Hugh MacKay, licensee of the Jubilee public house, in the Fish Market, was summoned for supplying drink during prohibited hours. Mr. A.K. Mowll (Canterbury) defended, and pleaded Not Guilty.

Inspector Pittock said that at 8.58 a.m. on Tuesday last he was proceeding along The Stade with P.C. Johnson, and on passing a blind passage adjoining a public house he saw a man named Taylor (jnr.) take two pint glasses of beer from a window in the Jubilee public house to a store. He went down to the store and saw two men holding a pint glass containing beer in their hands. He had a conversation with them, and requested them to accompany him to the Jubilee public house. They found the front door unfastened, and on entering found defendant behind the bar. He (witness) had the glasses of beer in his hand, and said to defendant “I have just seen these pints of beer handed out through this side window to this man, Taylor”. Defendant replied “Quite right, sir. It was not paid for. It was a gift for a bit of fish they brought here last night”. He told defendant he would be reported for supplying intoxicating liquors during prohibited hours, and he replied “It was a gift”.

The Clerk: Did you taste the beer?

Witness: Yes.

Was it fresh? – Freshly drawn, and froth on the glasses.

Had either of the men consumed any of it? – No.

Did you follow them immediately? – Yes, I ran down, and they hadn`t time to drink it.

Mr. Mowll: What you saw was a man take two glasses across the passage.

Witness: No, take it down. The actual view of the window sill is obscured by a downpipe.

So what you have graphically described by handing it through the window, that is not correct? – I saw him take it from the window.

You told us you cannot see the window? – The window is 5ft. 3in. from the ground, and I saw him reach it down. Whether he took it from the window sill or someone in the window I cannot say.

Then it is not correct you saw this beer handed out from the window? – I saw it handed out from the window.

In reply to the Clerk, witness said the window opened out into one of the bars, but not into the bar where they found defendant. The window was open about a foot at the bottom.

P.C. Johnson corroborated.

Defendant said he had been the licensee of the house for three years last May. He had known Taylor (snr.) for forty five years. He told the police it was a gift, and it was a gift. He regarded the two men as his friends.

Cross-examined by the Chief Constable: He had some fish from these men, but the beer was not in payment for the fish. It was always understood that if they got a bit of fish, they gave them a drink of beer.

By the Clerk: They took the fish about a quarter or twenty past eight in the morning.

Charles Taylor, 24, Great Fenchurch Street, said he had been a fisherman since he was 14 years of age, and had been friends with the defendant for 45 or 46 years. He took the fish to the house about 8.20 a.m. They had been out fishing all night. He was not paid for the fish, and they did not pay for the beer.

Mr. Mowll: They did not even give you the chance of drinking it? – No.

The Chief Constable: Why didn`t you tell the Inspector that when he spoke to you?

Witness: Well, he never asked me for that. He asked me where I got it from, and I told him off the bench in the store.

By the Clerk: He took the fish to the house about 8.15 or 8.20. His son was in the Fish Market, and he went to fetch him.

Mr. Mowll said he thought it was unnecessary for him to point out to the Magistrates that the licensee was in a different position to any other trader in any place, and he was in a much more unfortunate position than any other trader. Any other trader but a licensee could come before the Magistrates, and could be convicted of any offence which did not necessitate his detention for a time at His Majesty`s expense, and he might go on next day as if nothing had happened. He might water his milk, and be convicted, which was more serious than the offence before the Magistrates that day. He could sell milk next day as if nothing had happened, but a licensee, if there was a breath of anything wrong under the grandmotherly legislation they suffered under in these days, ran a very serious risk of losing his licence, though it may be the first time he had been summoned for any offence. It was quite easy for the Magistrates and himself, who were acquainted with the licensing laws, to say that if a transgression of this kind had taken place, the licensee before even attempting to give his friends a glass of ale ought to have been under the precaution either to see the Chief Constable or sought legal advice, or possibly to have seen the Clerk and found out whether, if anyone took him fish, he was entitled to give his friends a glass of beer.

The Clerk: If he had come to me I should have referred him to you, or some other solicitor. (Laughter)

Mr. Mowll said it was an easy thing to be wise after the offence. He came and saw the Chief Constable on the subject. He need scarcely say, whatever the Magistrates` view was of this transaction, it would be a warning to the defendant which would make him hesitate very seriously before he ever attempted to entertain his friends in this way. The only part of the evidence of the police he objected to was the statement when the police Inspector said he had seen these glasses handed out of the window, because he knew that was not correct, and he knew he could not have seen it, and he admitted when he made the statement he had seen them handed out that statement was not quite correct. In his opinion the licensee was probably wise in what he did. It was all very fine for the Chief Constable to say to the Inspector “Did you find this place bolted or not?” Of course he found the place unbolted. Some people had the erroneous idea that because they could not sell drink during certain hours they ought to bolt and bar their public house. They ought to do nothing of the sort. If he liked to get to his office in Canterbury by coming to Folkestone first, and he found himself extremely hungry, there was nothing to prevent him knocking at the door and demanding to be served with a good breakfast of porridge, bacon or eggs, or whatever else he wanted. He did not suggest it should include beer. In one section of the Act it was an offence to supply beer in this way, yet in the next section gave various provisos which were excepted from the provisions of the section before. For instance, they could supply intoxicating liquor at any licensed premises to any person who was residing there, otherwise he and the Magistrates staying at hotels would not be able to get it – if they wanted it. There were other provisions, and these unfortunate licensees were supposed to know them all – sixty or seventy sections, all supposed to be known to these people. Another provision was that the licensee could supply intoxicating liquors to individual friends at his own expense. That was a very wide provision, and it was not amended in any way. If the story that was told, and not shaken by the police constable, was correct, that these two old friends of the licensee, because some fish had been delivered at the premises, had been promised a pint of beer each, there was nothing that would prevent the licensee supplying these two people, and nothing that would justify the Magistrates in convicting the defendant of this offence. It might be that the Magistrates thought this was a borderline case. He suggested that although it might be a case near the borderline, having regard to the fact that it must be a serious warning to the defendant, and although they might think a technical offence had been committed, the Magistrates would say under the circumstances the justice of this case would be properly met by dismissal, on payment of costs.

The Chief Constable said he put the case before the Magistrates as a very bad case. He had received numerous complaints, particularly in regard to this house, and Inspector Pittock, on the 26^th June, cautioned defendant, and he asked the Magistrates to bear that in mind when considering the gravity of the offence.

Mr. Mowll: The fact remains it is the first time he has ever been summoned, and he has been in the house three years.

The Chairman said the Magistrates had carefully considered the case, and they were unanimous that there should be a conviction. Defendant was liable to a fine of £30, but on taking everything into consideration the Magistrates had agreed defendant must be fined £7 10s.

Charles Taylor (snr.) and Charles Taylor (jnr.), fishermen, who had also been summoned for a breach of the Licensing Act, were called forward, and the Chief Constable asked for the summonses to be withdrawn, but he would like the Magistrates to understand that he did not propose to adopt this course in every case.

The Chairman said defendants had committed an offence, and a very serious offence, but no punishment would be passed under the circumstances. They gave them a caution, and emphasised it very greatly. They should not be guilty of any similar practice. They would be dismissed.

Folkestone Herald 6-9-1924

Tuesday, September 2^nd: Before the Rev. H. Epworth Thompson, Colonel P. Broome-Giles, and Miss A.M. Hunt.

Hugh MacKay, licensee of the Jubilee Inn, The Stade, was summoned for supplying intoxicating liquor during prohibited hours on the 26^th ult. Mr. A.K. Mowll defended.

Inspector Pittock stated that at 8.58 a.m. on August 26^th he was proceeding along The Stade in company with P.C. Johnson, and on passing a blind alley by the Jubilee Inn, he saw Mr. Chas. Taylor, jun., take two glasses of beer from a window of the house to a store opposite. He went down to the store and found two men, each holding a glass of beer in his hand. They went to the Jubilee public house and on walking inside found the defendant behind the bar. Witness had the glasses in his hand, and he told him that he had seen them handed out from a window of the house. He replied “Quite right, sir. It was not paid for. It was a gift for a bit of fish they brought last night”. Witness said that he would be reported, and defendant replied “It was a gift”. The beer was fresh. The men did not have time to drink it.

By Mr. Mowll: The view of the window in question was obstructed by a drain pipe; the window was 5ft 3ins. from the ground. He did not see the beer handed out from the window; he saw Taylor take it from the window.

By the Magistrates` Clerk: The window opened in to one of the bars, but not the one in which defendant was found.

P.C. Johnson corroborated.

Defendant (on oath) said that he had been the licensee of the house in question for three years, and he had known Mr. Taylor, sen., for 45 years. The beer was a gift.

By the Chief Constable: The beer was not in payment for some fish witness had that morning; it was an understood thing that when one had some fish one gave a drink of beer to the giver.

Chas. Taylor, sen., said that he was not paid for the fish he gave Mr. MacKay, and he did not pay for the beer.

By the Chief Constable: He did not tell that to Inspector Pittock, because the Inspector did not ask him.

Mr. Mowll, in addressing the Bench, said that the licensee of a public house was in a more unfortunate position than any other trader. Anybody but a licensee could be convicted of any offence which did not involve a period of detention at His Majesty`s expense, and afterwards he could carry on his business as if nothing had happened. A man might be convicted of watering his milk – a far more serious offence than the one alleged here – and the next day he could go on selling his milk as if nothing had happened. But the licensee, if there was the slightest breath of anything being wrong according to the legislation under which we all suffered, ran the serious risk of losing his licence, although ti might be the first time he had been summoned for any offence. Of course, it was very easy for the Magistrates and for him (the speaker), who were acquainted to some extent with the licensing laws, to say that, before a transaction of this sort took place, the licensee should have taken the precaution either of seeing the Chief Constable or of seeking legal advice, or possibly of seeing the Magistrates` Clerk, and asking him whether he was entitled to give a glass of beer to anyone who brought him some fish.

The Magistrates` Clerk: If he had come to me I should have sent him on to you. (Laughter)

Mr. Mowll, continuing, said it was easy to be wise after the event. Whatever might be the view the Magistrates took of the matter, that day`s proceedings would be a warning to the defendant, and would make him hesitate very seriously before he ever attempted to entertain his friends in that way. The only point in the evidence he objected to was the statement of the Police Inspector that he had seen the glass handed out of the window, because that was incorrect. He knew that the police could not have seen it. The section of the Act under which those proceedings were taken provided that it was an offence to supply beer in this way; yet the next section gave various provisos which were excepted from the provisions of the section before. One could supply intoxicating liquors at any time on licensed premises to a resident on the premises, and there were many such sections, all of which the licensee was supposed to know. Another provision was that the licensee could supply intoxicating liquor to any private friends as entertainment provided by him at his own expense. That was a wide provision that was not limited in any way, and if the story that had been told – and it had not been shaken by the Chief Constable – was correct, then those two old friends of the defendant, because some fish had been delivered on the premises, had been promised a pint of beer. There ws nothing to prevent the licensee from supplying those two people, and nothing which would justify the Bench in convicting the defendant of that offence. They might say that it was a borderline case, but he suggested that, having regard to the fact that the proceedings would be a warning to the defendant, even if a technical offence had been committed, they should say that under the circumstances justice would be met by dismissal on payment of costs.

The Chief Constable said that he submitted that the case was a very bad one. He had complaints of that house, and on June 26^th Inspector Pittock warned the defendant.

Mr. Mowll: the fact remains that this is the first time defendant has ever been summoned, and he has been in the house for three years.

The Chairman said that the Bench had carefully considered the case, and were unanimous in deciding for a conviction. Defendant was liable to a fine of £30, but, taking everything into consideration, the Bench had agreed that he should be fined £7 10s.

The Chief Constable said that he would withdraw the summons against Chas. Taylor, sen., and Chas. Taylor, jun., for being supplied with drink after hours, but he did not propose to adopt that course in any other cases.

The Chairman, addressing the two men, said that they had committed an offence, and a very serious one too. No punishment would be passed under the circumstances, but they gave them a caution, and emphasised it very greatly. He urged them not to be guilty of any similar practice.