Jubilee Inn 1925 - 1929

Folkestone Herald 10-1-1925

Local News

At the Folkestone Police Court on Wednesday, before Mr. G.I. Swoffer and other Magistrates, the licence of the Jubilee Inn was transferred from Mr. H. MacKay to Mr. Wm. George Thomas Tingey, of Whitstable.

Folkestone Express 1-5-1926

Local News

At the Folkestone Police Court on Wednesday, before Mr. G.I. Swoffer Mr. G. Boyd, Dr. W.W. Nuttall, and Mr. A. Stace, Emily Berry was charged with having been drunk and disorderly on The Stade on Tuesday, and she pleaded guilty.

P.C. Bates said at 8-30 p.m. on Tuesday  he was called to the Jubilee public-house by the landlord, who stated he had a woman on the premises who refused to quit. He went j into the public-house, and recognised her as a woman he had cautioned in Radnor Street about 8 p.m. for causing a slight disturbance.  With the assistance of the landlord he put her out, end as she continued to use, filthy language he took her to the Police Station, with the assistance of P.C. Finn.

Prisoner said she had nothing to ask witness; he would only contradict her if she said  anything.

The Chief Constable said there were eighteen previous convictions against prisoner, chiefly for drunkenness, but she had not been there since 1920, and he would think it was quite likely she was sorry it had happened.

The prisoner was fined 5s.

Prisoner: I have not got any money to pay.

The magistrates gave her a week in which to pay the fine, leviable by distress, or seven days`.

Folkestone Herald 1-5-1926

Wednesday, April 28^th: Before Mr. G.I. Swoffer, Mr. G. Boyd, Mr. A. Stace, and Dr. W.W. Nuttall.

Emily Berry was charged with being drunk and disorderly in The Stade on Tuesday.

P.C. Bates said at 8.30 p.m. on Tuesday night he was on duty in The Stade, when he was called to the Jubilee Inn, the licensee informing him that there was a woman on the premises who was drunk and refused to quit. He saw the woman (the defendant). He had cautioned her previously in the evening about 8 o`clock for causing a slight disturbance. With the help of the licensee he put her out of the public house. Defendant then started to cause a disturbance and use obscene language. He took her into custody.

Prisoner said she was very sorry for what had happened.

The Chief Constable (Mr. A.S. Beesley) said there were eighteen previous convictions against defendant, but there had been none since 1920, so it was very likely she was sorry it had happened.

The Chairman, in fining the defendant 5/- said the Magistrates were taking a lenient view of the case.

Defendant said she could not pay.

Mr. Swoffer said defendant would be allowed seven days to pay. The fine would then be levied by distress, or, in default, seven days` imprisonment.

Folkestone Express 4-12-1926

Local News

At the Folkestone Police Court, Lance Corporal Fred Elles was summoned for assaulting Mr. Tingey, the licensee of the Jubilee Inn, by striking him in the face with his fist, and he pleaded Guilty.

Mr. Tingey said on the 24^th November defendant went into the house, with three soldiers, about seven o`clock, and everything went all right until about nine o`clock, when one of them said “Now we are all right, two Irishmen and two Englishmen”. They started to fight. With the assistance of one of his customers, who held the most violent man, he got the other three out. About five minutes to ten all four returned. Defendant was quite sober, and the other three were drunk. Defendant called for four drinks, and he called to his barman “Don`t serve them. Leave them to me”. Defendant said to the barman “You will get a thick ear”. The barman did not serve them, and he (witness) called “Time”, because he could see there was trouble brewing. In getting them out defendant hit him a very violent blow over the left eye.

Defendant said he did not remember what happened. Someone thumped him in the back of the neck, and he struck out blindly, with no intention of hitting the host.

An officer said defendant had an excellent character.

Defendant was fined £1.

Folkestone Express 2-7-1927

Local News

Tuesday, June 28^th:  Before Alderman C. E. Mumford, Miss A. M. Hunt and Dr. W. W. Nuttall.

George Slenderman Weatherhead was sum­moned for having, on the 10th June, stolen two notes of the Bank of England, of the value of £5 each, the property of Frederick John Wilkinson.

Frederick John Wilkinson, The Avenue, Littlestone-on-Sea, fruiterer and greengrocer, said on the 10^th June he came to Folkestone for produce, to the early morning market, arriving about 6.30 to 7 a.m. At the time he had two Bank of England £5 notes, three £1 Treasury notes, and a cheque for £5. He had the money in an envelope. About ten minutes after he arrived at the market he took the envelope from his breast pocket, when he was standing near Mr. Bean`s lorry, to take a £1 note to give to the defendant to pay for some peas. Defendant was on the spot, and had previously helped him to load his lorry. He returned the envelope to his pocket. Weatherhead returned him the change of 8s. He completed his business, jumped on Mr. Bean`s lorry to pay him for his purchases, and again withdrew the envelope from his pocket and took the contents, and found only two £1 Treasury notes and the cheque. The two £5 notes were not there. He told Mr. Bean he had lost the notes, and Weatherhead was in the immediate vicinity of the lorry, about ten or twelve yards away. When he found he had lost the notes he told Bean he had lost them, and it would be audible to anyone standing round. They both made a search, but could not find them. He said nothing to defendant about his loss. On returning home he found he had not left the notes there, and he gave information to the police.

Defendant: Why didn’t he tell me that he had lost the notes?

Mr. Wilkinson: Because I was not sure that I had lost them then.

Defendant: I wouldn’t rob any man.

William John McEwitt, barman at the Jubilee public house, said defendant went into the bar, and tendered him a £5 note for drinks. He called for a round of drinks for customers in the bar, which came to 1s. 10d. Defendant offered him a £5 note, and he asked him if it was his. Defendant said “Mine? Of course it is”. He asked defendant if he had been in crossword puzzles. “Crossword puzzles? If you don`t think it is a good `un, take it to the boss”, which he did. He handed the £5 note to his employer, who gave him the change.

Mr. W.C.T. Tingey, landlord of the Jubilee public house, said that on the 10^th June defendant gave him a £5 note to change. Ultimately he gave his barman the change for the note. Later the same day he saw defendant in the bar, in the evening, and he received case from defendant several times. Defendant tendered him a second £5 note about 10.25 p.m. Defendant had been standing drinks to other people. The drinks amounted to 1s. 6d. when defendant gave him the second note. He did not give defendant the change that night, and he told him to call the following day. He did so, and he paid him the money. The first note he changed with Mr. Skinner, and the second he paid away to the Licensed Victuallers` Mineral Water Co. He had known defendant for three years, and he knew he had been an old sailor. He did not know what defendant was now. He was not surprised at defendant being in possession of two notes. He did not ask defendant for an explanation as to where he got the notes.

P.C. Williams said he received information about the loss of the two £5 notes, and made certain inquiries, and as a result of his inquiries he interviewed defendant on the 22^nd June on the East Cliff. He told him he was a police officer, and that he was making inquiries regarding two £5 Bank of England notes which had been lost, and had ascertained that he had changed two such notes. He told defendant he should report the matter, and that it was possible proceedings might be taken against him. He cautioned him, and he said “I don`t wish to say anything”. On the 25^th, at 6.30 p.m., he served the defendant with a copy of the summons, and he told defendant he was charged with stealing the notes by finding them. He asked defendant if he understood it, and he replied “Yes”. He then cautioned defendant, and he replied “Finding is not stealing; I found the notes”

Ernest William Ellen, landlord of the Packet Boat, said defendant went to his bar on the 10^th June about 12.30. He called for three pints of beer, and tendered a £5 note in payment. He told defendant he was sorry he had no change, as he had not been to the bank, and defendant said “It is quite in order; my sister sent it to me." He had a reason for saying he could not change it, but he could have changed it. He knew defendant was a casual worker in the Fish Market. He still declined to change it, and he left owing for the beer. Defendant said he would be back later, and four days later he called and paid for the beer.

Defendant: I am guilty of finding but not of stealing. I wouldn’t rob a man of a penny. I have got nothing to say.

The Clerk: You mean you picked them up and spent them?

Defendant: Yes, just the same as I have said it.   

The Clerk: The law says it is stealing.

Defendant: I cannot make that out.

Inspector Pittock said defendant was a local man. He had no regular employment, and did odd jobs in the market. There were twelve convictions against him, chiefly for drunkenness, the last one in 1914.

Defendant: If you like to give me a chance I will turn over a fresh leaf, and won’t come up any more.

The Chairman said the magistrates had very carefully considered the case, and they might have sent defendant for six months. On account of his evident attempt to go straight in recent years, he was an old sailor, who served in the Royal Navy, and because they thought he was trying to act better as a citizen, they were only going to send him to prison for one month. They hoped it would be a lesson to him. They found de­fendant was undoubtedly guilty by finding, but finding things was stealing them, just as much the same as if they robbed in the ordinary way of stealing. It was no excuse for defendant or anyone else that because they found something they might presume it was theirs. Their duty was to          take it to the Police Station or the nearest authority they could hand it over to. With regard to the evidence to which they had listened they had first the evidence of the barman. Now the barman at the Jubilee seemed to have risen to the full height of his responsibilities as a servant, and when the note was offered to him he very properly refused to take it, in view of the fact he knew from whom he was taking it. With regard to the real licensee of the place, the licensee, strange to say, did not rise to the full height of his responsibilities. There was the second time in his own house that a £5 note was changed. The barman seemed to have acted with great discretion, and the Magistrates regretted the fact that the man who held the licence did not act in the same way,

and the more so because it was the second time during the day that that change of a £5 note was made. The Magis­trates wished to say they granted licences to men to hold the responsibilities and the licensee was in a responsible position towards the public and the police, and the magistrates expected every help and judgment to be used in dealing with a case such as this. The Magistrates were very pleased to think that Mr. Ellen, at any rate, recognised the responsible position in which he was placed. They were glad to express the opinion that he acted very properly in this matter, and they hoped the police and Magistrates would have every help from those who held licences, and held the position they did.

Folkestone Herald 2-7-1927

Local News

George Slenderman Weatherhead was sentenced to one month`s imprisonment at the Folkestone Police Court on Tuesday, on a charge of stealing by finding two £5 Bank of England notes.

Fredk. John Wilkinson, of Littlestone-on-Sea, a fruiterer and greengrocer, said that on Friday, June 10^th, he came to Folkestone for produce at the early morning market. He arrived about seven o`clock. He had two £5 Bank of England notes, three £1 Treasury notes, and a £5 cheque. He carried the money in an envelope. He had occasion to take the envelope out about ten minutes after he arrived at the market. At the time he took the envelope from his pocket he was standing by Mr. Bean`s lorry. He gave a £1 note to defendant to pay for some peas. Defendant usually helped him to load his lorry. He handed the £1 note to defendant and returned the envelope to his pocket. Weatherhead returned 8s. change. He completed his business with Mr. Bean and jumped on Mr. Bean`s lorry to pay for his purchases. He again withdrew the envelope from his pocket; he took the contents out and found that they only consisted of the two Treasury notes and the £5 cheque. The two Bank of England notes were not there. He immediately commented upon having lost them to Mr. Bean. Weatherhead was employed in his work in the immediate vicinity at the time. Mr. Bean`s lorry was ten or twelve yards from his own lorry and defendant was going between the two lorries. He told Mr. Bean that he had lost the two notes; His remarks would be audible to anyone standing around. They both made a search but could not find the notes. He said nothing directly to Weatherhead about his loss. On returning home he found that he had not left the notes there and then he gave information to the police.

Defendant: Why didn`t he tell me he had lost the notes?

Witness: You will see by my evidence that I was not sure I had lost them.

Defendant: I would not rob any man.

William John McEwitt stated that he was employed as a barman at the Jubilee public house. On Friday, June 10^th, prisoner came in and called for a round of drinks, which came to 1s. 10d. Defendant offered him a £5 note, and he asked him if it was his. Defendant said “Mine? Of course it is”. He asked defendant if he had been in for crossword puzzles, and he said “Crossword puzzles be ----; if you don`t think it`s a good one take it to the boss”. He handed the note to his employer, who gave him the change.

William George Tingey, the landlord of the Jubilee Inn, said that on Friday, June 10^th, the last witness brought him a £5 Bank of England note for him to change. Ultimately he gave him the change for the note. He saw defendant in the evening in the bar; Weatherhead was there up to closing time. Defendant tendered him a second £5 Bank of England note for drinks.

The Clerk: Had he been standing drinks to other people or not?

Witness: Yes.

Mr. Tingey added that the drinks amounted to 1s. 6d. He told defendant to come for the change the following day. Defendant came the following day and he gave him the change. The first note he received he changed with Mr. Skinner. The second note he paid away to the Licensed Victuallers` Mineral Water Company. Witness further stated that he was not surprised at defendant tendering the notes.

The Magistrates` Clerk (Mr. J. Andrew): Did you ask him any questions as to where he had obtained the notes from?

Witness: No, sir.

P.C. Williams said that he received information of the loss of two Bank of England notes and interviewed defendant at 8.30 on June 22^nd on the East Cliff. He told defendant that he was a police officer and had been making enquiries regarding two £5 Bank of England notes which had been lost, and had ascertained that he had changed two such notes. He told Weatherhead that he would report the matter and that it was possible that proceedings might be taken against him. He cautioned prisoner, who replied “I don`t wish to say anything”. On June 25^th he served defendant with a summons. He told prisoner that he was charged with stealing the notes by finding them. Defendant said that he understood it. He then cautioned Weatherhead, who replied “Finding is not stealing. I did not steal the notes”.

Ernest William Ellen, landlord of the Packet Boat, said on June 10^th, at about 12.30, defendant ordered three pints of beer and tendered a £5 note. He said “I am sorry; I have no change until I have been to the bank”. He had a reason for saying that; he could have changed the note. He knew defendant to be a casual worker at the Fish Market. Defendant said “It is quite all right; my sister sent it to me”. He still declined to change the note and defendant left owing for the beer. Four days later defendant called and paid him for the beer.

Defendant pleaded “Guilty by finding, but not by stealing”. He added that he had nothing to say.

The Magistrates` Clerk: You mean you picked them up and spent them?

Defendant: Yes.

The Magistrates` Clerk: The law says that is stealing.

Defendant: I cannot make it out.

Inspector Pittock stated that defendant was a local man, and at present he had no fixed abode. There were ten previous convictions, chiefly fort drunkenness, the last one being in 1914. Defendant was bound over in 1911 for six months for false pretences.

Defendant: If you will give me a chance I will turn over a fresh leaf and will not come up any more.

The Chairman of the Bench (Alderman C. Ed. Mumford) said on account of defendant`s evident attempt to go straight in recent years, and because he was an old sailor who had served in the Royal Navy, and because they believed that he was trying to act better as a citizen, they were only going to send him for one month`s imprisonment; they might have sent him for a much longer period. They hoped that that would be a lesson to defendant. People who found things and kept them were stealing just the same as if they robbed in what was called the ordinary way of stealing.

With regard to the evidence to which they had listened, the barman of the Jubilee seemed to rise to the full height of his responsibility as a servant of his employer. When a note was offered to him the barman very properly refused to take it and to give change, in view of the fact that he knew from whom he was taking it. The lessee, strange to say, did not rise to the full height of his responsibility, and it was the second time in his own house that day that a £5 note was changed.

Calling Mr. Tingey before the Magistrates, the Chairman said: “Your barman seems to have acted with great discretion and the Magistrates regret that you, who hold a licence, did not act in the same way, and more so because it was the second time during the day that change was made of a £5 note. The Magistrates wish to say this: We grant licences to men to hold responsible positions; the lessee of a public house or hotel is in a very responsible position towards the Bench, and towards the public and the police, and the Magistrates expect that help and judgement shall be used in dealing with such cases as this”.

Alderman Mumford then addressed Mr. Ellen. The Magistrates, he said, were very pleased to think that he, at any rate, recognised the responsible position in which he was placed. They were glad to express the opinion that he acted very properly in the matter. They hoped that in the future the police and the Magistrates would have every help from those who held licences.

Folkestone Express 7-1-1928

Tuesday, January 3^rd: Before Mr. G.I. Swoffer, Dr. W.W. Nuttall, Alderman C.E. Mumford, Mr. W.R. Boughton, and Col. Broome-Giles.

John Patrick Flynn, a young married man, was charged with unlawfully wounding Elvie Flynn, his wife, by stabbing her in the hip with a knife, in the Fish Market, the previous night.

P.C. Langford said about 9.40 p.m. the previous day he was in High Street when he saw a woman. From what she said he went with her to the Fish Market, and to the Jubilee Inn, where he saw the prisoner. He said to him “Are you the husband of this woman?” The prisoner`s wife was with him. He said to him “Your wife has previously come to me and said “My husband has stuck a pen-knife into me””. To that he made no reply. He then said “I shall take you to the police station, where you will be detained while further inquiries are made into it”. He then cautioned him, and he replied “I will come along”. At the police station he searched the prisoner, and among other articles found upon him the pen-knife, produced. He also had 13s. 2d. in his possession. Later he was present when the prisoner was charged by Det. Constable Butcher with inflicting grievous bodily harm upon Elvie Flynn. He replied “I have nothing to say”.

Dr. William Claude Percy Barrett said about 10.30 p.m. he examined Mrs. Flynn and found a small wound on the outside of the left hip about half an inch in length and an eighth of an inch in depth. This was an incised wound. It had caused bleeding. Her clothes had been pierced by some instrument agreeing with the site of the injury. The vest was bloodstained. Either blade of the pen-knife produced might have caused the wound, but it was probably the smaller one. The injury was not a serious one. The woman was wearing three thick articles of clothing and more than playful force must have been used to inflict the wound. The wound was a very trivial one.

Mrs. Elvie Flynn said she was the wife of the prisoner, and lived at No. 26, Garden Road. Her husband was an Army pensioner, and she had been married to him about twelve months. On Monday morning he left home early to draw his reserve pay. He returned home and gave her £1. He went out again and she remained indoors until 6 p.m., when he had not returned. She went to the Shakespeare Hotel, and saw him in the bar there. She asked him for more money for food, and he said he had none. Outside the bar he took from his pocket two or three Treasury notes and tore them in halves. He then put them back into his pocket. He attempted to strike her, but she had her pram with her baby in it,, and she twisted it round so that he could not strike her. They had two or three words outside the Shakespeare. She then said “Are you going to give me any money?”, and he walked away along Guildhall Street. Shortly afterwards she saw him in Foord Road and he walked behind her. When she went home he came in just after her. She again asked him for money, and he told her he had none. Her brother and sister-in-law and their child were in the room then. She went out and obtained some tea and sugar and on her return the prisoner sent a girl out for some fish and chips for his supper. When she returned with the fish and chips he had gone out. He came back two or three minutes afterwards. She did not ask him for money. He just came in the door and walked out. That was about 7.30 or eight o`clock, and her husband went out with her brother, Frank Waller. Before he left she told him that it was only beer of which he thought when he had money. He lost his temper. She remained indoors until about nine o`clock, and then she went down with her baby in the perambulator to the Fish Market. She opened the door of the Jubilee Inn and saw her husband sitting in the public bar. She called him out, but he would not come. She stood outside a few minutes, then called to him again. He did not come so she called out “You can have beer; come outside and give us money for food”. He came out and she said “Will you give me some money?”, and he took the notes from his pocket and tore them into pieces, and he threw them into the road, saying “There it is there” She said “You silly”, or something to that effect. As she said that he ran for her to hit her again. Her mother, who had come out of the Jubilee, said “Don`t hit her”. She started talking about money again. He ran for her and she thought he was going to punch her. She pulled the latch of the Oddfellows public house, intending to get away, and half fell, and as she fell she felt something hit her in the side just above the left hip. Mrs. Skinner and the men in the public house came to her assistance, one of the men in the public bar catching her. Defendant struck her a blow and she thought he was striking her with his fist. Whe he ran her round the pram he said “I will do you in”. She felt the knife enter her thigh, and she cried out “He has stabbed me”. She put her hand to the spot and found that it was covered with blood. She saw a policeman, and P.C. Langford went with her to the Jubilee. Her husband had been drinking, and she thought he must have been drunk to a certain extent.

P.C. Langford, re-called, said the prisoner appeared to be perfectly sober when he arrested him.

Prisoner said hearing what his wife said about his mother he lost his head.

The Chairman then said he would be committed to take his trial at the next Quarter Sessions.

Prisoner said he did not ask for bail.

Folkestone Herald 7-1-1928

Local News

A charge of unlawfully wounding his wife by, it was alleged, stabbing her with a pen-knife, was preferred against John Patrick Flynn at the Folkestone Petty Sessions on Tuesday.

P.C. Langford said at about 9.30 the previous night he was in High Street when a woman made a communication to him. He went to the Jubilee public house in the Fish Market, where he said to prisoner “Your wife has just come to me and said “My husband has just stuck a pen-knife in me””. To that he made no reply. Witness then said to him “I shall take you to the police station where you will be detained while further enquiries are made”. Witness cautioned him, and he replied “I will come along”. At the police station, among other articles found on prisoner, was the pen-knife produced. When formally charged, prisoner replied “I have nothing to say”.

Dr, W.C.P. Barrett, Police Surgeon, said he examined Mrs. Flynn at the police station, and found a small incised wound on the outside of the left hip, half an inch in length, and about an eight of an inch in depth. All the clothing above the wound had been pierced by some instrument. Either blade of the pen-knife produced might have caused the injury. The wound was not dangerous. The woman was wearing three thick articles of clothing, and more than playful force must have been used to inflict it.

Mrs. Elvie Flynn, who gave her address as 26, Garden Road, Folkestone, said her husband was an Army pensioner. They had been married 12 months. On Monday morning he left home early to draw his Reserve pay, and returned about 9.30, giving her £1. He then went out again. About 6 p.m., as he had not returned, she went to the Shakespeare Hotel, where, outside the house she asked prisoner for more money for food. He took two or three Treasury notes from his pocket and tore them in halves, and put them back in his pocket. He then attempted to strike her. She asked him again for money, and he walked away down Guildhall Street. Shortly afterwards she saw him in Foord Road and he walked behind her home. When they reached home she again asked him for some money and he told her he had none. Prisoner went out with her brother about 7.30 or 7.45. In the house they had an argument about money. At about 9 o`clock she went to the Jubilee Inn, in the Fish Market. She opened the door and called her husband. He would not come out. A few minutes later she called him again and said “You can have beer. Come on out and give me money for some food, will you?” He came out, took the notes from his pocket, tore them into smaller pieces, and, she thought, threw them into the road, saying “There it is”. He ran to her again to hit her but her mother, who had come out of the Jubilee, said “Don`t hit her”. Witness started talking about money again and defendant ran for her. She thought he was going to punch her. She caught hold of the latch of the Oddfellows Inn (sic), and as she partly fell he struck her in the left side. People in the public house came to her assistance. She thought defendant hit her with his fist. She did not see a knife in his hand. When he struck her he said “I will do you in”. When she was picked up she put her hand where the blow landed, and it came away covered in blood. She then found she had been stabbed. She went and found P.C. Langford. The knife produced belonged to her husband. Defendant had been drinking and must have been drunk to a certain extent.

P.C. Langford (re-called) said when arrested prisoner appeared to be perfectly sober.

The Magistrates then retired for a short period, and upon their return announced that prisoner would be committed for trial.

Prisoner, who did not ask for bail, said with his wife saying things about his mother, he lost his head.

Folkestone Express 28-1-1928

Quarter Sessions

Saturday, January 21^st: Before Roland Giffard Oliver Esq.

John Patrick Flynn, 22, a miner, pleaded Guilty to maliciously wounding his wife, Elvie, at Folkestone, on January 2^nd last.

Mr. J. Weigall (instructed by Mr. A.F. Kidson, the Town Clerk) prosecuted, and said the prisoner had pleaded Guilty to stabbing his wife with a pen-knife outside a Folkestone public house in the Fish Market. The man was of good character, and the matter seemed to have started by the wife demanding money from her husband, who, instead of giving her money, went off to the public house. The prisoner made a statement at the Police Court that he lost his head because of the observations his wife made about his mother.

Mrs. Flynn was called, and she said her husband was a miner and a good workman. She and her child had nothing to live upon if her husband was sent to prison.

The Recorder: Are you afraid of him?

Mrs. Flynn: No, sir. In reply to further questions by the Recorder, she said it was true she called his mother over something cruel.

The Chief Constable said the trouble seemed to have been going on for some time. The prisoner came from Wollaston, Staffordshire. He was educated at Newcastle, Stafford, and the schoolmaster said he was quite a good boy. He worked in the pits from 14 years of age until March, 1924, when he joined the Army and served for three years. At the end of that time he returned to Wollaston with his wife and baby, and they resided with his mother. He again went to work until August last, when he left of his own accord. While at Wollaston Colliery he bore a good character. There was no record of any conviction against him, and nothing was known detrimental to his character. His wife took out a summons against him at Wollaston for persistent cruelt, which was to be heard at Burslem on May 17^th, 1927, but as there was no appearance the case was not heard. On two occasions the police had been called to the house where they lived, but on account of the quarrels taking place in the house no action could be taken in the case. In the opinion of the police in Staffordshire the quarrels appeared to have been caused by the idle and dirty habits of the wife.

Dr. W.C.P. Barrett, in answer to the Recorder, said the wound was really only a graze. Although the skin was broken it was nothing more than a scratch.

The Recorder, addressing the prisoner, said he (Flynn) had been in prison since the incident occurred, and he had had time to think about it. He was going to give him another chance. He did not know that he ought to do so because he had a knife. In England they did not like people who used knives. He was prepared to think from what happened it was a very trivial use of the knife, resulting in a mere scratch – fortunately for the prisoner. He was going to give him another chance, as much for his wife`s sake as his own. He was going to bind him over for two years to be of good behaviour. The prisoner and his wife must not have these dreadful quarrels in public, or anywhere else. He was being treated very mercifully. If he went on like that again he would be brought before him, and be sentenced for what he did on that occasion. He (the Recorder) advised him to take that as a warning, and try to do better.

The prisoner: Thank you, sir.

Folkestone Herald 28-1-1928

Quarter Sessions

Saturday, January 21^st: Before Roland Oliver Esq.

John Patrick Flynn, aged 22, a miner, was indicted for, on January 2^nd, at Folkestone, maliciously wounding Elvie Flynn, his wife. Accused pleaded Guilty, and a written statement was handed to the Recorder.

At the Police Court hearing of the case it was stated that prisoner stabbed his wife with a pen-knife outside the Oddfellows Arms public house, in the Fish Market.

Mr. Weigall, who appeared for the prosecution, said he was informed that the man was of good character, and the trouble seemed to have started by the wife demanding housekeeping money. Instead of giving her the money, he went into a public house. She got him out, and before the Police Court there was a statement by the prisoner that he lost his head because of an offensive observation made by the wife about his mother.

Mrs. Elvie Flynn was then called, and in answer to the Recorder said she would have nothing to live on if her husband was sent to prison.

The Recorder: Are you afraid of him? – No, sir.

Has he ever done anything of this sort before? – No, sir.

The Recorder: He says that you said to him on that evening when you quarrelled “You are like your mother. She is no good to me, and nor are you”. – I called his mother something cruel, and I had no business to.

The Chief Constable (Mr. A.S. Beesley) said the trouble seemed to have been going on for some years; he believed ever since they had been married. Prisoner was born on November 25^th, 1905, at Newcastle, Stafford, and was educated at a Roman Catholic school and other places. His schoolmasters said that he was quite a good boy when at school. In 1917 he went to live at Wollaston, and when he was nearly 14 he went to work as pitboy at Wollaston Colliery. On January 19^th, 1923, he became wagon man in the colliery, where he remained until March 13^th, 1924, when he left of his own accord to join the Army. He served three years and returned with his wife and baby to live with his mother at Wollaston. He went to work in the colliery again, and remained there until the end of August last year, when he left of his own accord to go to Folkestone. While at the colliery he bore a good character, and no complaint was made about his work. There was no record of any conviction or anything detrimental to his character. During the time he was living with his wife and baby and mother, his wife took out a summons against him for persistent cruelty. This was heard on May 17^th, 1927, at Burslem, but as there was no appearance the case was not heard. On two occasions the police had been called on account of prisoner and his wife quarrelling in the house, but no action was taken. In the opinion of the police the trouble appeared to have been caused by the idle, dirty habits and temper of the wife.

Dr. C. Barrett, Police Surgeon, said technically the woman had a wound because the skin was broken, but it was nothing more than a scratch.

Replying to the Recorder, prisoner said he had been in prison since January 5^th.

The Recorder: I am going to give you another chance. I don`t know that I ought to, because you used a knife, and in England we do not like people who use knives, but I am prepared to think that from what happened it was very trivial, and the use of the knife resulted in a mere scratch, fortunately for you. I am going to give you another chance as much for your wife`s sake as for your own, because I do not see what good would be done in sending you to prison. You will be bound over for two years to be of good behaviour. You wife and you must not have these dreadful quarrels in public or anywhere else. You are being treated very mercifully.

Folkestone Express 14-12-1929

Tuesday, December 10^th: Before Alderman C.E. Mumford, Mr. W.R. Boughton, Alderman T.S. Franks, Mrs. E. Gore, and Mr. W. Smith.

William George Taylor appeared on a summons charged with being drunk on the licensed premises of the Jubilee Inn, of which he is the licence holder.

He was subsequently bound over, but the Magistrates stated that the case was proved against him.

Mr. B.H. Bonniface appeared for the defendant, and pleaded Not Guilty.

Inspector Pittock applied for the witnesses to be out of Court. The Magistrates agreed.

Inspector Pittock said at 9.05 p.m. on November 26^th he was walking down Dover Street, when he saw three men at the bottom of Harvey Street struggling. The men went down the street, and the centre one was staggering about and being supported by the arms of the other men. He followed them and saw them turn into Radnor Street. They disappeared about halfway along Radnor Street. He fetched P.C. Whitehead, and accompanied him to the Jubilee public house, Radnor Street. On entering by the Radnor Street entrance, he found the defendant in the private bar just inside, on the public side of the counter, with his jacket off and his shirt sleeves rolled back. He said to him “Have three men just entered this house?” He replied “No”. He at once noticed he was drunk. He then walked through the bars with P.C. Whitehead, and Taylor followed them, and on the Stade side he said to Taylor “You are drunk. I advise you to get upstairs and out of the way”. He replied “I am all right”. He asked him if he had been out and had just come in. He replied “I have not been out. I have been here since six”. During this conversation he was staggering about, unsteady on his feet, his speech was slurred and indistinct, and standing in an ungainly attitude with his back arched and his head back. He staggered back on to the wall of the house on two or three occasions, and on one occasion P.C. Whitehead steadied him, or he would have collapsed on to the ground. Defendant`s wife and a customer named Thomas Gosling then came outside, and he said to Mrs. Taylor, in defendant`s presence, “Your husband is drunk, Mrs. Taylor. You had better get him upstairs; he is not to go into those bars again”. She replied “The landlord of the Harvey sent for him just after six, and he has just come home. He looks to me as though he has been doped”. They then persuaded the defendant to go away with them through the public passage, and entered the house on the Radnor Street side. Defendant called on his two days later at the police station. He said “Yes, Mr. Taylor, what is it?”, and he replied “I wish to apologise to you, Mr. Pittock, for the condition you found me in the other night”. He said “I am sorry, but I am afraid your apologies are no good to me. I have reported the facts to the Chief Constable”. Previous to leaving the Jubilee he interviewed men named Pepin and Hall.

Cross-examined by Mr. Bonniface, witness said Taylor had been in the house for two years, and the house had been greatly improved since he had been there. The centre man of the three was drunk, but the other two were not. They did not pass the Richmond public house during the time he saw him. Taylor could not have been drinking in the house. He would not think that the defendant had been out helping to wash glasses; he would be unable to do so in the condition in which he was. He had had a very good opinion of the defendant, and he knew what a serious thing that was for him.

P.C. Whitehead corroborated Inspector Pittock.

Taylor, giving evidence, said from 1914 to 1927 he was serving at sea, and his discharge papers were marked “Character very good”. He had been out that particular evening, and was with Pepin and Hall. He returned to his own public house. He first walked into his private kitchen and took off his overcoat and rolled up his sleeves. The Inspector came into the house two minutes after, just as he walked through the kitchen door. He followed them through and spoke to them outside. He agreed that the Inspector told him he was drunk, but he replied he was not. Inspector Pittock said “I believe you are drunk”, and he replied “I don`t think so”. He admitted he had had one or two drinks. His wife and Gosling came out, and he walked down the passage behind him. He did not go into the bara again until a quarter past ten, when he washed up the glasses and cashed up the day`s takings.

In reply to the Clerk (Mr. J. Andrew), defendant said Pepin did not come into the room with him when he took off his coat. When he spoke to Inspector Pittock he thought he told him he had been out. His wife and father-in-law helped him with the glasses. He went to the Harvey Hotel at 6.30 and had two glasses of bitter and two gins and peppermint.

The Clerk: Is it a fact that you were requested by the landlord to leave the Harvey Hotel?

Defendant: No.

The Clerk: You left voluntarily?

Defendant: Yes. Proceeding, he said he then went to the Richmond, where Pepin, Hall and he had a glass of bitter. They only stayed there five minutes. He was not requested by the landlord to leave the house or advised to go home.

In reply to Mr. Bonniface, defendant said he told the landlord of the Harvey that it was time he left, as his wife was at home alone.

Albert Edward Pepin, 33, Harvey Street, said he was with Taylor practically all the evening from seven o`clock, meeting him in the Harvey. They went to Mr. Ingleton`s house, where they had a bitter apiece. They were not told by Mr. Ingleton that it would be better for them to go home. He went home with Taylor, and was in the bar when the Inspector came into the house. Taylor was sober. He saw him go into his kitchen, and afterwards come into the bar. He subsequently spoke to Inspector Pittock.

In reply to the Clerk, defendant said Ingleton, the landlord of the Richmond, would not have a drink with Taylor, but he did not advise them to go home.

Mr. Ernest Frederick Hodges, assistant barman and cellarman at the Jubilee, said on November 26^th he was in the bar from a quarter to seven until ten o`clock. He did not see Mr. Taylor until after ten o`clock, when he came into the bar to cash up and to help in the washing up. Defendant was not drunk.

Witness, in reply to the Clerk, said after ten o`clock he was not in the bar at all. He was the defendant`s father-in-law, and he did not assist in washing up the glasses.

Edward Hall, a fishmonger, 21, Great Fenchurch Street, said he met the defendant in the Harvey Hotel, and came home with him. They went to the Richmond, and Mr. Ingleton did not advise them to go home. When he left defendant, Mr. Taylor was sober.

The Chairman, after the Magistrates had retired to consider their decision, said the Magistrates were unanimous in finding that the case was proved, but they wished to add that the defendant had improved the character and conduct of the house. They also took into consideration the defendant`s services to their country. Although they found the case proved, they were going to take a course they thought met the case. They bound the defendant over to be of good behaviour for six months.

The Clerk (to the defendant): Understand this is not a conviction against you.

Folkestone Herald 14-12-1929

Local News

William George Taylor was summoned at the Folkestone Petty Sessions on Tuesday for being drunk on licensed premises, the Jubilee public house.

The Magistrates were: Alderman C.E. Mumford (in the chair), Alderman T.S. Franks, Mr. W.R. Boughton, Mrs. E. Gore, and Mr. W. Smith. Mr. B.H. Bonniface defended, and pleaded Not Guilty.

Inspector G. Pittock said at 9.05 p.m. on November 22^nd he was walking down Dover Street, when he saw three men struggling at the bottom of Harvey Street. He then saw the three men go on down the street. The centre one was staggering about and the other two were supporting him by his arms. He followed them down and saw them turn into Radnor Street. They disappeared about halfway along Radnor Street. He fetched P.C. Whitehead and accompanied him to the Jubilee public house, in Radnor Street. On entering by the Radnor Street door he found the defendant at the private bar, just inside on the public side of the counter, with his jacket off and shirt sleeves rolled back. He said to him “Have three men just entered this house?” He replied “No”. He at once noticed that the man was drunk. Witness then walked through the bars with P.C. Whitehead. Taylor followed them, and on The Stade he said to defendant “You are drunk. I advise you to get up the stairs out of the way” He replied “I am all right”. He asked him if he had been out or if he had just come in. He replied “I have not been out. I have been here since 6 o`clock”. During the conversation defendant was staggering about, very unsteady on his feet, his speech was slurred and indistinct, and he was standing in a very ungainly attitude with his back arched and head back. He staggered back against the wall of the house on several occasions, and on one occasion P.C. Whitehead steadied him otherwise he would have collapsed to the ground. Defendant`s wife and a customer named Thomas Gosling then came outside. He said to Mrs. Taylor, in defendant`s presence, “Your husband is drunk Mrs. Taylor; you had better get him upstairs. He is not to go in those bars again”. She replied “The landlord of the Harvey sent down for him just after 6 o`clock, and he has just come home. He looks to me as though he has been doped”. They then persuaded the defendant to go away with them to the Radnor Street entrance, each holding one arm. Defendant called on him two days later at the police station. He said “Yes, taylor, what is it?” and he replied “I wish to apologise to you, Mr. Pittock, for the condition you found me in the other night”. Witness said “I am sorry, but I am afraid your apologies are no good to me. I have reported the facts to the Chief Constable”.

Cross-examined, witness said defendant had been the licensee of the Jubilee for about two years, and the house had greatly improved since he had been there. When he saw the three men he had mentioned that the centre man was drunk, not the other two men. They went past the Richmond public house before he saw them. Taylor was not drunk in that house. In the condition he had seen defendant he would not have thought it possible for him to have been able to cash up and wash glasses that night. He had had a good opinion of the defendant as a licensee.

P.C. Whitehead corroborated.

Defendant said from 1914 to 1927 he was serving at sea, and his discharge papers were marked “Character: Very Good”. He agreed that he had been out that evening and that he had been in company with two men named Peppin and Hall. When he got back he walked into the private kitchen, took off his hat, coat and jacket, and rolled up his sleeves. The inspector came in two or three minutes after. As they walked through defendant came out of the kitchen door. He followed them through and spoke to them outside. He agreed that the inspector told him he was drunk and he said he was not. The inspector said “Taylor, I think you are drunk”. He replied “I don`t think so”. He admitted he had been out and had one or two drinks. Gosling and his wife walked behind him as he went down the passage. At 10 o`clock he washed the glasses and cashed up the day`s takings.

By the Clerk (Mr. J. Andrew): Peppin did not come into the room. He told the inspector he had been out. His wife and father-in-law helped him with the glasses. He had been to the Harvey Hotel, and while there he had two bitters and two gin and peppermints because he had a cold in his kidneys.

The Clerk: Is it a fact that you were requested by the landlord of the Harvey Hotel to leave his house?

Defendant: No, sir, I left voluntarily.

In reply to further questions, defendant said he called in at the Richmond on the way back. He was there about five minutes and he had one glass of bitter. He was not requested by the landlord to leave the house, nor did the landlord advise him to go home.

Alfred Edward Peppin, of 33, Harvey Street, said he was with Taylor from 7 o`clock on the evening in question. He met him in the Harvey Hotel, and he also went with him to the Richmond public house. They were not told by Mr. Ingleton, the landlord there, to go and get home. He went right home with Taylor and he was in the bar when the inspector came in. Defendant was sober. He saw him go into the kitchen, and he also saw him afterwards come through the bar. Witness subsequently spoke to Inspector Pittock.

By the Clerk: At the Richmond Taylor asked Ingleton to have a drink with him. He replied “I don`t want one now”. The landlord did not say anything about defendant`s condition.

Edward Fred Hodges, employed at the Jubilee public house as assistant barman and cellarman, said on the evening in question he was in the bar from 6.45 to after 10 o`clock. He heard defendant cash up. Defendant also helped to wash up, and he was not drunk.

Edward Hall, of 21, Great Fenchurch Street, a fishmonger, said he met defendant in the Harvey Hotel and came home with him. Mr. Ingleton, of the Richmond public house, did not tell defendant to go home. When he left defendant was sober.

The Bench retired and upon their return the Chairman announced that defendant would be bound over for six months. “The Bench are unanimous” said the Chairman, “in finding that the case is proved, but we wish to state that were are satisfied that you have improved the character and conduct of this house, and taking that into consideration, and also your services to your country, we are taking a course which we think will meet the case. You will be bound over for six months”.

The Clerk: That is not a conviction.