Red Cow 1920 - 1924

Folkestone Express 6-12-1924

Local News

At the Folkestone Police Court on Tuesday, William Henry Collar was summoned for having on the 22^nd November, did by his servant, deliver four quarts of ale from a crate, and did not make an entry of the fact in the day book kept by him on the premises. Frederick Wickenden was summoned for being the person delivering the ale without having with him an invoice.

The Chief Constable (Mr. A.S. Beesley) said this case was the first of the kind they had had in the borough for a long time. It was for delivering liquor without having a delivery note or invoice. The regulation was perfectly clear, and as a matter of fact defendant could have been summoned for three offences. Wickenden was seen delivering four bottles in a crate, and he was asked for his delivery note, and he said “What, for this?” He then said “I had it, but I expect I have lost it”. He did not produce it. Inquiry was made of Collar, who was landlord of the Red Cow public house, and the day book was examined, but not before there had been some little difficulty. The officer in charge had to wait while defendant went into another room, and he was so long that the police officer followed, and saw certain entries being made in the day book, and demanded the book, and he found entries apparently recently made, but the alleged notice was not complete, and that was the most serious feature of the case.

Mr. R. Mowll appeared for both defendants, and pleaded Guilty.

Inspector Pittock said that about 11.30 a.m. on Saturday, the 22^nd November, he saw Wickenden leave the Red Cow public house, Foord Road, carrying a crate containing four quart bottles of ale. He followed him to No. 2, Pavilion Road, and went up to him on the doorstep and said to him “Show me your delivery note for this sale”. Wickenden said “For this?” Witness said “Yes”. Wickenden said “Well, I had it, but I suppose I have lost it”. The beer was delivered. Witness went back to the Red Cow and asked to see the day book Collar went to another room, and as there appeared to be some unnecessary delay, he (witness) walked up into the adjoining bar, and saw the barman writing in the day book, with Collar bending over his shoulder. He told him not to make any entry, but to give the book to him. He found the last invoice was dated the 19^th November, and an invoice was being made out for Mrs. Spicer, dated the 22^nd November, and Mrs. Spicer`s name was on it. He said to Collar “What do you mean by this?” Collar replied “To tell you the truth, I have not troubled much about it”. He told defendant he would report him for a summons, and he replied “It is a standing order”. The barman said “I gave him the delivery note”. Wickenden said “I lost it”.

By the Chief Constable: He noticed a number of counterfoils had been removed from the book previous to the 19^th November. Defendant said “I don`t trouble to keep the counterfoils”.

P.C. Lawrence corroborated.

Mr. Mowll said there was no defence to the case. He pleaded Guilty. The licensee had held a licence for 24 years without any sort of question, and he had been seven years in this house, and this was just because it was one of those moments in a man`s life when his good character should stand in very good stead for him. He was not justifying what happened. There was a laxity about the compliance with this quite modern rule under the Act of 1921, which now required that a licensee who was sending out anything like a crate required the licensee to enter the transaction in a day book, which he kept at his place, and an invoice which was delivered to the customer, and that was the proper thing to do, and what he ought to have done. He did not do it. It was the first case of its kind that had been brought before the Magistrates, and his submission was that although it was absolutely the duty of licensed victuallers to comply with the law, he was asking the Magistrates to take into consideration defendant`s long good character. There were many ways in which a licensed victualler was liable to lend himself open to a prosecution. He understood defendant had not been previously summoned on any account for a quarter of a century. That was a very fine record. Supposing he had carried on some criminal offence. Could there be any doubt a most merciful view would have been taken of his conduct, having regard to his good character? A case like this did a lot of good. It brought to the notice of every licensed victualler there was this section they had to comply with. He suggested to the Magistrates that the man`s previous record and good character justified them in taking this course – that while he had committed an offence they did not consider they were obliged to tarnish his reputation by recording a conviction against him, but to exercise their right of dismissing the case on the payment of costs. It would be a warning to others, and to defendant, that this sort of thing must not happen again. With regard to Wickenden, he could only say that the responsibility of this case was entirely upon the licensed victualler. They had this customer, and it was a standing order they should deliver to her house a crate of ale once a week, and they were complying with it. It ought to have been recorded, but it was not, and therefore an offence had been committed.

The Clerk asked what was the object of Section 7 of the Licensing Act – was it directed against hawking?

Mr. Mowll said he thought that was the main object, and that the legislature in introducing this as a post-war measure with a view to meeting what had been done before the war, by persons selling beer away from their premises. It applied to every licensed victualler, but he doubted whether it was the licensed victualler himself that it was primarily aimed at. He thought the idea was to prevent hawking.

The Chief Constable said that with all due regard to Mr. Mowll, he did not see what he could say was in the eyes of the legislature when they made the regulation.

Mr. Mowll said it was the duty of a lawyer to try and interpret what it meant.

After the Magistrates had retired, the Chairman said the Magistrates had decided to dismiss the cases on the payment of costs, but at the same time they wished to point out to defendant, and to all publicans in the town, that these regulations must be complied with, and all persons who sold liquor for consumption off the premises must comply with the law, and they considered that defendant, with his great experience, should have been the last to fall.

Folkestone Herald 6-12-1924

Tuesday, December 2^nd: Before Colonel G.P. Owen, Mr. G. Boyd, the Rev. H. Epworth Thompson, Mr. L.G.A. Collins, Colonel P. Broome-Giles, and Miss. A.M. Hunt.

William Henry Collar, the licensee of the Red Cow Inn, Foord Road, was summoned for delivering four quarts of ale on November 22^nd without making an entry of the fact in his day book. Frederick Wickenden was summoned for delivering the ale without an invoice. Mr. Rutley Mowll appeared for the defence.

The Chief Constable (Mr. A.S. Beesley) said before any evidence was called that this was the first case they had had in the borough. The regulations were perfectly clear on the point, and there were really three offences, but they were only proceeding on one. Wickenden was employed by Collar. Defendants both pleaded Guilty.

Inspector Pittock said that about 11.30 a.m. on Saturday, November 22^nd, he saw defendant Wickenden with a crate of beer leave the Red Cow Inn and go to 2, Pavilion Road. Witness asked defendant for his delivery note. Wickenden replied “What, for this?” Defendant said “I had it, but I expect I have lost it”. He saw Collar, told him he had just stopped Wickenden for not having a delivery note, and he asked him (Collar) for the day book. He replied “All right” and went to a bar. Defendant was away some time, and witness`s suspicions were aroused. He went to the bar and saw the barman writing in a book, Collar looking over his shoulder. He asked defendant for the book and he found that the last invoice was dated 19^th November. An attempt had been made to make out an invoice for Spicer, of Pavilion Road. He said to Collar “What is meant by this?”, and Collar replied “To tell the truth, I did not trouble much about it”. He told defendant he would report him, and he replied “It is a standing order”. The barman said “I gave him (Wickenden) a delivery note”. Wickenden said “I lost it”.

In reply to the Chief Constable, witness said when he examined the day book he found only one used invoice. Collar said he did not trouble to keep the counterfoils.

P.C. Lawrence also gave evidence.

Mr. Mowll said Collar had been a licensee for 24 years, and had been seven years licensee of the Red Cow Inn. It was just because it was one of the moments in a man`s life when his good character stood in good stead. There was a laxity in the compliance with a quite modern rule, which required every licensee, in delivering anything like a crate of ale, to enter up the transaction in the day book, and have an invoice to deliver to the customer. Defendant ought to have done that, but he did not. They heard it was the first case brought before that Bench, and, although it was the duty of all licensed victuallers to keep the law, he did ask them to take into consideration defendant`s good character, and the fact that he had never been summoned before. A case like that did a lot of good, for it brought things to the notice of other victuallers. Mr. Mowll suggested that the defendant`s previous good character and record would justify the Bench in taking a certain course, viz., not to record a conviction against defendants, but to dismiss the case on payment of costs. He suggested it would be a warning, not only to his client, but others, that that sort of thing must not happen again. As regards Wickenden, he thought the responsibility was on the licensed victualler. The order for Spicer was a standing one, and there was an order for the delivery of a crate of ale once a week.

The Magistrates having retired, on their return the Chairman said that they had decided to dismiss the case on payment of costs. He wished to point out, however, that the regulations must be complied with. People who sold liquor should obey the law, and defendant, with his great experience, should have known.

Folkestone Express 20-12-1924

Wednesday, December 17^th: Before Mr. G. Boyd and other Magistrates.

Ernest Alfred Clarke, Folkestone, was charged with being the trustee of a sum of 9s., and fraudulently converting it to his own use.

Sergt. Styles said that at 4.50 on Tuesday afternoon he was in the Police Office when the prisoner went in, and said “I wish to give myself up for embezzling funds belonging to the Red Cow public house share-out club, of which I have been acting as Secretary”. He said to him “Are you serious?”, and he replied “Yes”. He had no further conversation with him. Prisoner remained in the office for a time, until the arrival of Det. Insp. Johnson.

William Henry Collar, licensee of the Red Cow Inn, Foord Road, said he had a thrift club at his house, called “The Red Cow Share-Out Club”. The Secretary was the prisoner, and he (Mr. Collar) was Treasurer. The members attended at his house between the hours of 7 and 8.30 every Tuesday evening for the purpose of paying in their contributions, which ranged from threepence upwards. Each member had a membership card. The contributions were paid direct to the Secretary, and it was his duty to enter the amount paid on the member`s card and return it to the paying member. Defendant also kept the Secretary`s account book, and it was his duty to enter at the time of receipt all sums received by him. On the 15^th April last he paid defendant 10s., and he entered the receipt on his card. In the Secretary`s book only 1s. was entered. At the close of the weekly meetings it was defendant`s duty to pay over to him, as Treasurer, all the monies received by him from the members, for which he gave him a receipt, taken from a counterfoil book. He received from defendant at the close of the meeting on the 15^th April £5 2s. He gave defendant the receipt produced, entering the amount received on the counterfoil. When he received the amounts he did not check them with the amount shown in the Secretary`s book. On Tuesday afternoon defendant attended at his house by appointment, for the purpose of getting the money ready for distribution to the members at the annual share-out of the members. Defendant took with him the Secretary`s book, the receipts produced for the year`s payments to him (witness), and the box containing numbered envelopes, bearing the name of each member of the Thrift Club, most of the members` cards, some of which had not been taken in, and the amount paid in by each member in the prisoner`s handwriting. The cash received weekly from defendant was paid by him into a deposit account with Messrs. Leney and Co., his brewers, who allowed 5 percent interest. He had received from Messrs. Leney a cheque for £291 2s. 3d., representing the year`s payments with interest, and he had in hand a sum of £27 13s. 4d., representing the last two or three weeks` contributions from the members, which he had not deposited with the brewers. He cashed the cheque ready for the share-out on Tuesday evening, and the defendant counted the cash to see that it was correct. He found it was correct, and defendant then turned round to him and said “I shall have to ask you to assist me”. He said “What for? Are you behind in your accounts?” Defendant said “Yes”. He said to defendant “How much are you behind?”, and he replied “£88”. Witness said “Well, you will get no £88 out of me. The best thing you can do is go to the police station and give yourself up”. Defendant said “That is what I will do”. Defendant then left the house.

Inspector Bourne said that was as far as he could take the case that morning, and in the absence of the Chief Constable he asked for a remand in custody until Tuesday next.

Mr. Boyd asked Mr. Collar if he ever saw the Secretary`s book.

Mr. Collar said he did not. It was no business of his.

Mr. Boyd: Don`t these men pay the money in because you are the landlord of the house, and they think the brewers are behind you?

Mr. Collar: No, they simply join the club.

Mr. Boyd: they join the club, and bring something to the house, and have their drink in the house.

Mr. Collar: Some.

Mr. Boyd: Do you mean to say some come and don`t?

Mr. Collar: Yes, plenty.

Mr. Boyd: I should have thought you would have looked through the Secretary`s book.

Mr. Collar: I sign here for the amount received.

Mr. Boyd: you have other officials here?

Mr. Collar: Yes, the Committee.

Mr. Boyd: Does the Committee ever attend?

Mr. Collar: It is very seldom we have a Committee meeting.

Mr. Boyd: All the more reason you should examine it, and see it.

By the Clerk: There was no check on defendant`s accounts until he attended for the annual share-out.

The Clerk asked defendant if he applied for bail.

Defendant said he had not got any money. He would like to apply for bail.

Inspector Bourne said he was instructed by the Chief Constable to oppose bail.

The Chairman said bail would be granted in two sureties of £25 each, or one in £50, and defendant in £25.

The case was adjourned until Monday.

Folkestone Herald 20-12-1924

Wednesday, December 17^th: Before Mr. G. Boyd, Mr. A. Stace, Alderman W. Dunk, Dr. W.W. Nuttall, and Col. P. Broome-Giles.

Ernest Alfred Clarke, Folkestone, was charged with fraudulently converting to his own use the sum of 9s., of which he was the trustee.

Police Sergeant Styles said that at 4.50 on the previous afternoon he was in the Police Office when the prisoner came and said that he wished to give himself up for embezzling funds belonging to the Red Cow public house share-out club, of which he had been acting as Secretary. Witness asked prisoner if he were serious, and he replied “Yes”. They had further conversation. Witness remained in the office until the arrival of Inspector Johnson.

Mr. William Henry Collar, the licensee of the Red Cow Inn, said that they had a thrift club at his house, which was called “The Red Cow Share-Out Club”. The Secretary of the club was prisoner, and he (witness) was Treasurer. The members attended at his house between the hours of 7 and 8.30 every Tuesday evening for the purpose of paying in their contributions, which ranged from threepence upwards. Each member had a card. The contributions were paid direct to prisoner, whose duty it was to enter the amount received on the card and return the card to the paying member. Defendant also kept the Secretary`s account book (produced), and it was his duty to enter into that, at the time of receipt, all sums received. On the 15<sup>th</sup> April last witness paid prisoner 10s., and he entered the receipt on his card. He referred to the Secretary`s account and found that the amount entered there was 1s. only. At the close of the weekly meetings it was prisoner`s duty to pay over to him, as Treasurer, the money received by him from the members, for which he gave him a receipt from the counterfoil receipt book (produced). He referred to the receipt book, and on reference to receipt and counterfoil No. 15 found that he received from defendant at the close of the meeting on the 15<sup>th</sup> of April £5 2s., for which he gave him the receipt produced, entering the amount received on the counterfoil. When he received those amounts he did not check the amount he received with the amount appearing in the Secretary`s book. On the previous afternoon defendant attended at his house by appointment, for the purpose of getting the money ready for distribution to the members at the annual share-out. Prisoner brought with him the Secretary`s book, the receipts (produced) for the year`s payments to witness, and a box containing some numbered envelopes, bearing the names of the members of the club, most of the members` cards, some of which had not been brought in, and the amount paid in by each member in prisoner`s handwriting. The money that he (witness) received from defendant was paid by him into a deposit account with Messrs. Leney and Company, his brewers, who allowed him five percent interest. He had received from Messrs. Leney a cheque for £291 2s. 3d., representing the year`s payments. He had in hand the sum of £27 13s. 4d., representing the last two or three weeks` contributions from the members, which was not deposited with the brewers. He (witness) cashed the cheque ready for the share-out, and the prisoner counted the money to see that it was correct. Accused then turned round and said “I shall have to ask you to assist me”. He said “What for? Are you behind in your accounts?” Prisoner said “Yes”. He asked prisoner “How much are you behind?”, and he said “£88”. Witness replied “You will get no £88 out of me. The best thing you can do is go to the police station and give yourself up”. Prisoner said that was what he would do, and then defendant left the house.

Inspector R. Bourne said that in the absence of the Chief Constable he asked for a remand in custody until Tuesday.

Mr. Boyd asked if Mr. Collar ever saw the prisoner`s book.

Witness: It is no business of mine.

Mr. Boyd remarked that he would have thought witness would have looked through the book, and then asked if the Club`s Committee ever attended.

Mr. Collar replied that it was very seldom that they had a Committee meeting.

Mr. Boyd: All the more reason why you as Treasurer should attend and see to it.

The Magistrates` Clerk (to prisoner): Do you apply for bail?

Defendant said that he had no money, but would like to apply for bail.

Inspector Bourne stated that he was instructed to oppose bail.

The Chairman said that the Bench had decided to allow prisoner bail, himself in £25, and two sureties of £25 each, or one in £50, subject to the approval of the police.

Prisoner would be remanded until Monday.

Folkestone Express 27-12-1924

Monday, December 22^nd: Before Mr. G. Boyd, Alderman Dunk, and Dr. W.W. Nuttall.

Ernest Alfred Clarke, Folkestone, and Secretary of the Red Cow Inn share-out club, was charged on remand with fraudulently converting to his own use monies received by him on behalf of the share-out club.

The Clerk (Mr. J. Andrew) said that since the last hearing the Chief Constable and himself had had the opportunity of going into the case, and the prisoner was now charged with receiving on the 15^th April, and on two subsequent days the amounts of £7 3s. on the first, £8 4s. 9d. on the second, and £6 18s. on the third, and he was charged with converting to his own use parts of these amounts, on the first £2 1s., on the second £2 16s. 9d., and on the third £1 12s.

After the evidence of Mr. W.H. Collar, the licensee of the Red Cow Inn, had been read over, he stated he had, since the last hearing, examined the Secretary`s book, containing entries in the prisoner`s handwriting of the sums he admitted receiving from the members of the club on the members` weekly nights. He referred to the book containing the amounts for the 15<sup>th</sup> April, the date on which he personally paid the prisoner 10s., his own contribution. On that date he received £5 2s. from the prisoner at the close of the meeting, for which he gave him the receipt produced, taken from the cash receipt book. The prisoner signed the corresponding counterfoil. He had checked the amounts appearing in the Secretary`s book on that date, as contributions received by prisoner from the members, amounting to £7 3s. He had never received from prisoner the deficiency of £2 1s. On the 24^th June he received £5 8s. from Clarke, for which he gave a receipt, prisoner signing the counterfoil. He had checked the amount received in the Secretary`s book, which was £8 4s. 9d., and he had not received from Clarke the deficiency of £2 16s. 9d. On the 25<sup>th</sup> November he received from Clarke £5 6s., for which he gave a receipt, prisoner signing the counterfoil. The Secretary`s book showed that prisoner received £6 18s., and he had not received from Clarke the deficiency of £1 12s. He had checked prisoner`s account book of contributions received by him from the 1<sup>st</sup> January to the 9<sup>th</sup> December, and the total amount prisoner received was £396 4s. 3d. In the same period he received from Clarke £315 13s. 9d., showing a deficiency of £80 10s. 6d. There were 190 members of the club. Since the last hearing he had examined the whole of the members` cards, and prepared a statement, showing the entries in Clarke`s handwriting, and it showed a receipt by the prisoner of £406 1s. from the 1^st January to the 9^th December. He (Mr. Collar) had recompensed the members for their loss. Prisoner had been Secretary of the club for over seven years.

Det. Insp. Johnson said he received the prisoner in custody on the evening of the 16^th inst., and told him he would be charged with stealing, on the 15^th April, 1924, the sum of 9s., the property of William Henry Collar. He cautioned him, and he made no reply. That morning he formally charged him with fraudulently converting to his own use three sums of £2 1s., £2 16s. 9d., and £1 12s., part of larger sums received by him for the use of the members of the Red Cow Share-Out Club, on the 15^th April and  two subsequent dates. He cautioned him, and he replied “All right”.

Prisoner said he did not wish to say anything.

The Chairman said the Magistrates had no alternative but to commit prisoner for trial at the Assizes. It was not a case they could deal with, or the Recorder could deal with. Bail would be granted in one surety of £25 and prisoner in £25.

The Assizes will probably be held in February.

Folkestone Herald 27-12-1924

Monday, December 22^nd: Before Mr. G. Boyd, Alderman Dunk, and Dr. W.W. Nuttall.

Ernest Alfred Clarke was charged on remand with fraudulently converting to his own use money belonging to the Red Cow share-out club.

The Clerk (Mr. J. Andrew) stated that the charge against prisoner was now that he received on April 15^th, and on two dates subsequently £7 3s., £8 4s. 9d., and £6 18s., and he was charged with fraudulently converting to his own use part of these amounts, on the first date £2 1s., on the second £2 16s. 9d., and on the third £1 12s.

The evidence given at the last hearing having been read over, Mr. W.H. Collar, said he had examined the Secretary`s book, containing entries in the prisoner`s handwriting of the sums he admitted to have received from the members of the share-out club on the members` weekly nights. He referred to the book containing the amounts for the 15<sup>th</sup> of April, the date on which he personally paid the prisoner 10s.as his own contribution. On that occasion he received from prisoner £5 2s., for which he gave him the receipt (produced), taken from the cash receipt book. Prisoner signed the corresponding counterfoil. Witness had checked the amount appearing in the Secretary`s book from the members amounting to £7 3s. He never received from prisoner the deficiency of £2 1s. Witness next referred to the account of June 24^th, when he received £5 8s. at the close of the meeting from prisoner. He gave prisoner a receipt for that, taken from the counterfoil receipt book. The prisoner signed the corresponding counterfoil. He had checked the amount appearing in the Secretary`s book on that date as contributions received by him from the members, amounting to £8 4s. 9d. Witness had never received from prisoner the deficiency of £2 16s. 9d. Mr. Collar also referred to the account for the 25<sup>th</sup> of November, on which date he received from defendant the sum of £5 6s., for which he gave him a receipt (produced), taken from the counterfoil receipt book. Prisoner signed the corresponding counterfoil. He had checked the amounts appearing in the Secretary`s account book on that date as contributions received by him from members, amounting to £6 18s. Witness had never received from him the deficiency of £1 12s. He had checked prisoner`s account book of contributions received by him from the 1<sup>st</sup> of January last to December 9<sup>th</sup>. The total amount received by prisoner was £396 4s. 3d. In the same period witness received from prisoner £315 13s. 9d., which showed a deficiency of £80 10s. 6d. There were 119 members of the share-out club. He had since the last hearing examined the whole of the members` cards, and prepared a statement (produced), showing the entries in Clarke`s handwriting. The statement showed a receipt by the prisoner of £406 1s. in the period stated. He had recompensed the members for their loss. Prisoner had been Secretary of the club for over seven years.

Prisoner said he did not wish to ask the witness any questions.

Detective Inspector Johnson stated that he received prisoner into custody on the 16^th of December, and told him he would be charged with stealing, on April 15^th, 1924, the sum of 9s., the property of William Henry Collar. He cautioned prisoner, who made no reply. That morning he formally charged prisoner with fraudulently converting to his own use three sums of £2 1s., £2 16s. 9d., and £1 12s., part of larger sums received by him for the use of the members of the Red Cow Share-Out Club, on the 15^th April and  two subsequent dates. He cautioned accused, who replied “All right”.

Defendant said that he did not wish to say anything.

The Chairman said that they had no alternative but to commit prisoner for trial at the Kent Assizes. It was not a case they could deal with, and it could not be dealt with by the Recorder. Bail would be allowed in one surety of £25 and himself in £25, with twenty four hours` notice to the police.