Guildhall Hotel/Tavern 1930 - 1937

Folkestone Express 20-12-1930

Local News

At half past eight on Sunday morning the Folkestone Fire Brigade received a call by messenger to the Guildhall Hotel, Guildhall Street, the licensee of which is Mrs. E. Cozens. The fire, which was due to defective building construction, was centred in the sitting room on the first floor and the bar on the ground floor, and caused considerable damage amounting to approximately £100. Seven firemen arrived on the large motor tender at the first call, and later the motor ambulance brought three more men. There was a good water supply, and the fire was quickly in hand with the aid of hose and chemicals. The extent of the fire included the floor boards and joists, the ceiling and decoration of the sitting room, and damage to the bar by smoke and water. Further damage was also done to the adjoining premises of No. 6, Guildhall Street, where smoke and water went through the party wall where the ends of the floor joists were damaged by the fire.

Folkestone Herald 20-12-1930

Local News

Damage to the extent of about £100 was caused by a serious outbreak of fire at the Guildhall Hotel, Guildhall Street, on Sunday morning. The fire was chiefly in the sitting room on the first floor, but the damage extended to the hotel bar below, and into the next house, No. 6, Guildhall Street.

The Folkestone Fire Brigade was called by telephone at about 8.30 a.m., and a large motor tender and seven men turned out. A further call was received later from the police station and the motor ambulance and three more men proceeded to the scene of the outbreak.

The fire was extinguished by the use of water from a hydrant and chemicals. Damage was done to the floorboards and joists in the sitting room, and the ceiling, whilst the hotel bar below was damaged by water and smoke. A considerable amount of damage was also done to the house next to the hotel, by smoke and water getting through the parting wall. The joists of the floor were also damaged by fire.

The premises are owned by Messrs. Mackeson and Company, and occupied by Mrs. E. Cozens.

Folkestone Express 4-4-1931

Local News

On Tuesday at the Folkestone Police Court a protection order was granted to Mr. R. Rivers, of Wolverhampton, to sell at the Guildhall Hotel, the outgoing licensee being Mrs. Cozens.

Folkestone Herald 4-4-1931

Local News

A protection order was granted to Mr. R. Rivers, of Wolverhampton, in respect of the Guildhall Hotel, from Mrs. Cozens, at the Folkestone Petty Sessions on Tuesday.

Folkestone Herald 9-5-1931

Local News

An outbreak of fire occurred in the sitting room on the ground floor of the Guildhall Hotel, Guildhall Street, on Sunday evening, when damage to the extent of £10 was caused. The fire was extinguished by cutting away the smouldering material round the stove where the outbreak occurred.

Folkestone Express 7-1-1933

Wednesday, January 4^th: Before Eng. Rear Admiral L.J. Stephens, Miss A.M. Hunt, and Mr. W. Smith.

A transfer of the licence of the Guildhall from Mr. Rivers to Mr. Anderson was granted.

Folkestone Express 28-10-1933

Local News

At the Folkestone Police Court yesterday (Thursday), before The Mayor in the chair, Eric Anderson, the licensee of the Guildhall Hotel, was charged with suffering his premises to be used for the purpose of betting. Charles Goddard was charged with assisting of the management, James Suggett was charged with resorting to the premises for the purpose of betting, and William Robinson was charged with using the premises. Mr. B.H. Bonniface appeared for Mr. Anderson.

The Magistrates` Clerk (Mr. C. Rootes) said it was proposed that summonses should be issued in respect of the alleged offences.

The Chief Constable (Mr. A.S. Beesley) said he was not prepared to go on with the case that day. The defendants were entitled to summonses. He was not represented that morning. The Town Clerk intended to take the prosecution. He asked for a formal adjournment until next week.

The Magistrates` Clerk said a warrant was issued to search the Guildhall Hotel, and the premises were so searched, and as a result those charges were brought.

The Magistrates decided that the summonses should be issued against the defendants, and fixed the hearing for Friday next.

Folkestone Herald 28-10-1933

Local News

Four men appeared before the Folkestone Magistrates on Thursday, three for alleged breaches of the Betting Act, and one for an alleged breach of the Licensing Act.

The four defendants were Eric Anderson, the licensee of the Guildhall Hotel, who was alleged to have unlawfully allowed his premises to be used for the purpose of betting; Chas. Goddard, a barman at the Guildhall Hotel, who was alleged to have assisted; William Robinson, for alleged use of the Guildhall Hotel for the purpose of betting; and James Suggett, for alleged resorting to the Guildhall Hotel for the purpose of betting with Robinson.

The Clerk to the Magistrates (Mr. C. Rootes) said he understood the Chief Constable was proposing that summonses should be issued, and was applying for these.

The Chief Constable (Mr. A.S. Beesley) said he was not prepared to go on with the case that morning, firstly, because the defendants were entitled to summonses, and, secondly, because he was not represented that morning. The Town Clerk, who would be taking the prosecution, was away from the town, and so he applied for an adjournment.

The Clerk said the position was that a warrant was issued to search the premises. The premises were searched, and as a result those charges were brought, and the defendants were entitled to summonses.

Mr. H.B. Bonniface said he represented Anderson.

The Chairman of the Magistrates announced that the cases would be adjourned until Friday, November 3^rd. It was also stated that summonses would be issued against the defendants.

Folkestone Herald 4-11-1933

Local News

There was a sequel to a police raid on a Folkestone hotel at the Folkestone Petty Sessions yesterday (Friday), when four men were summoned, three for breaches of the Betting Act, and the other for a breach of the Licensing Act.

Eric E. Anderson, the licensee of the Guildhall Hotel, was summoned that on October 12^th and divers other dates, being the holder of a Justices` licence, suffered his premises to be used in contravention of the Betting Act, contrary to the Licensing Consolidation Act, 1910.

Charles James Goddard, a barman employed by Anderson, was summoned that he on October 12^th and divers other dates, when assisting in the conduct of the business of the Guildhall Hotel, used the same for the purposes of betting with persons resorting thereto.

The third defendant, William W. Robinson, stated to be a bookmaker`s runner, was summoned that he on the same date and other dates, being a person using the Guildhall Hotel, unlawfully used the same for betting with persons resorting thereto.

James F. Suggett, the fourth defendant, was summoned for resorting to the premises for the purpose of betting.

Anderson pleaded Not Guilty, and was defended by Mr. B.H. Bonniface. The other defendants pleaded Guilty.

After a lengthy hearing, the Magistrates fined Anderson £5 and £2 costs, Goddard £10, Robinson £15, and bound Suggett over on condition that he did not frequent betting houses in the future.

Alderman A.E. Pepper presided. He sat with Dr. W.W. Nuttall, Rear Admiral L.J. Stephens, Mrs. E. Gore, Mr. W. Smith, and Councillor W. Hollands.

The summonses against Goddard, Robinson and Suggett were heard first.

The Town Clerk (Mr. C.F. Nicholson), who prosecuted, said the proceedings were taken under the Betting Act of 1853.

The first witness was William Hinds, of 91, Linden Crescent, a labourer, who said on October 12^th he received certain instructions and he went to the Guildhall Hotel, going into the public bar. Goddard was behind the bar. Whilst he was there several men came in at 1.30 p.m. and he heard one of them say “Am I too late? Has he been in yet?” The barman replied “No, I don`t think so”, and at that moment Robinson came in, walked to one corner of the bar, produced some slips of paper and some money he was carrying in a leather bag, which he had under his jacket. Robinson placed the slips on to the counter. One of the men sitting in the bar handed something to Robinson, who placed it down by his left side and operated something. He heard Goddard say to Robinson “What about Roi de Paris now?” Robinson then took some money from his bag and placed it on the counter. The slips which Robinson placed on the counter were taken by Goddard and placed under the bar on his side. Three other customers handed Robinson slips, and Goddard was present all the time. Witness said on this day he made a bet of sixpence each way on a horse called “Flying Coot”. The initial on the bottom of the slip was Goddard`s. Goddard wrote it out. Witness made his bet when everybody else had finished. On October 13^th he again visited the hotel at 12 noon. Goddard and a young woman were in the bar; whilst he was there Robinson entered the bar with midday editions of the Evening Standard, placed one on the counter and as he went out Goddard said “I will see you later”. Witness said he went back to the hotel again at 1.15. Goddard and two others were discussing a horse called “Daring Do”. One of the customers put 2s. on the counter, and Goddard made a slip out. Robinson came in at 1.40 p.m. He could see him in a mirror. Robinson produced some slips which he put on the counter. Goddard took them and put them behind the counter. Goddard also produced some slips and money and handed them over to Robinson.

Goddard said he never kept the slips under the counter. He always kept them in his pocket.

Witness said he could not see exactly where the slips were placed because the counter was rather high.

P.C. Charles J. Marsh, Kent County Constabulary, said on October 24^th he went into the Guildhall Hotel at 12.30 p.m., in plain clothes. Goddard was behind the counter, but otherwise there was nobody in the bar. Five minutes later a man entered the saloon bar, called for a drink and said “Has Pompey been in yet?” The barman replied “No”. The man passed something to the barman, which he placed under the counter, and said “There it is, there”. Witness did not know what he was referring to. On the counter there was a glass containing slips of paper, standing near the cash register. At 12.45 the barman left the bar and took the contents of the glass with him. The glass was in full view of anyone in the bar. Witness left the premises at 1.15 and returned at 1.30. There were then six customers in the bar including a man addressed as “Pompey”, whom he now knew to be the defendant Robinson. At 1.55 p.m. the barman and Robinson commenced a conversation about football, following which the barman took a printed form from his pocket and placed it on the counter. Robinson took from his pocket what appeared to be football coupons, and the barman selected one or more of them and placed them in his pocket. He then took from his pocket a number of slips of paper; these he folded into another piece of paper and handed to Robinson. Robinson, as he left the premises, said “I expect we shall get a few more tomorrow”. On the following day witness again went into the house at 12.40 p.m. There were no customers in the bar, and there was a barmaid behind the counter. He barman appeared and left the building, and two customers entered and left immediately. The barman returned at one o`clock and shortly afterwards went outside. Later a young man entered, followed by the barman. After conversation the young man handed to the barman what appeared to be betting slips, and left the premises. The barman Goddard sat near him, produced the slips, unfolded them, and witness saw they contained money. He put them into his pocket and went outside again. At 1.40 p.m. Suggett entered the bar, called for a drink, which was served by Goddard, and said to the barman “Has Pompey been in yet?” The barman replied “No, he will not be in for a bit yet”. Suggett then passed over a slip of paper across the bar, the barman picked it up, unfolded it, looked at it, and put it in his pocket. The barman then took a piece of paper from the shelf behind him and put it on the counter. From his right hand pocket he took out what appeared to be betting slips and placed them on the counter. Then he appeared to put the details on the slips on to the piece of paper. When he had finished he put the slips into his left hand pocket and placed the piece of paper on the shelf behind him.

Chief Inspector H.G. Pittock, Folkestone, said on October 17^th he received a warrant issued under the Betting Act to search the Guildhall Hotel. At 1.50 p.m. on October 25^th he kept observation on the hotel and saw Robinson enter the public bar he followed him in immediately behind. Goddard was behind the bar. He told him he was a police officer and had a warrant to search the premises. He pointed to Marsh and said “This is a police officer too”. Marsh pointed to Suggett and said “This man has handed a slip over the bar while I have been here”, and pointing to Goddard, he said “He has some slips in his left hand jacket pocket”.

P.C. Butcher said on October 25^th he went to the Guildhall Hotel with Chief Inspector Pittock, upon whose instructions he searched Goddard. He found in Goddard`s outside left hand jacket pocket nine betting slips (produced), each slip wrapped round money corresponding with the value marked on the slip. There was a total of 27s. in cash. From his left hand waistcoat pocket he took one betting slip and one shilling. Each slip related to horses running in the Cambridgeshire that day. From the breast pocket he took three betting slips with which there was no money, and one football betting coupon. In the kitchen of the hotel, in a recipe book, he found three betting slips. They related to races prior to October 25^th.

Inspector W. Hollands said he searched Robinson, and found hanging over his right shoulder and hidden under the left side of his jacket, a bag containing 3d. in coppers. In his left hand jacket pocket he had another bag with a clasp fitted with a watch. When the clast was closed the watch was automatically stopped, and the bag could not be unlocked except by means of a key. When the bag was unlocked the watch started again. The name on the clasp was “Tick Tack”. In the bag were 19 slips, with the names of horses running that day, and sums of money marked on them. In Robinson`s inside breast pocket were some papers, including an account relating to newspapers, and papers relating to football betting coupons. In his left hand outside breast pocket were slips relating to betting on previous days. Altogether he had in his possession £2 8s. 2½d. When witness produced the money Robinson said some of it was for newspapers he had sold.

This concluded the case for the prosecution, and the Magistrates retired. Upon their return the Chairman said they had decided to convict in those cases. With regard to the defendant Suggett, he would be bound over on the condition that he did not frequent betting houses in the future. With regard to the two other defendants, the Bench would reserve their judgement until they had heard the case against the licensee.

The Magistrates then considered the summons against Anderson.

Mr. Nicholson, who prosecuted, said the case would present some slight difficulty to the Magistrates in this way. He had no evidence at all that the landlord knew anything about this betting going on. He would submit to the Bench, however, that the lack of knowledge did not entitle him to be acquitted.

The witnesses who had given evidence against the other three defendants were called again.

Replying to Mr. Bonniface, Hinde said the public bar faced Guildhall Street. It would be possible for a person on either side of the bar not to be seen in another part of the premises. The barman might have put the slips into his pocket instead of behind the counter.

The Town Clerk: Did you see the licensee at all? – No, sir.

Cross-examined, Marsh said he did not see the licensee at any time. During a part of the time he was in the bar on October 25^th a barmaid was present, and he saw nothing to complain of during that period.

Chief Inspector Pittock said after the raid he sent for Anderson, who came from the lounge bar at the rear of the premises on the same floor. He formally charged him and he replied “The first I know about it” or “This is news to me”.

By the Clerk (Mr. C. Rootes):A number of persons on the premises were searched, but no evidence was found on them.

Mr. Bonniface submitted to the Magistrates that on a point of law and on the evidence placed before the Magistrates there was no case for him to answer. The prosecution had admitted that there was no evidence at all that the landlord knew what was going on. The Magistrates had to be satisfied that the licensee had not exercised the necessary care.

The Town Clerk contended that Goddard was in charge of the bar. It might be unfortunate for the landlord if he were convicted for something he did not see going on, but he submitted it was his business to see what was going on.

After the Magistrates had deliberated in private, the Clerk announced that on a point of law the Justices were against Mr. Bonniface, and held that there was prima facie evidence that the barman was in charge and the defendant had delegated his authority to him at the material time.

Mr. Bonniface than called Goddard, who said Anderson had never left him in charge. When he was engaged Anderson gave him orders that no betting or writing out of betting slips should be permitted on the premises. Mr. Anderson came into the bar at irregular intervals.

Cross-examined, witness said if Mr. Anderson was not there, Mrs. Anderson was.

Mr. Bonniface: ere you at once dismissed when this happened? – Yes.

Mr. Anderson also gave evidence. He stated that he had held a licence in the town for three years. He had never left his barman in charge of the premises, and in the event of his not being there his wife was. He had no knowledge whatever that this betting was going on.

By the Clerk: He knew Robinson, who came in frequently during mornings and nights. He knew him as a newsvendor.

The Magistrates retired for nearly half an hour. When they returned the Chairman said with regard to Mr. Anderson the Bench had come to the conclusion that legally he was responsible for the act of his servant, Goddard.

In regard to payment of the fines imposed on Goddard and Robinson, the Bench allowed a month for payment, or in default a month`s imprisonment.

The Magistrates agreed to state a case in the event of an appeal.

Folkestone Express 11-11-1933

Local News

On Friday the Folkestone Magistrates for several hours heard evidence in a case which followed a raid by the police, in which Eric Anderson, the licensee of the Guildhall Hotel, was one of the defendants, and was fined £5 and £2 costs. Three other men were also before the Bench, and pleaded Guilty to betting offences on the licensed premises, fines being inflicted upon two of these defendants, and the third being bound over.

The case came before Alderman A.E. Pepper, Dr. W.W. Nuttall, Mrs. E. Gore, Mr. W. Smith, Eng. Rear Admiral L.J. Stephens,, and Mr. W. Hollands.

The Magistrates first heard summonses against the three men.

Charles James Goddard, a barman employed by Mr. Anderson, was summoned that he on October 12^th and divers other dates when assisting in the conduct of the business of the Guildhall Hotel, used the same for the purposes of betting with persons resorting thereto.

William Worthington Robinson, a newsvendor, was summoned that he on the same date and other dates, being a person using the Guildhall Hotel, unlawfully used the same for betting with persons resorting thereto.

James Frederick Suggett was summoned for resorting to the premises for the purposes of betting.

The three defendants elected to be tried by the Magistrates and pleaded Guilty.

Mr. C.F. Nicholson, the Town Clerk, who prosecuted, in opening the case, said the Act under which the summonses had been issued was the Betting Act of 1853, and pointed out that the penalty was one not exceeding £100 and such costs that the Justices might deem reasonable. He added that observations were kept on the hotel, and it was found that betting was taking place there.

Mr. William Hind, of 19, Linden Crescent, Folkestone, a labourer, said on the 12^th October last he received certain instructions, and went into the Guildhall Hotel, into the public bar. The barman, Goddard, was there. Several men came in at 1.30 p.m. One of them said “Am I too late? Has he been in yet?” The barman replied “No, I don`t think so”. At that moment a newsvendor, Robinson, whom he knew by sight, walked to one corner of the bar, and produced some slips and some money from a leather bag which he had under his jacket. He placed them on the counter. He saw one of the men sitting in the bar hand something to Robinson, who placed it down on the left side, where the bag was, and operated something. The man said “What about Roi de Paris?” which he understood to be a horse`s name. Robinson took some money from a bag and placed it on the counter. Goddard examined the slips and placed them under the bar on his side of the counter. The customers handed Robinson slips. During the time Robinson was there, Goddard was there all the time. On that day he (witness) also made a bet, which was on the slip (produced), and which was sixpence each way on “Flying Coot”. Goddard wrote it out and initialled it. He made that bet when everybody else had finished. On the following day he again visited the house at twelve noon, when Goddard was again present, and a young woman. Robinson entered the bar with midday “Standards”, placed them on the bar and left. Goddard said, as he went out, “I will see you later”. He (witness) left the bar at 12.15. He went back again at 1.15. Goddard and two customers were in the bar. They were discussing a horse, “Dering Do”, which was running at Gatwick at 2.30 p.m. that day. Goddard had a pencil and paper, and one of the customers placed a 2s. piece on the counter. Goddard wrote down “A shilling each way, “Dering Do”” and placed the slip and the money under the counter on his side of the bar. Robinson came into the bar on the opposite side of the partition at 1.40. He heard Goddard in conversation with him, and also saw Robinson, by means of a mirror at the back of the bar. Robinson produced some slips and placed them on the counter. Goddard produced some slips from under the counter, and Robinson, after examining and checking them, placed them in the bag which he carried on his left side.

Goddard said he never kept the slips under the counter. He placed them in his pocket.

Witness said he may have put the slips in his pocket when he bent down. The counter was very high.

P.C. Marsh, K.C.C., said he went to the Guildhall Hotel on the 24^th October at 12.30 p.m. in plain clothes. Nobody was in there, but Goddard was behind the bar. While he was there, at 12.35 p.m., a man entered the saloon bar, and said “Has Pompey been in?” The barman replied “No”. The man passed something to the barman, who placed it under the public bar counter, and said “It is there”. He did not see what it was. He noticed, however, there was a glass containing slips near the cash register. About 12.40 the barman left the bar, taking the contents of the glass with him. The glass in which the papers were was in full view of anyone who entered the bar. He (witness) left the bar at 1.15. He returned at 1.30, and there were then six male customers in the bar, including the man whom he heard described as Pompey, and whom he now knew as Robinson. At 1.55 p.m. the barman and the defendant Robinson commenced conversation about football. Following that, the barman took a printed sheet from his pocket and placed it on the counter. The defendant Robinson took from his pocket what appeared to be football coupons, and placed them on the counter. The barman selected one or two, and placed them in his pocket. He then took from his pocket slips of paper, and put them in the sheet placed on the counter, wrapped them up in the paper, and handed them to Robinson. As Robinson then left the premises he said “I expect I shall get a few more tomorrow”. He (witness) left the premises about 2.10 p.m. On the following day he again went to the house at 12.40 p.m. At 12.50 he saw the barman leave the premises from the front saloon bar door, and he again returned at 1 p.m. During his absence two male customers entered, but they left almost immediately. About 1.05 p.m. the barman, who had returned, left the bar with a bottle and brush in his hand, and proceeded to apply the contents to the frame of the public bar window. At 1.15 a young man entered the public bar and was quickly followed by the defendant Goddard. After some conversation, the young man handed the barman what appeared to be betting slips. The young man then left the premises. Goddard then seated himself on a seat near witness, produced those slips which he still held in his hand, unfolded them, and he saw they contained money. The barman checked them, and put them into his pocket again. He then went outside and continued his work there. At 1.40 p.m. the defendant Suggett entered the bar and called for a drink, which was served by the barman. He said to the barman “Has Pompey been in yet?” The barman replied “No, he won`t be in for a bit yet”. Suggett then passed a slip of paper to the barman, who unfolded it, looked at it and put it into his pocket. The barman then took a bit of paper from the shelf behind him, put it on the counter, took from his right hand pocket what appeared to be betting slips, and put them on the counter. He made a list of amounts of money on that piece of paper which he had taken from the shelf and transferred the slips to the left hand pocket. He then placed the list back on the shelf. At 1.50 p.m. the defendant Robinson entered the bar, closely followed by the Chief Inspector and other officers. Chief Inspector Pittock declared himself as a police officer, and, pointing to witness, said “This man is a police officer also”.

Chief Inspector Pittock said on the 17^th October he received a warrant under the Betting Act to search the premises of the Guildhall Hotel, Guildhall Street. At 1.50 p.m. on the 25^th October he was keeping observation, and he saw the defendant Robinson enter the public bar of the Guildhall Hotel. He followed him in immediately behind, and the defendant Goddard was behind the bar. He (witness) said “We are police officers, and I hold a warrant to search these premises under the Betting Act”. He pointed to P.C. Marsh and said “This is a police officer too”. He said to Robinson “You will be arrested and charged with using these premises for the purposes of betting”. He made no reply, and was taken to the police station by Inspector Hollands. P.C. Marsh pointed to Suggett and said “This man has handed a slip over the bar while I have been here”, and pointing to the barman, Goddard, said “He has got some slips in his left hand jacket pocket”. P.C. Butcher was behind the counter with Goddard, and he instructed him to search him, and he saw him produce from the jacket pocket a small packet which he placed on the bar counter. P.C. Marsh reached behind the bar and took a slip of paper from the shelf, which he handed to him. He inspected it and brought it to the police station.

The Magistrates` Clerk (Mr. C. Rootes) said that was the list the Bench had already had.

Proceeding, witness said that Goddard and Robinson were brought to the police station, and later he formally charged them under the Betting Act, cautioned them, and neither made any reply. Since then he had examined the slips and found they related to horses running in races at Newmarket that day.

The Chairman: Any winners?

Witness: One, sir. (Laughter)

How many officers were there? – Five, sir.

Including yourself? – Yes, sir.

Is this public bar immediately in front here? – Yes, sir.

Did you go into any other bar? – Yes, sir, every bar.

Did you search people? – Yes, I did, everybody.

P.C. Butcher said on the 25^th October he accompanied the last witness and other officers into the Guildhall Hotel. He saw the defendant Goddard there, and on the instructions of the Inspector he searched him. In Goddard`s left hand outside jacket pocket he found nine betting slips (produced). Each slip was wrapped round money representing the value on the slip. There was 27s. in cash. From Goddard`s left hand waistcoat pocket he took one betting slip and one shilling in cash. Each slip related to horses running in a race called The Cambridgeshire at Newmarket on the 25^th October. From Goddard`s breast pocket he took three betting slips with which there was no money, and also one football coupon. In the kitchen at the top of the hotel, in a recipe book, he found three betting slips. They related to racing prior to the 25^th October.

The Chairman: How do you know that fact? Do you know all about racing?

Witness: No, I do not know all about racing, but I examined a current newspaper to see if the horses related to those running that day, and they were not.

You do not know what they referred to? – Not definitely, sir.

The Clerk: Do you know as a matter of fact whather they are horses which have run in races previously?

Witness: Yes, sir.

That is from your own knowledge and ordinary newspaper reading? – Yes, sir.

Inspector Hollands said he took the defendant Robinson to the police station. He was wearing on his left side under his jacket a bag containing threepence in coppers. In his left hand jacket pocket he had a bag, which had a clasp fitted with a watch. When the clasp was closed the watch was stopped, and it could not be unlocked other than by means of a key. It was called a “tick-tack”. He object of the bag was that bets and slips were collected and placed in the bag, and when it was closed it stopped the watch at the same time, and it showed that all the bets and slips were placed there before the time on the watch.

The Town Clerk: That is, of course, for the protection of the bookmaker?

Witness: Yes, sir.

Proceeding, witness said there were nineteen slips (produced) in the bag, and they were all for horses running that day. In Robinson`s inside breast pocket were the papers (produced) relating to a form of football betting.

The Chairman (examining the slips): I can`t find a winner here.

The Chief Constable (Mr. A.S. Beesley): There is only one, sir.

Witness, continuing, said he took some more slips from the defendant`s left hand pocket. Altogether, defendant had in his possession £2 8s. 2½d. As he produced the money, defendant said some of it was for newspapers which he had sold and the other was for betting. He left defendant at the police station in custody and returned to the Guildhall Hotel, and remained there until the police officers had left. Defendant Suggett then accompanied him to the police station.

The Magistrates retired.

The Chairman, when they returned, said the Bench had decided to convict in those cases. With regard to the defendant Suggett, who was charged with resorting there, he would be bound over conditionally that he did not frequent betting houses in future. With regard to the other two defendants, the Bench would give their decision after they had heard the case against Eric Anderson.

The licensee of the Guildhall, Eric Anderson, was then summoned that on the 12^th October, and on divers other days since that date, being the holder of a Justices` licence, unlawfully suffered his premises to be used in contravention of the Betting Act. Mr. B.H. Bonniface appeared for the defence, and pleaded Not. Guilty.

The Town Clerk, addressing the Bench, said that in order to prove that case, he had first of all to prove that betting had taken place in that house, and it would be necessary for the evidence which they had just heard to be re-called. That case would prove some slight difficulty to the Magistrates in this way; that he had no evidence at all that the landlord knew anything at all about that betting going on. He would have to submit to them that lack of knowledge did not entitle him to be acquitted, and he would call their attention to a number of cases which had been decided on the point. He thought there had only been one case in comparatively recent years, in 1913, and he could not find any case in the High Court on that Section since that time, and all the decisions to which references would be made by Mr. Bonniface or himself were made some considerable time ago, and indeed before the Licensing Consolidation Act, 1910, was passed. He would submit to them that it was not necessary to prove actual knowledge of the betting taking place on the part of the licensed persons. In other words, although he knew nothing whatever of what was going on, the prosecution were entitled to a conviction. If the licensee was to get off merely by saying that he did not know what was going on, there would scarcely be a conviction at all.

Mr. Bonniface said he would agree to the witnesses being re-called without repeating the evidence given by them in the previous case.

Hird, cross-examined, said he was in the public bar at the time in question. The bar itself was semi-circular, the right wall being practically next to the police station. If a person was near either of the partitions they could not be seen by the licensee in any way, if he were in another part of the building or in the next bar. The newsvendor came in and walked to the corner of the bar which would be out of sight from the licensee.

Mr. Bonniface: And you agree, I think, that it was very possible that the barman, when he put those slips down, as you said, under the bar, possibly put them in his pocket? You agreed in reply to him?

Witness: When he bent down, he placed the slips and paper and money down that way.

And they may have been placed in his pocket, as you told him yourself in answer to his question? – They may have been put down in his pocket and they may have been put under the counter.

The Town Clerk: You did not see the licensee at all, did you?

Witness: No, sir.

At any time? – No, sir.

P.C. Marsh then went in the box and said the evidence he had given in the case against the other defendants was correct.

Mr. Bonniface: Do you agree it is possible for the man and the bookmaker to be in this bar and for the licensee not to be able to see them at all?

Witness: If the licensee was on the ground floor, he must see them.

Would you swear that he must see them if he was on the ground floor in the next bar? – Not in the position I saw them in, sir.

Was the bookmaker then right opposite the door side, inside the door which opens to the street? – No, sir.

Well, which part of the bar was he in? – He was in the saloon bar, sir.

Who was serving them? – The barman.

Do you mean in the first bar that enters from Guildhall Street? – No, sir. It is possible for one man to serve customers in either bar.

The licensee was not in the saloon bar? – I did not see him.

What was the length of time that you were there, the longest time that you were there on any one occasion? – About an hour at the longest time, sir.

Without going out at all? - Without going out at all.

When the barman passed the slips across back to the bookmaker, he wrapped them up so that nobody could see? – Yes, I took it that was the object, sir, and also so that they would be in one parcel.

Now, on the 25^th, when you went at 12.40 p.m., you say there was a barmaid behind the bar? – Yes, sir.

And while the barmaid was there, there was nothing of which you could complain, while she was behind the bar? – That is so.

Nothing whatever happened until the barman went behind? – That is so, sir.

The Town clerk: Did you on any occasion on which you went into this house see the landlord at all?

Witness: Not on any occasion, sir.

Chief Inspector Pittock, formally confirming the evidence he gave in the case, said after he went into the Guildhall Hotel, he sent for the landlord, who came from the lounge bar at the rear of the premises on the same floor.

The Chairman: Does it open into the saloon bar?

Witness: By a door, yes, sir.

The Town Clerk: But not into the public bar?

Witness: No, sir.

Proceeding, witness said he formally charged Anderson. Who said “The first I know about it” and “That is news to me”. It was repeated two or three times. He searched a number of persons on the premises.

The Chairman: Is it usual to search people in this way?

Witness: yes, sir. I was authorised by the warrant to search all persons I found there.

Mr. Bonniface: Although you searched the persons in the saloon bar and in the lounge bar, you found no evidence whatever of betting?

Witness: No, sir.

And the piece of paper referred to; if the licensee came along and saw it in the glass, there is nothing to show that there is anything to do with betting in that, is there? – No, sir.

The Town Clerk: If the licensee saw that slip of paper, do you think he would be likely to know what it meant?

Witness: I do, sir.

P.S. Butcher said he searched the chef, the waiter employed at the hotel, and also assisted in searching the lounge bar.

Inspector Hollands also confirmed the evidence he gave in the previous case.

Mr. Bonniface, addressing the Bench, submitted that so far as the licensee was concerned, on the evidence that the Town Clerk had placed before them, there was no case to answer. The Town Clerk quite clearly told them that he had no evidence at all that the landlord knew. It was true that the Town Clerk had not to go so far as to show that the landlord knew, but they had to be satisfied that the landlord did not exercise such reasonable care as he should have done in the circumstances in conducting the licensed house, and it was for the Town Clerk to prove that to them. In other words, the onus did not move. The section did not say that the licensee knowingly allowed that to go on, but the Court had held that there must be some evidence before them that the licensee knew of what was going on, some evidence from which they could infer he did. They had no evidence that the licensee`s wife, who was on the premises assisting, knew what was going on. When the raid was made, there was not one single particle of betting material upon anybody but the barman and the bookmaker`s runner, until they went to the chef`s private quarters, and there was found in an old recipe book of the chef two betting slips for some time back. They were asked to say that the licensee must have known, because the chef had in his private quarters in his recipe book an old betting slip. If the licensee was going to be convicted on such evidence as that, then it came to this, that the licensee would be convicted upon nothing at all.

The Town Clerk submitted to the Bench that Goddard was in charge of the bar, and if he was there – and they had heard the evidence that he was actually taking part in the betting itself – that was instructive knowledge to the licensee. It might be an unfortunate thing that a licensee had to be convicted if he did not know what was going on, but it was his submission that it was his business to see what was going on.

The Clerk, after the Bench had retired to consider the question of law, said that on the point of law the Magistrates were against Mr. Bonniface in feeling that there was prima facie evidence that the barman was in charge there and that the defendant had delegated his authority to him at the material times.

Goddard, the barman, was then called by Mr. Bonniface as the first witness for the defence.

Mr. Bonniface: At the time that evidence has been given betting slips were taken by you, to your knowledge was Mrs. Anderson on the premises?

Witness: On the last occasion.

And on all occasions was Mr. Anderson on the premises? – Yes, sir.

Has he ever left you in charge at any time? – No, sir.

What have been his instructions to you with regard to betting? – At the time when he first employed me he gave definite orders that there were to be no betting or betting slips upon the premises.

Does Mrs. Anderson come to the bar at irregular intervals? – Yes, sir.

And did Mr. Anderson know, did you ever tell him or had you ever suggested to him that you were taking in betting slips upon the premises? – No, sir.

The Town clerk: The first day upon which the witness Hind went to the house was the 12^th October. Do you say the landlord was present on that day?

Witness: Yes, sir.

How do you remember that? – He was in the lounge.

But how do you remember that he was present on that particular day? Is he always there? – The majority of days he is there, and if he is not there, Mrs. Anderson is on the premises.

Do you know then on the 12^th October that he was definitely there? – I am sorry, sir, but I cannot really say.

Do you know that he was there on the 13^th October? You cannot say? – Not definitely, sir.

You know he was there on the day of the raid? – Yes, sir.

But was he there the day before, October the 24^th? You cannot say? – No, sir.

How often does he come into this bar in which you serve drinks? – Every quarter of an hour or twenty minutes.

You heard the evidence of the two witnesses who were in there, one for two days and another for three days, and they never saw the landlord at all? – Very often he does not come in, but he shouts through the lounge door if everything is O.K., sir.

Mr. Bonniface: Were you at once dismissed for this happening?

Witness: Yes, sir

Temporarily dismissed? – Yes, sir.

You won`t go back when this case is over? – I don`t know.

Defendant, on oath, said he had held a licence in the town three years, previously at the Black Bull and then at the Guildhall. He had never left his barman in charge. He was in charge of the premises himself, and in the event of his not being there, his wife was in charge. He paid periodical visits to the private and public bars. “I had absolutely no knowledge that anything of this kind was going on” he added. “I have given my servants definite instructions, and as a result of this I have dismissed my man”.

The Town Clerk: Don`t you think if you had exercised proper control over these premises, you would have seen?

Defendant: I have exercised proper control, to the best of my ability.

You heard the evidence of the constable that certain slips were placed in the glass? – I have never seen any betting slips on my premises at any time.

If you are both out, there must be somebody in charge? – In those circumstances, if there was any trouble, the senior servant would be in charge.

The Magistrates` Clerk: And who would that be?

Defendant: I presume, in this case, Goddard.

The Town Clerk: One would assume that the man in charge of the bar, if the licensee was in another part of the house, is in charge?

Defendant: He is not in charge. I am in charge. He is serving in the bar.

The Magistrates` Clerk: Do you know Robinson?

Defendant: Yes.

Does he come in the house? – Yes, frequently.

What do you know him as? – I know him as a newsvendor.

What does he come to the house for? – Apparently to drink. I have never seen him do anything else. I regard him as a particularly good customer.

More than once in the day have you seen him there? – Yes.

The Chairman: Which bar does Robinson frequent?

Defendant: The public bar, your worship.

You have seen him there? – Yes.

Mr. Bonniface: And have you ever seen him in any way take betting slips?

Defendant: I certainly have not, at any time.

In reply to further questions, defendant said that Robinson stood right opposite his house, by the Queen`s Hotel corner.

The Magistrates` Clerk: How long has Goddard been employed in this hotel?

Mr. Bonniface: My client took him over when my client first took over the Black Bull, and he came down from the Black Bull with them. That was three years ago.

He Chairman, when they returned, said that with regard to Mr. Anderson`s case, the Bench had come to the conclusion that legally he was responsible for the act of his servant, Goddard, and he must be fined £5 and £2 costs. With regard to Goddard, he would be fined £10, and Robinson £15, leviable by distress, or one month`s imprisonment.

Mr. Bonniface asked the Bench if they would state a case, if he was so instructed.

The Chairman: Yes.

The defendants Goddard and Robinson were allowed a month in which to pay their respective fines.

Folkestone Herald 27-1-1934

Obituary

We regret to announce the death recently, at New Malden, Surrey, of Mrs. Harriett S. Tunbridge, the widow of the late Mr. James Tunbridge, who was in turn licensee of the Railway Bell Hotel, Guildhall Hotel, Fountain Hotel (Seabrook), and the Castle Inn, Foord. Mrs. Tunbridge was respected by all who knew her. The funeral took place on Wednesday at Folkestone cemetery.

Folkestone Express 3-3-1934

Local News

On Wednesday the Folkestone Magistrates transferred the licence of the Guildhall Hotel from Mr. Anderson to Mr. P.E. Wootton, who previously had been a wholesale tobacconist at Hemsworth, Yorkshire.

Folkestone Express 10-3-1934

Adjourned Licensing Sessions

Tuesday, March 6^th: Before Alderman R.G. Wood, Alderman A.E. Pepper, Dr. W.W. Nuttall, Alderman T.S. Franks, Councillor Mrs. E. Gore, Mr. W. Smith, Judge H. Terrell, and Councillor W. Hollands.

The Magistrates formally renewed the licence of the Guildhall Hotel, following its recent transfer.