Alfred Leney, Gun Brewery 1930s

Folkestone Express 14-2-1931

Annual Licensing Sessions

Wednesday, February 11^th: Before Alderman R.G. Wood, The Mayor, Colonel G.P. Owen, Alderman A.E. Pepper, Mr. J.H. Blamey, Miss Hunt, Mr. W. Griffin, Dr. W.W. Nuttall, Alderman G. Spurgen, Alderman T.S. Franks, Mrs. E. Gore, Mr. W. Smith, and Mr. F. Seager.

An application for the transfer of the off licence of the Gun Brewery to Mr. Pat Attwood, in order that he could sell on the premises, was adjourned to the adjourned licensing sessions.

Folkestone Express 14-3-1931

Adjourned Licensing Sessions

On Wednesday, at the Folkestone Adjourned Licensing Sessions, the music and dancing licences were again granted, after the question had been adjourned for a month, it being explained by Alderman Wood that the conditions of the licences allowed vocal and instrumental music to be given during certain hours on Sunday.

There was also another interesting decision in the case of an application for the transfer of the off licence in connection with the offices of the old Gun Brewery, it being decided that the licence was null and void owing to the fact that for 30 years it had been renewed in the name of Mr. Alfred Leney, who died in 1900.

The Magistrates on the Bench were Alderman R.G. Wood, The Mayor, Col. G.P. Owen, Mr. J.H. Blamey, Mr. F. Seager, Alderman A.E. Pepper, Mr. W. Griffin, Eng. Rear Admiral L.J. Stephens, Alderman A. Castle, and Miss A.M. Hunt.

An adjourned application for the transfer of the off licence of the office attached to the old Gun Brewery came before the Justices, Mr. B.H. Bonniface appearing for the applicant, Mr. Pat Attwood, of the Shakespeare Hotel, and Mor. Rutlet Mowll, on behalf of Mrs. Luly, and Mr. J.E. Chapple, for Messrs. Prentis and Sons, two other off licence holders in the vicinity opposed the application.

The Clerk (Mr. Rootes) said that application was before the Annual Licensing Sessions, when the Magistrates adjourned it in order that the licensed premises should be defined. Plans had now been produced showing that the off licence was in respect of the office in the front portion of what was known as the Gun Brewery.

Mr. Bonniface said the application was for the transfer of the existing off beer licence, which had been in existence probably since the year 1844. He understood that that morning there was a certain amount of opposition, but what that opposition was he did not know. Their worships would appreciate that it was an existing licence, and he was only asking for a transfer.

Mr. Rutley Mowll said that he appeared to oppose the transfer of that licence. He represented Mrs. Luly, who was the holder of a similar licence immediately opposite those premises. As he understood it, at the annual licensing meeting the Magistrates renewed all the existing licences and therefore those premises were then and there renewed with the others.

The Magistrates` Clerk (Mr. C. Rootes) pointed out that the matter was adjourned for further consideration.

The Chairman said his remarks with regard to the renewal of licences did not include that matter now under discussion.

Mr. Mowll:Then may I ask if we are dealing with a renewal of the licence of the transfer?

Mr. Bonniface: The transfer. Continuing, he said his point was the application for the transfer was made on the last occasion, when the Magistrates asked for a plan of the premises. He had complied with their request, so that from his point of view he had completed the application.

Mr. Rutley Mowll pointed out at the moment he could not tell the form in which the application was made. He would like to know if the application for transfer was made by the existing licensee or by the new tenant and occupier.

Mr. Chapple also said he did not know who was applying for the transfer.

Mr. Rutley Mowll said the Clerk had handed him the form of application. He read the application, which stated that Mr. Attwood applied for the transfer of the licence granted to Alfred Leney. He also contended that they should have the outgoing and ingoing tenant present.

The Clerk said the applicant had already put his case before the Court.

Mr. Rutley Mowll: It is immaterial to me. I am having a careful note taken of these proceedings. If it is the right way of proceeding according to your opinion I must bow to your judgement.

The Chairman: We had it before us at the last meeting. You must proceed with your opposition.

Mr. Mowll said if that licence was granted it would be in direct competition with Mrs. Luly. He was going to oppose it on its merits. He would like to point out to the Magistrates some technical points in order that they might go into the whole matter. That licence, as it appeared on the face of it, stood in the name of Mr. Alfred Leney. An inspection of the licence register showed that it was granted in 1898. Mr. Alfred Leney died on the 4^th November, 1900. That licence had gone on ever since in the name of the deceased person. If those were the facts, the licence was void. It was true that Mr. Alfred Leney had a son whose name was Mr. Alfred Charles Leney. He did not know whether Mr. Bonniface was going to contend that Mr. Alfred Leney, the head of the firm, was by mistake entered in the register, and in some way confuse with his son, but knowing their late Clerk as they did, and what a very careful man he was, he thought it was a fair submission to make to the Bench that he did not write down Alfred Leney in his licence register if he really meant Alfred Charles Leney, who was quite another person. Alfred Charles Leney was the son of the late Alfred Leney. The only way in which Mr. Bonniface could get over that difficulty was by making out that the Magistrates` late Clerk made a mistake and entered the licence in the name of Alfred Leney in mistake for Alfred Charles Leney. He did not think they wanted any authorities on that point, for he was sure Mr. Rootes would advise them that if in fact the licence was renewed in the name of a dead person that licence was void, and therefore it could not be transferred. His second proposition to make to the Bench was that he did not write down Alfred Leney in his licence register, that if the licence had fallen into disuse, as that licence had done, then the Bench were not entitled to renew it, or to transfer it. It was not a case of compensation or redundancy, because it was an off licence. His third point was in regards to the merit of the case. That licence was used by Messrs. Leney. They took it over with the Gun Brewery property with different public houses. They had other premises in Folkestone from which they could conduct their retail business. The premises ceased to be occupied for any licensed purposes for some considerable time, consequently the licence became in fact, if not in law, a defunct licence. The property was used as a coal store, and no trade of any sort or kind had been conducted on the premises for many months past. Now the proposal was to resuscitate and resurrect that defunct licence and the applicant was Mr. Attwood, who was the holder of a full licence at premises adjoining. What did that mean? Mr. Attwood, at the Shakespeare Hotel, had a full licence covering all that that licence could confer. Why did he want to take a transfer of that off licence? He submitted that there could only be one real reason. He was seeking to transfer the licence to himself so that he could sell to someone else. He (Mr. Mowll) did not ask them to decide on any one point, but he asked them to decide the matter as a whole – whether it be the legal point or the meritorious point he did not mind which it was. He thought he ought to call his clerk to prove the search of the particulars in the register.

The Clerk: The register is there for itself. It has put something on Mr. Bonniface to prove.

Mr. Bonniface said he did not know that Mr. Mowll had put anything on him to prove. He was alleging that Mr. Alfred Leney died in 1900, and he assumed he was going to prove it.

The Clerk: That is not the position. I imagine you will call upon the applicant to go further than he has.

Mr. Chapple said he was quite in agreement with the terms of the able argument put forward by Mr. Mowll. He could only imagine that Mr. Bonniface would submit that the Mr. Alfred Charles Leney was in fact the Alfred Leney to whom the licence was granted.

Mr. Bonniface said he quite agreed that their late Clerk was a most capable and thorough Clerk, and he could not in any way imagine that the late Mr. Andrew would have allowed the name of Mr. Alfred Leney to remain upon the register all those years unless it meant the acting Mr. Leney, Mr. Fred Leney, as he was known. Mr. Alfred Charles Leney was a director of that company, and, in fact, the eldest son of the late Mr. Alfred Leney, and he would tell them that there was not one licence that was held by the father at all. Mr. Alfred Leney was a retiring sort of a man, and therefore the licence holder was the son. For ten years before the formation of the company he was in partnership with his father. He was going to ask the Magistrates to say that the Mr. Alfred Leney to whom the licence was granted in 1898 was Mr. Alfred Charles Leney. The licensees, Messrs. Alfred Leney and Sons, also had the store in front. The licence had been renewed year by year, and they paid the excise licence down to June, 1930. Mr. Attwood had the tenancy of the shop and store at the back. From 1925 until 1929 Messrs. Leney let the front part to Messrs. Anderson as a coal office, but they used the premises at the back, and a lot of their beer was delivered from that store. It was unfair to say that Mr. Attwood was coming forward merely to get the licence and then to sell it. If that was the position was he not attempting to do away with some of his trade? That must be one of the oldest, if not the oldest, off licences in the town. Mrs. Luly`s premises were opened subsequent to their premises being opened. She had built up her trade in opposition to them.

Mr. Alfred Charles Leney, Chairman of Messrs. Alfred Leney and Co., said the company took over those premises in 1898, when he was director. He had been connected with the business since 1887. In the last two years of his life, Mr. Alfred Leney, his father, did bery little in the business. He (witness) knew of no licence being held by his father. The licences were held by himself (witness) or the secretary. That licence had been continuously renewed in the name of Alfred Leney right down to the present time as he heard to his surprise, because he had always considered himself to be the licensed holder of those premises. He was never known by his name Charles, but as Fred. He had paid the excise duty until the lease was up in 1929, and the licence duty until June, 1930. The whole of the premises until 1925 were used by the Company. It was only then that the front office was let to Anderson`s, and the Company used a small store at the back. They had other premises in Guildhall Street which Messrs. Prentis now had. The beer for those premises was kept in the store at the Gun Brewery. Beer was drawn from there until the 5^th March, 1928.

In reply to Mr. Mowll, Mr. Leney said the store had not been in use so far as they were concerned since September, 1929. They had premises in Tontine Street from which they could supply their beer. They had got a rebate on the excise licence for the premises.

Mr. Mowll the referred to the articles of association of Messrs. Leney and Co. He pointed out that company was registered on November 26^th, 1896, and Mr. Alfred Leney was to be the first director, and Mr. Alfred Charles Leney and Mr. Hugh Leney the other directors. He asked the witness who of the three directors held the licence.

Mr. Leney: To the best of my belief I have always understood it was in my name. I have taken great pains to get at the truth of this. I have tried to get the original papers, but they have been destroyed.

Mr. Mowll: You must know whether you came over and took the transfer of the licence.

Mr. Leney: I do not.

Mr. Mowll: Have you no documents?

Mr. Leney: I have no documents at all, but I have a memory. To the best of my belief I was the holder of the licence.

Mr. Mowll: Your father held a strong position in the Company? He was not only by far the largest shareholder, and so long as he lived he was entitled to outvote all the other directors. You do not suggest that he was a back number when this Company was formed?

Mr. Leney: I do not.

Mr. Mowll: Why, he was younger than you are now, Mr. Leney?

Mr. Leney: Yes.

Mr. George Wood said he had been in the employ of Messrs. Leney and Co. for 40 years. He occasionally took up licences, and always considered that he was taking up licences for Mr. Alfred Charles Leney. His brother was for some time secretary for the Company, and he held licences in his mane.

By Mr. Chapple, witness said he practically certain that Mr. Alfred Leney never held a licence.

In reply to Mr. Mowll, witness said over the door at the brewery at Dover the name of Alfred Leney, common brewer, was painted.

The Clerk pointed out to Mr. Bonniface that the position had changed since the annual sessions, and Mr. Attwood should be called.

Mr. Attwood was called, and said he intended to open the premises as an off licence shop. He was the freeholder of the Shakespeare Hotel.

Mr. Mowll, examining the agreement between Mr. Attwood and the owner  of the premises, said “Do you appreciate under this agreement between you and Mr. Tite he can turn you out by giving you three months` notice at any time?”

Mr. Attwood: Yes.

Does that not tell you something? You are not going to spend any money on these premises on a quarterly tenancy? – I am prepared to open them.

You are not going to spend money on them without more secured terms? – I am trying to buy these premises.

The Magistrates retired, and on their return the Chairman said with regard to the application the majority of the Magistrates were of opinion that when the licence was transferred it was transferred to Alfred Leney, senior, the Chairman of the Company. There was no evidence that it had been transferred to anyone else since, and in consequence of that, and in consequence of the oversight of the Company and in their (the Magistrates`) office, it had not been transferred. The licence was therefore null and void, and it could not be transferred.

Folkestone Herald 14-3-1931

Adjourned Licensing Sessions

When an application was made at the adjourned licensing sessions on Wednesday at the Town Hall for the transfer of a beer licence it was successfully pleaded that the licensee was a dead man and therefore the licence was null and void.

Applicant for the transfer was Mr. P.W. Attwood, of the Shakespeare Hotel, Guildhall Street, and he asked that the off licence of the Gun Brewery should be transferred to him from Alfred Leney.

The Magistrates were: Alderman R.G. Wood, The Mayor, Alderman A.E. Pepper, Colonel G.P. Owen, Mr. J.H. Blamey, Engineer Rear Admiral L.J. Stephens, Alderman A. Castle, Miss A.M. Hunt, and Mr. F. Seager.

The Clerk (Mr. C. Rootes) stated that at the annual sessions last month the application was before them, and there was an adjournment so that the premises licensed should be defined. The premises licensed were said to be a store.

Mr. B.H. Bonniface, who appeared for Mr. Attwood, said this off beer licence had been in existence since 1844. In that year Lord Radnor granted a lease on these premises to a Mr. John Tite, and so far as could be ascertained the licence had been in existence for all those years. He understood that that morning there was a certain amount of opposition. It was en existing licence, and he was only asking for the transfer ofit. What the opposition was he did not know.

Mr. Rutley Mowll said he appeared to oppose the transfer of the licence on behalf of Mrs. Luly, who was the holder of a similar licence immediately opposite the premises. An application was made at the last sessions to obtain the transfer of the licence, and that was what he was opposing.

The Clerk said at the last sessions the whole point was: What part of the premises is licensed?

The Chief Constable (Mr. A.S. Beesley) said according to his book the whole question was adjourned to March 11^th.

The Chairman said his remarks at the annual sessions when he announced all licences would be renewed did not include this licence.

Mr. Mowll: Are you dealing with the renewal of the licence now or the transfer?

Mr. Bonniface: The transfer.

Mr. H. Chapple said he represented Messrs. Prentis and Sons Ltd., Guildhall Street, who opposed the application.

The Chairman asked Mr. Mowll to proceed with his case for the opposition.

Mr. Mowll said Mrs. Luly held a similar licence on the opposite side of the road. If the licence was granted it would be in direct competition with his client. The licence stood in the name of Mr. Alfred Leney, to whom it was granted in 1898. He died on November 4^th, 1900, and his will was proved in January, 1901. That licence had gone on ever since in the name of Alfred Leney. If that be so the licence was void, because a licence renewed in the name of a deceased person was absolutely void. It was true that the late Mr. Alfred Leney had a son, Mr. Alfred Charles Leney. He did not know whether in the entering up of the licence register the names had been confused by a mistake, but, knowing the late Clerk of the Court as he did, he thought it was a fair submission that the late Clerk would not have written down the name Alfred Leney in the register if he had meant another person, Alfred Charles Leney. If, in fact, the licence was renewed in the name of a dead person the licence was void and therefore it could not be transferred. His second point was that if a licence had fallen into disuse, as this one had done, they were not entitled to transfer it; as it was in regard to the transfer of an off licence, the Magistrates were entitled to refuse it. The licence was used by Messrs. Leney, they taking it over with the licensed property, but the premises ceased to be occupied for any licensing purposes whatsoever some considerable time ago, and consequently the licence became in effect, if not in law, a defunct licence. The property had been used as a coal store, and no sort of licensed trade had been conducted on the premises for many months past. The proposal was to resuscitate and resurrect the defunct licence, and the applicant was the holder of fully licensed premises immediately adjoining. He submitted that the real reason for Mr. Attwood`s application was that he should have a licence that he could sell to somebody else. He was put forward as the proposed licensee of this off licence, and he submitted he wanted the licence for the purpose of bartering, possibly to introduce another brewer. On these grounds he asked the Bench to refuse the application.

Mr. Chapple said he was in complete agreement with Mr. Mowll. He also wished to emphasise that the licence was void.

Mr. Bonniface said he agreed that the late Clerk was a most careful and thorough official and he could not imagine that he would have allowed the name of Alfred Leney to remain on the register for 33 years. In 1894 Messrs. Leney took a transfer of the premises, and in 1898 the licence was transferred to Messrs. Alfred Leney and Coy. Ltd; at that time Mr. Alfred Leney was 70 years of age. Mr. Alfred Charles Leney was a director of the company and he could tell them that there was not one licence of the licences held by the company that was held by his father. As a result the licences were held by his son, Mr. Alfred Charles Leney, who had always been known as Mr. Fred Leney. He submitted he was really the holder of the licence. The licence had been renewed for the past 30 years to Mr. Alfred Leney, meaning, he submitted, to Mr. Alfred Charles Leney. Messrs. Alfred Leney and Sons, who were the licensees of the Shakespeare Hotel until September, 1929, also had three adjoining premises. Each year the company had paid the Excise duty to June, 1930. That was after their lease had expired. Messrs. Leney until 1925 continuously sold from these premises. From then until 1929, when they gave up the premises, they let the front part, but retained the back portion as a store. It was unfair to say that Mr. Attwood was doing this merely for the purpose suggested by Mr. Mowll. The licence was one of the oldest, if not the oldest in the town.

Alfred Charles Leney, the chairman of Alfred Leney and Coy., said they took over these premises in 1898, and he was then a director of the company. He had been connected with his fathers business before the company was formed, since 1887. During the last two years of his life his father was doing very little in regard to the business. He could not place one licence held by his father. To the best of his belief he had never held one, the licences being held by witness as the secretary of the company. The licence had been renewed right up to the present time in the name of Alfred Leney, to his surprise. He had been under the impression that the licence had been renewed to him. He had always been known as Fred Leney. His firm had paid the licence duties of the premises until June, 1930. When Messrs. Anderson`s were granted a lease of part of the building, his company still used part of the premises as a store for beer.

By Mr. Mowll: Since the end of the lease they had not stored any beer there. He had no document to show that the licence was transferred to his father in 1898, but he had a memory, and to the best of his belief his father had never held a licence.

Mr. Mowll: You don`t suggest your father was a back number when the company was formed, Mr. Leney?

Mr. Leney: No.

Mr. Mowll: He was younger then than you are now, Mr. Leney. (Applause)

George Wood, a brewer`s agent, who stated that he had been in the employ of the company for 40 years, said he never heard of Mr. Alfred Leney holding a licence.

Mr. Attwood said he intended using the premises for the off sale of beer. He was the freeholder of the Shakespeare Hotel. His premises did not quite adjoin, there being a store between.

The Bench retired. On their return the Chairman announced that the majority of the Magistrates were of the opinion that when the licence was transferred in 1898 it was transferred to the chairman of the company, Mr. Alfred Leney. There was no evidence that it had been transferred to anyone else, and in consequence of that oversight on both sides the licence today was null and void.