Granville Inn 1930 -

Folkestone Express 15-2-1930

Annual Licensing Sessions

Wednesday, February 12^th: Before Col. G.P. Owen, Mr. G.I. Swoffer, Mr. J.H. Blamey, Miss A.M. Hunt, Mr. W. Griffin, Mrs. E. Gore, Mr. R. Stokes, Mr. F. Seagar, and Eng. Rear-Admiral Stephens.

A music licence was granted to Mr. Kennard for the Granville Inn, in order that a wireless installation should be used, the hours being from 6 to 10 on weekdays and 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. on Sundays.

Folkestone Herald 15-2-1930

Annual Licensing Sessions

Wednesday, February 12^th: Before Colonel G.P. Owen, Mr. G.I. Swoffer, Mr. J.H. Blamey, Mr. W. Griffin, Alderman T.S. Franks, Engineer Rear Admiral L.J. Stephens, Mr. R.J. Stokes, Miss A.M. Hunt, Mrs. E. Gore and Mr. F. Seager.

A music licence was granted to Mr. Kennard, of the Granville Hotel, who wishes to provide wireless concerts at his hotel. The Bench fixed the hours at 6 p.m. to 10 p.m. on weekdays and 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. on Sundays.

Folkestone Express 5-12-1931

Friday, November 27^th: Before Alderman R.G. Wood and other Magistrates.

Charles William Boulter, of Dover Street, was summoned by Harry Kennard, of the Granville Inn, Dover Street, for assaulting him by striking him with his fist. Defendant pleaded Guilty.

Mr. H.B. Bonniface, who appeared for the complainant, said that he would be perfectly satisfied if the defendant was bound over. He had admitted the assault, and if they could see their way to bind him over, that would be sufficient.

Complainant gave evidence that on the previous Sunday he came out of his house and his dog ran out and barked. When he turned to lock his door the dog ran up the street. He walked up after it and the defendant came out of his house, which was a few doors up the road, and asked him why he did not put the dog on the lead. He replied “It is too late now; it has gone up the road”. As he went by, the defendant, Boulter, struck him on the left ear and knocked him down. It cut his ear and made it bleed terribly. Bouter said they were annoyed because there was someone in the house ill.

Defendant said that he and his mother were in the front room attending to his grandmother, who was dying. They heard a dog bark and his mother said “Go out and stop that dog”, as his grandmother was not to be disturbed on any account. He went out and the dog was underneath the window. Kennard was opposite, and he walked down to him and said as quietly as he could “Why don`t you put the dog on a chain on Sunday afternoons?” Kennard came across with a quick walking pace and swore at him as he did so. He saw his hand leave his side as if he was going to hit him, and he (defendant) struck Kennard first.

The Chairman said he did not think he should have done anything of the kind and he would be fined 10s.

Folkestone Herald 5-12-1931

Local News

Charles William Boulter was fined 10s. at Folkestone Petty Sessions on Friday of last week when he pleaded Guilty to assaulting Mr. Harry Kennard, licensee of the Granville Hotel, Dover Street, on November 22^nd, by striking him on the face with his fist.

Mr. Kennard said that on the day in question he came out of his house with his dog, which ran out of the door and barked. He turned to lock his door when the dog ran up the street. Boulter came out of his door, a short distance up the road, and asked witness if he could not put the dog on a lead. Witness said “It is too late now; it has gone up the street”. Boulter then struck him and knocked him down. As the dog came back, Boulter took a running kick at it.

Boulter told the Bench that his grandmother was dying. She had been ill for a fortnight, and must on no account be disturbed. A dog barked outside, and he went out and asked the complainant why he did not put the dog on a chain. Complainant then came across quickly, swore at him, and lifted his hand. Thinking he was going to hit him, defendant his first.

The Chairman (Alderman R.G. Wood) said the Bench did not think Boulter should have done anything of the kind, and he would be fined 10s.

Folkestone Express 13-2-1932

Annual Licensing Sessions

Wednesday, February 10^th: Before Alderman R.G. Wood, The Mayor, Alderman A.E. Pepper, Mr. J.H. Blamey, Alderman T.S. Franks, Eng. Rear Admiral L.J. Stephens, Mr. F. Seager, Mr. W. Griffin, Dr. W. Nuttall, Miss A.M. Hunt, Councillor Mrs. E. Gore, Mr. S.B. Corser, and Councillor the Hon. Mrs. N.E. Howard.

The Chief Constable presented his report as follows:- I have the honour to present my ninth annual report relating to the administration of the licensing laws within the Borough for the year ending 31^st December, 1931.

Licensed Premises: There are in the Borough 114 premises licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquor, the number being made up as follows: Full licences 69; beer on 7; beer off 10; beer and spirit dealers 9; grocers, etc., off 6; confectioners wine on 4; cider and sweets off 7; chemists wine off 2; Total 114. No licensed premises were referred back on the ground of redundancy by the Annual Licensing Committee.

Alehouse Licences: Of the alehouse licences, one is a six days` licence.

Licences Transferred: The following licences were transferred during the year: Earl Grey, from William Charles Dixon to Clara P. Dixon; Alexandra Hotel, Stanley A. Bishop to Frank Allwood; Bouverie Arms, Frank E. Hedges to Frederick Hedges; Guildhall Hotel, Ellen Cozens to Richard Rivers; Black Bull Hotel, Frederick A. Bray to Eric Anderson; Harvey Hotel, Charles Waghorn to Harold Sherrin; Foresters Arms, Charles Ovenden to Kate L. Ellers; Richmond Tavern, Adam Ingleton to Edward Jordan; Clarendon Hotel, Harry Whittaker to Wm. A.J. Taylor. At the adjourned annual licensing meeting held on the 11^th March, 1931, application was made for the transfer of the beer off licence of the Gun Brewery, Cheriton Road. The licensee of these premises having died in 1900, and the licence not having been transferred, the Justices declared this licence null and void.

Alterations to Licensed Premises: No applications have been made to the Bench during the year for sanction for alterations to licensed premises.

Occasional Licences: One hundred and eleven occasional licences were granted to licence holders to sell intoxicating liquor other than on their own premises.

Extension of Licensing Hours: Three hundred and six extensions have been granted to licence holders when dinners, etc., were being held on their licensed premises, and in no case has any abuse of the privilege been recorded.

Proceedings against Licence Holders: During the year no licence holders have been proceeded against for committing any breach of the Intoxicating Liquor Laws.

Visits by Police to Licensed Premises: All licensed premises have been periodically visited at irregular intervals by my officers to see that they are being conducted in a satisfactory manner, and no adverse reports have been submitted to me. The total number of visits was 1,868.

Drunkenness: During the year 26 persons (22 males and four females) were proceeded against in the Borough Court for drunkenness. These were dealt with as follows: Convicted 13 males, three females; discharged nine males, one female. The persons proceeded against were: Residents of Folkestone, four males, two females; non-residents, five males, one female; no fixed abode, six males, one female; and seven soldiers. The total proceedings for drunkenness are the same as the preceding year, when eight persons were convicted and 18 discharged.

Comparative Return of Drunkenness: The following table shows a comparative return for drunkenness with towns similarly situated to Folkestone: Folkestone, population 35,890, number proceeded against per 1,000 population .723; Chester 41,438 and 1.134; Hastings 65,199 and 1.02; Canterbury 24,450 and .61; Margate 41,312 and 1.02; Cambridge 66,803 and ,439; Gravesend 35,490 and 1.4; Scarborough 41,791 and .31; Ramsgate 33,597 and .35; Bedford 40,573 and .69. It will be seen that Folkestone`s record for sobriety still stands very high.

Permitted Hours: The permitted hours as allowed by the Licensing Act of 1921 have been fixed by the Licensing Justices for this Borough as under: Weekdays, from 10.30 a.m. to 2.30 p.m., and from 6 p.m. to 10 p.m. Sundays, from 12 noon to 2 p.m., and from 7 p.m. to 2 p.m. During the months of June, July, August and September, 1931, an extension of half an hour on weekdays, from 10 p.m. to 10.30 p.m. was again allowed by the Bench, and I am pleased to state that no ill-effects have been observed.

New Licences: No licences have been granted for new premises during the year.

Clubs: Seventeen clubs where intoxicating liquor is supplied are registered under the Act, this being the same number as was in existence in the preceding year.

Hotels: Six hotels and two restaurants have authority under Section III of the Licensing Act, 1921, to supply intoxicating liquor with meals for one hour after 10 p.m. on weekdays, namely: Metropole Hotel, Grand Hotel, Majestic Hotel, Regina Hotel, Esplanade Hotel, Royal Pavilion Hotel, Central Cafe and Savoy Cafe. During the year under review, the Regina Hotel closed down, but the licence in respect of the premises is still in existence.

Music and Dancing: Forty eight licences for music and dancing have been granted or renewed under the provisions of Part IV of the Public Health (Amendment) Act, 1890. This is an increase of four as compared with the previous year. Of this number 15 are for the use of wireless for public entertainment in licensed premises.

Billiard Licenses: There are three premises licensed for billiards in the Borough, namely: The Queen`s Hall, Tontine Street; 24, Rendezvous Street; and the Fishermen`s Institute, The Stade. The licence in respect of the last named premises is a new one, having been granted by the Justices on the 11^th February, 1931. Supervision of these premises has been kept, and no adverse reports have been received.

Conclusion: In conclusion, I should like to draw the particular attention of the Bench to the high standard of conduct of the licensees within the Borough. Despite the large number of official visits made, and the casual observation which is kept from time to time, no single instance has come to light which would justify police interference. To this may be attributed in no small measure the high place that Folkestone occupies in the comparative table. I have again to tender my thanks to the Bench and to Mr. Charles Rootes for their unfailing consideration and assistance freely given whenever occasion demands it.

The Chairman said the Justices had had an opportunity of seeing the Chief Constable`s report, and he was instructed to say they regarded it as of a very satisfactory nature. If he might begin where the Chief Constable left off, with reference to the high standard of the licensee in the Borough, he thought that it was very conclusive, because no-one had been in any difficulty, and there were no proceedings against any licensee in the year. He thought that went to the credit of the licensee, and showed they exercised great care in carrying out the law touching those matters, which was somewhat difficult and complicated at times. With reference to the drunkenness, he would like it to be less, of course, but having regard to the fact that they were a health and pleasure resort and thousands of visitors came there, they thought it was very creditable indeed. Of those 26 persons, only six of them were residents of the Borough, and they thought that went to the credit of the residential population anyhow, considering that was one whole year. The Justices were glad to think that they gave way to the point with reference to the summer season, giving the half hour`s extension. They were glad to know that no ill-effects had been accrued in consequence of that, but that the convenience in reference to the visitors had been appreciated.

The Chairman then announced that the public house licences and beer licences would all be renewed, with two exceptions, and they were the Granville and the Oddfellows. Those would not be renewed that morning, but would be referred to the adjourned meeting for further consideration on the ground of redundancy.

The Bench granted music licences for the use of wireless concerts at the Ship Hotel and the Black Bull.

The date of the Adjourned Licensing Sessions was fixed for March 9^th next.

The Chairman stated that music and dancing licences which had been in existence were also renewed that day, and the billiards licences were also renewed.

Folkestone Herald 13-2-1932

Annual Licensing Sessions

The Licensing Magistrates at the Annual Licensing Sessions, which were held at the Town Hall on Wednesday, referred two licensed houses, the Granville and the Oddfellows, to the adjourned sessions for further consideration on the grounds of redundancy.

The report submitted by the Chief Constable (Mr. A.S. Beesley) showed that during the past year only six residents had been charged with drunkenness, whilst no proceedings had been taken against any licensees. These two points were favourably commented upon by the Magistrates.

The Magistrates were: Alderman R.G. Wood, The Mayor, Alderman A.E. Pepper, Mr. W. Griffin, Dr. W.W. Nuttall, Mr. J.H. Blamey, Miss A.M. Hunt, Mrs. E. Gore, Alderman T.S. Franks, Rear Admiral L.J. Stephens, the Hon. Mrs. N. Howard, Mr. F. Seager and Mr. S.B. Corser.

The Chief Constable submitted his report (for details see Folkestone Express).

The Chairman said the Justices had had an opportunity of seeing the Chief Constable`s report, and he was asked to say that they regarded it as very satisfactory. If he might begin where the Chief Constable had left off, with reference to the high standard obtained by the licensees during the year, he thought that was very conclusive because there had not been any proceedings against any one of them during the year. They endorsed what the Chief constable had said. It showed that the licensees had exercised great care in the carrying out of the law, which was somewhat critical and complicated at times. With reference to drunkenness, they would like the figures to still be less, but having regard to the fact that they were a health and pleasure resort they thought the record was a very creditable one. They noted that only six residents were proceeded against, and that must be placed to the credit of the residential population. The Justices were also glad to know that after they granted the extra half hour`s extension during the summer months there had been no ill-effects. The public house and beer licences would be renewed with two exceptions. Those were the Granville and the Oddfellows. Those two licences would not be renewed that morning, but referred to the adjourned meeting for further consultation on the grounds of redundancy.

Music licences were granted to the Ship Hotel and the Black Bull Hotel so that wireless concerts might be given on the licensed premises.

The Magistrates fixed Wednesday, March 9^th, for the adjourned sessions.

The Magistrates also renewed all the music and dancing licences.

Folkestone Express 12-3-1932

Adjourned Licensing Sessions

Wednesday, March 9^th: Before Alderman R.G. Wood, The Mayor, Col. G.P. Owen, Alderman A.E. Pepper, Mr. J.H. Blamey, Dr. W. Nuttall, Miss A.M. Hunt, Alderman T.S. Franks, Mrs. E. Gore, Eng. Rear Admiral L.J. Stephens, and Mr. F. Seager.

The question of the renewal of the licences of the Granville Inn, Dover Street, and the Oddfellows Arms on the Fish Market was considered at the adjourned general licensing meeting at the Folkestone Police Court on Wednesday. The objection to both licences was on the ground of redundancy.

The first licence to be considered was that of the Granville Inn, owned by Messrs. Jude, Hanbury and Co., of Wateringbury, and the tenant of which was Mr. Harry Kennard.

Mr. A.S. Beesley, the Chief Constable, giving evidence, said he produced a plan of what they called the congested area. It embraced what was called the older portion of the town. There were 866 dwelling houses in the area, and allowing five people to each house, there was approximately a population of 4,330. There were in that area 22 fully licensed houses and four beer on houses. There were also six other licences for selling intoxicating drink within the area. That gave the proportion of one licensed house to every 135 persons and 27 houses, and one on licensed house to every 166 persons and 33 houses. The remainder of the borough, excluding the congested area, was seven eighths of the total area of the borough, and it had an estimated population of 31,560. In that area there were 50 on licences, and these included seven residential hotels for the accommodation of visitors, and that gave one on licence to 631 persons. The total number of licences in the borough was 114, giving a proportion of one licence to every 314 persons. Of the licences 76 were on licences, made up of 69 full and seven beer on, being one licence to every 472 persons.

Questioned by Mr. Bracher, Mr. Beesley said with regard to the congested area, the greater part of the congestion was not near the Granville Inn. There were many more licensed houses in or near the Harbour, but he was not objecting to the redundancy of any of those houses. The Star and Garter and the Richmond were in Harvey Street, and they were close together, and the Harvey Hotel was in the same street.

Mr. Bracher: Can you tell us why you selected the Granville?

The Chief Constable: We have to differentiate. The principal ground of differentiation is the fact that the Granville is doing less trade than the others.

How do you know? – By special observations kept on the houses during the last twelve months, and particularly during the last six weeks.

Is it desirable, in your opinion, that a house should not be allowed to continue its licence unless it is doing a large trade? – When one finds a house night after night with four or five people in it, it is my idea that the licence is not required, and the adjoining houses can adequately deal with the trade.

In reply to further questions, the Chief Constable said unfortunately for all the houses there was no question of crowding in the borough, because none of the houses were doing exceptionally well.

Mr. Bracher: Is it not a fact that the Granville has got seven nice bedrooms to let?

Mr. Beesley: I have another witness who will speak to that, and he can explain.

But is it not to your knowledge it has seven bedrooms? – Yes.

You have nothing against the tenant? – No, sir.

Or anything detrimental to say about the structure of the house? – No.

Chief Inspector Pittock said he served the notice on Harry Kennard, the licence holder. The house was No. 63, Dover Street. He had made a careful examination of the premises. It had a frontage on Dover Street of 21ft. 6 in. Both bars were lighted by windows and glazed panels in the doors. The premises belonged to Messrs. Jude, Hanbury and Co., of Wateringbury, and the rateable value was £28. Since 1902 there had been five transfers of the licence, but the present tenant had been there since January, 1928. There was one other licensed house within 100 yards of the house, and another within 150 yards and a third within 200 yards. He had made special visits to that and other houses in the neighbourhood, and had made notes of them. He had made twelve special visits to that house. At 8.28 p.m. on January 22^nd there were two people in the house, and at 8.45 p.m. there were five; on the 23^rd at 8.15 p.m. there were three; at 9.05 p.m. on the 24^th there were five; at 8.25 p.m. on the 26^th there were two; at 9.05 p.m. on the 26^th there were four; at 9.08 p.m. on the 27^th there was one; at 9.30 on the 28^th there were two; at 8.58 on the 29^th there were four; at 9.15 p.m. on the 30^th there were nine; on February 1^st at 9.15 p.m. there were two; at 9.15 p.m. on the 2^nd there were five, making a total of 42 customers on twelve visits as shown on the schedule which he produced. He made corresponding visits to the other houses close by, and there were 92 customers at the Raglan, 83 at the Star and Garter, 137 at the Richmond, and 158 at the George the Third.

Mr. Bracher: Can you tell the Bench why the houses near the Harbour have not been selected?

Chief Inspector Pittock: During the season those houses are pretty well filled up.

In reply to Mr. Bracher, Chief Inspector Pittock said the time he made his visits, from the 22^nd January to February 2^nd, would be absolutely the slackest time of the whole year for such houses.

Mr. Bracher: Do you not think if you gave the average trade including the summer months it would be more fair?

Chief Inspector Pittock: I was not instructed to visit those places during the summer.

The Clerk (Mr. Rootes): There have been other visits during the year?

Witness: Yes.

You have prepared a statement for the whole of the year? – Yes, I have prepared such a statement from the register kept of all visits by the police during the whole of the year.

Mr. Bracher said he was justified in assuming that really the only question the Justices had to consider was that of the renewal of the licence, and whether it should be referred to the Compensation Authority or not. They had heard about the congested area, and it was a surprise to him to hear that the Granville should be selected as the one house which was redundant in that area. If they wanted houses that were redundant surely they would go down to Seagate Street, where they had rows of licensed houses? They could stand and throw stones into the middle of a whole circle of licensed houses. If there was redundancy in that particular congested area, surely the redundancy was there. Then if they went up to the other end they got two houses, the Raglan and the Martello, just opposite each other. Surely one would be sufficient there. Then in Harvey Street they had the Star and Garter, the Richmond, and the Harvey Hotel. Surely one of those might be considered redundant. The Granville was the only licensed house in Dover Street, and that was considered to be redundant. The licence holder had had 21 years in the Army, and his discharge papers showed he had an exemplary character. The opposition admitted the house was structurally very well built. The trade was about 2½ barrels a week. The house was kept scrupulously clean, and the seven bedrooms, which were ordinarily for letting purposes, were let to people right through the summer months. In those circumstances, he should have thought the licence would have been renewed. The sole reason put forward why the licence should not be renewed was that it was doing a small trade. The only evidence for the Magistrates` consideration on the question of differentiation was the question of the amount of trade. It would have been more helpful if the police could have given them something about the summer trade. It was common knowledge that trade in all licensed houses throughout the whole of the country had fallen very much in the last few months, and when they got a falling trade it was not necessarily attributable to the want of usefulness in the houses, but of the general condition which was prevailing in the country. In 1929 the trade of that house was 138¼ barrels, containing 36 gallons of beer, in 1930 it was 126 1/3, and in 1931 it was 102 1/3 barrels. Mr. Kennard was very anxious to carry on his legitimate business in the house, for he made quite a good living. It was his and the brewers` wish that they should be allowed to continue with the house and that the licence should be renewed. He ventured to submit that the selection of the Granville as the one house in that congested area had not been considered, and its licence should not be referred for consideration by the East Kent Compensation Authority.

Harry Kennard, the licensee of the Granville, said he had held the licence for just over four years, and he was very much satisfied with his occupation of it, and he desired to be allowed to continue with his occupation. He got a reasonably good living with the sale of liquor and the letting of the seven rooms.

The Chief Constable: Are you a pensioner?

Witness: Yes.

The Chief Constable: How much?

Mr. Bracher: I object to this. This is not an income tax meeting. I think it most improper to ask the amount of a man`s pension. That is his private affair, which surely is not the affair of the Licensing Justices.

In reply to the Chief Constable, witness said his business was adequate remuneration for his work. Apart from his pension he got a living there. His barrelage week by week during July and August was about 2½. His winter trade at the present time was about one barrel. Trade was very much affected by the summer. He did a very good letting trade, but that was not dependent upon his having a licence.

Edward John Wilding, in the employ of Messrs. Jude, Hanbury Ltd., said the trade for 1929 at the Granville showed 138¼ barrels. The trade in the summer of 1929 was about double. Trade in all licensed houses had now universally gone down. There was a great drop all round. The trade in wine and spirits was not large.

The Magistrates retired. The Chairman said the Justices had decided not to renew the licence of the Granville public house, but to refer the same to the East Kent Compensation Authority.

The Clerk: It will be renewed provisionally, therefore.

Folkestone Herald 12-3-1932

Adjourned Licensing Sessions

The Folkestone Licensing Magistrates at the adjourned annual licensing sessions on Wednesday considered two licences which had been referred on the ground of redundancy.

After hearing considerable evidence the Magistrates refused to renew the licence of the Granville, Dover Street, the house being referred to the East Kent Compensation Authority, but in the other case, that of the Oddfellows Inn, Radnor Street, the licence was renewed.

The Magistrates were: Alderman R.G. Wood, Colonel G.P. Owen, Dr. W.W. Nuttall, Alderman A.E. Pepper, Mr. J.H. Blamey, Miss A.M. Hunt, Alderman T.S. Franks, Mrs. E. Gore, Rear Admiral L.J. Stephens, and Mr. F. Seager.

The consideration of the licence of the Granville was taken first, Mr. H.J. Bracher, of Maidstone, appearing for the licensee and brewers.

The Chief Constable (Mr. A.S. Beesley), who opposed, produced a plan of a part of Folkestone, showing in detain what they was termed “the congested area”. It embraced all the old portion of the borough. Within the area there were 866 houses, and allowing five persons per house, the population was 4,330. Within the area there were 26 licences, which consisted of 22 full and four beer on. There were also six other licences for the sale of intoxicating liquor by retail, giving one licence house to 125 persons, or every 27 houses, and one on licence to every 166 persons, or every 33 houses. The remainder of the borough, comprising the west end and the area bordering the congested area, was about seven eighths of the total area, with a population of 31,560. The total number of licences in the borough was 114, giving a proportion of one licence to every 314 persons. Of these 76 were on licences, made up of 69 full and 7 beer on, there being one licence to every 472 persons.

By Mr. Bracher: There was more congestion near the harbour. When he used the word “congestion” before he was referring to private houses. There were many more licensed houses in the neighbourhood of the harbour. He was not objecting, on the grounds of redundancy, to the licences of any of a number of houses very close together and almost in a row in the neighbourhood of the harbour.

Why have you selected the Granville? – We have, of course, to differentiate, and the principal ground in this case is that the Granville is doing a parlous trade.

How do you know? – Because I have had special observation kept over the last 12 months.

Is it your contention that a house should not be allowed to carry on unless it is doing a large trade? – Hardly that, but if there are only a few persons using the house each night it can hardly be said that the house is necessary.

You express the opinion that it is in the public interest to draw people into a few houses rather than distribute them amongst a number of houses? – There is no question of crowding. None of the houses is doing exceptionally well.

You have nothing whatever to say against the character of the tenant? – No.

Neither have you anything detrimental to say about the structure of the house? – No.

Chief Inspector Pittock said on February 16^th, 1932,  he served a notice on Harry Kennard, the licencee, to the effect that the renewal of the licence would be opposed. He had made a personal examination of the premises. The frontage on Dover Street was 21feet 6 inches. The premises belonged to Messrs. Jude, Hanbury and Co. Ltd., of Wateringbury. The rateable value was £28. The present tenant had been there since November, 1928. There was another licensed house within 100 yards, another within 150 yards and a third within 200 yards. He had made special visits to the house and other houses. He had made 12 special visits to this particular house. At 8.28 p.m. on January 21^st there were no customers in the house. There were none the next morning when he called, while in the evening at 8.35 there were five. On other dates there were three, four, two, four, nine, two, and five. On the occasion of those 12 visits the total number of customers was 42. He made corresponding visits to four other houses in the vicinity, and he found 92 at the Raglan, 83 at the Star and Garter, 137 at the Richmond, and 158 at the George III.

Mr. Bracher: Can you tell the Bench why the houses down the Harbour have not been selected? – During the summer months these houses are pretty full up.

The times when you made these visits were from January 21^st to February 2^nd? – That is so.

And that is absolutely the slackest time of the whole year, isn`t it? – Yes, I agree.

Don`t you think if you are going to give the average trade of the houses, it would be rather more helpful if the Magistrates had the same information regarding the summer months? – I was not instructed to do that.

The Clerk (Mr. Rootes): There have been other visits? – By other officers, and I have prepared a statement from their visits.

Mr. Bracher expressed surprise that the Granville should have been selected in this very congested area. If they wanted redundancy, they should go down to Seagate Street, where they got rows of licensed houses. The redundancy was there. Up the other end, they got two houses, the Raglan and the Martello, which were opposite each other. In Harvey Street they had the Star and Garter, the Richmond, almost opposite, and the Harvey Hotel close by. The licensee had held the licence for four years. He was a man of exceptionally good character with very distinguished Army service. He had 21 years` service in the Army, and his conduct on discharge was marked exemplary. He was in the 11^th Hussars and later went to Canada, where he joined the Canadian Army on the outbreak of War. He served throughout the War. Continuing, Mr. Bracher said the house was kept spotlessly clean, with seven beautifully clean bedrooms which were let right through the summer months. The licensee did a small trade, two and a quarter to two and a half barrels a week. Did the Magistrates desire that this man who carried on a small trade should be permitted to continue to carry on that small trade? There had never been a complaint against the licensee, and he submitted that it would have been more helpful if they had had the summer trade as well. The trade in all licensed houses had fallen very much during the last year. That was common knowledge. Falling trade, therefore, was not to be attributed to the want of usefulness of a house, but a general drop throughout the country. Mr. Bracher, continuing, said the licensee was anxious to carry on his legitimate business at this house. He was making quite a good living. He suggested that the selection of the Granville in this congested area had not been very well considered.

Harry Kennard said he had held the licence for just over four years. He was very satisfied with his occupation of the house, and he desired to be allowed to continue his business there. With the trade of the house, together with the letting of the bedrooms, he got a reasonably good living.

The Chief Constable: You are a pensioner, aren`t you? – Yes.

What is the amount of your pension?

Mr. Bracher: I object to that. This is not an income tax meeting. I think it most improper to ask the amount of this man`s pension.

By the Chief Constable: He did a very good letting trade, but he did not think it was dependent upon his having a licence.

Edward John Wilding, an employee of Messrs. Jude, Hanbury and Co. Ltd., said the trade for 1929 was 138¼ barrels; in 1930 126 barrels; and in 1931 102 barrels. There had been a general drop in trade all round.

The Magistrates retired, and on their return the Chairman announced that they had decided not to renew the licence of the Granville, which would be referred to the East Kent Compensation Authority.

The Clerk: The licence will be renewed provisionally, of course.

Folkestone Herald 15-10-1932

Local News

At a meeting of the East Kent Licensing Committee at the Sessions House, Canterbury, on Tuesday, Mr. G.K. Anderson presiding, an application for the renewal of the licence of the Granville, Dover Street, Folkestone, was refused, and the house, of which Mr. Harry Kennard is the tenant, and Messrs. Jude, Hanbury and Co. Ltd. the registered owners, was referred for compensation.

Folkestone Herald 30-11-1946

Local News

The funeral took place at Holy Trinity Church, recently of Mr. Frederick Skinner, 77, of 8, Martello Road, Folkestone, who died after a long and painful illness. Mr. Skinner, who was born in Canterbury, came to Folke­stone as a young man. He entered the licensed victuallers’ trade and held the licences in succession of several premises.

A staunch member of the Borough of Hythe Conserva­tive Association, he was an arduous worker in the East Ward. An active Freemason, his Mother Lodge was at Canter­bury; he was also a member of Temple Lodge, Folkestone, and Castle Lodge, Sandgate. He is mourned by his widow.

The inter­ment was at Canterbury.