Jubilee Inn 1935 - 1939

Folkestone Express 26-1-1935

Editorial

The Folkestone Council are making material progress with the schme for the clearance of the slums in Radnor Street, and this will undoubtedly be pleasing to the majority of Folkestone people. Practically all opposition to the scheme in the Council Chamber has vanished, and it is clear that the members are determined that without any delay now the operations will be pushed forward to a successful conclusion. Yesterday the General Purposes Committee considered the Health Committee minutes in connection with the further development of the scheme, and the members were almost unanimous concerning the Committee`s decisions. These were mainly concerned with the licensed houses in teh area. These might have provided a very knotty problem, for they were left out of the proposed scheme by the Health Minister`s order. Unless something had been done in this direction three of the houses would have remained as they were, and would have undoubtedly proved an eyesore set amidst a modern and what will be a model housing estate. The Town Clerk (Mr. C.F. Nicholson) was instructed to negotiate with the owners of the Jubilee Inn, the Oddfellows Arms and the Ship Inn, and he is certainly to be complimented upon the able manner in which he carried out those negotiations, and which will certainly contribute towards the ultimate success of the scheme. The present three houses will, if the proposals go through as it is hoped, be demolished and will be re-built within the layout of the whole scheme. This will necessitate an exchange of land, and the owners will receive an added piece of land. Another licensed house in the area will disappear, but that will be a matter of purchase. The re-erection of modern licensed houses will certainly add to the effectiveness of the clearance of the whole of the area. The purchase of three houses in Radnor Street not included in the order will also give added scope for dealing with the whole of the area in a manner which will resound to the credit of Folkestone. In order that the re-housing of people from the area and other areas can be efficaciously carried out, the Committee yesterday also agreed to the erection of 32 additional houses on the Hill Road Housing Estate. Everyone who has consideration for those people who have had to live in houses not worthy of being called houses will assuredly agree with this extension of the Corporation estate. It looks like being full steam ahead now with regard to the Radnor Street slum clearance, and those who have regard for the fair name of Folkestone will be exceedingly pleased.

Council Meeting Extract

Yesterday (Thursday) the General Purposes Committee of the Folkestone Town Council had before them the recommendations of the Health Committee regarding the Radnor Street slum clearance scheme, and by their approval considerable progress will be made in the proposals for the demolition of the property. The recommendations include the demolition of three of the licensed houses on the sit and their removal on to different sites, and the removal of one house altogether.

The Health Committee`s recommendations were as follows:- Radnor Street Area: (a) Licensed Houses: The Town Clerk reported that, as instructed by the Committee, he had been in negotiation with the owners of the licensed houses excluded from the provisions of the Folkestone (Radnor Street No. 1)  Housing Confirmation Order, 1934. The result of the negotiations is as follows: Jubilee Inn: The owners of this house are prepared to erect a new house on the site provisionally allocated for this purpose in the lay-out plan approved by the Council, subject to the cleared site being conveyed to them in exchange for the site of the existing Jubilee Inn. Oddfellows Arms: The owners of this house are also prepared to erect a new house on the site provisionally allocated for this purpose in the lay-out plan approved by the Council. This proposal will also involve an exchange of lands, and is subject to the Corporation agreeing to compensate the tenant for his trade fixtures and fittings, such compensation to be fixed by a valuer to be agreed upon. Ship Inn: No definite decision has yet been received from the owners of this house, but it is likely that they will also agree to demolish and re-build this house on a site in the vicinity of the present house. The arrangement will also involve an exchange of lands. The whole of the above mentioned arrangements are, of course, subject to the approval of the Licensing Justices.

Resolved that the committee approve in principle of the above mentioned arrangements.

Councillor Lillie said that meeting was brought forward a week in order that the negotiations which the Town clerk had had in connection with the licensed houses could be considered. If the licence holders had to transfer their licence from the present house to the house it was proposed to build no time should be lost in considering the recommendations in order that the owners could be informed so that they could appear before the Justices at the Brewster Sessions and make application for their transfer. He would like the Committee to express their approval of those negotiations, and also to make any remarks they wished in regard to any items on those proceedings. He moved that the minutes be approved. Alderman Mrs. Gore seconded.

Councillor Barfoot: Do you not think as the public houses are to be pulled down an attempt should be made to reduce the number there? There certainly does not appear to be any need for three in teh area. Cannot an application be made to the licensing authorities to have the number reduced?

Councillor Mrs. Thiselton: How many houses have to be sacrificed if the Ship Inn is to be given a plot?

The Town Clerk: If it remains as it is it will take the site of two houses.

Councillor Hart asked the Town Clerk whether the Ministry of Health did not state that the licensed houses should not be reduced.

The Town Clerk: They did not say that. The Ministry excluded the licensed houses under the Compulsory Purchase Order, which prevented you from acquiring the properties. The point raised by Councillor Barfoot is quite a different matter. I understand representations were made comparatively recently to have one removed.

Alderman Stainer: That was about a year ago.

The Town Clerk: And the licensing Justices decided not to refuse the licence.

Councillor Barfoot: The circumstances have altered.

The Mayor: In what respect?

The Town clerk: There is one house going. We are acquiring one of the four there at present.

Councillor Johnson: Have we any information about trade done by these houses – the barrelage?

Councillor Gadd: On a point of order. Is this not a question of slum clearance and not redundancy of licence? Have we any authority for dealing with redundancy this morning?

The Mayor: We have not. It will have to be brought up by an outside authority. At the present time it is not before us.

Councillor Mrs. Thiselton said they offered doubling the plot of land for the re-building of the public houses. Land constituted wealth, so they were offering something in the shape of wealth to the owners of the licensed houses. They were having to buy those new houses, and they had a number of deficiencies which were caused through having to give up that land.

The Town Clerk: It is not so.

Councillor Mrs. Thiselton said when they were in Committee the Town clerk asked the Borough Engineer why he could not squash the houses up a little more, and the Borough Engineer said it was impossible. It was then discussed that they should buy the three additional houses.

The Mayor: That was more from the point of view of giving a better approach to the houses.

Councillor Thiselton: I deny that.

The Town Clerk said he wished to explain that the Minister merely said that they were not to spend £20,000 to buy public houses.

Councillor Mrs. Thiselton said it was no use discussing that; the public houses were there. She was referring to the first meeting after the Ministry`s decision was published.

The Town Clerk said the Minister`s order excluded the public houses in order that the expense of acquiring them might be avoided. As, at any rate, two of them interfered with the lay-out it became incumbent upon them to arrange for their removal on some terms. The owners had agreed to remove them all to other sites on the terms of exchanging land. They, therefore, got the houses removed from their present sites as they desired, at no cost other than that the sites on which they were going were slightly larger than the sites on which the present houses stood. “I have”, he said “seen the Ministry of Health of those proposals. They think the proposals before you are extremely satisfactory”. They had got the removal of the three licensed places from their present lay-out at a very small cost indeed.

Councillor Davis said in four or five years` time the question of redundancy might come up again. Would it not then cost more than it would today to reduce the number? That was what he thought Councillor Barfoot was driving at.

The Town clerk: Why should it be suggested in five years that you would want to buy a new house?

Councillor Davis: It would not cost so much now.

The Town Clerk said the question of redundancy had nothing to do with the Council. If there was a wish to reduce them in five or six years` time there was the question of redundancy to consider, and that would have to be decided by the Compensation Authority.

The Mayor: This question does not come within the scope of this Council.

Councillor Barfoot: Was it not understood that on the site of Nos. 5, 7, and 9 a public house would be built on that corner?

Several members: No.

Councillor Kent said if that scheme was carried out they would have three modern public houses with adequate accommodation, which they did not possess now. The arrangements were, he considered, splendid.

The Mayor said he was present at the meeting of the Health Committee, and he thought they were all indebted to the Town Clerk for the very able manner in which he had carried out very delicate negotiations. He thought the Council had done exceedingly well, and he considered the best thing they could do was to agree to those recommendations unanimously.

The resolution approving the minutes was carried, only Mrs. Thiselton voting against it.

Folkestone Express 16-2-1935

Annual Licensing Sessions

The annual Licensing Sessions was held on Wednesday at the Folkestone Town Hall, when the Chief Constable (Mr. A.S. Beesley) reported that there had only been 15 convictions for drunkenness, the number being the same as the previous year. One licence, that of the Mechanics Arms, was referred to the adjourned licensing sessions, all the others being renewed. The licensing hours were extended for the whole of the summer time period by half an hour, from 10 p.m. to 10.30 p.m. on weekdays.

Mr. R.G. Wood presided, and a number of Magistrates were on the Bench.

 

Radnor Street Licensed Houses

Several of the clergy and ministers and representatives of various religions and temperance bodies were present in Court, evidently with a view to watching the proceedings concerning the licensed houses in the Radnor Street area. Mr. C.F. Nicholson, the Town Clerk, was also present.

The Chairman asked the Town Clerk if he had anything to say.

Mr. Nicholson said he really did not quite understand the position with regard to the licences in the Radnor Street area. Did they want him to explain what the Corporation`s proposals would be?

The Clerk (Mr. C. Rootes): These licences will be renewed today?

Mr. Nicholson: Certainly.

The Clerk: Nothing comes in force until next year?

Mr. Nicholson: The Corporation do not own any of the licences for the moment. I did not anticipate I should have to explain anything today.

The Chairman: We are asked to renew four licences in the area. We have no official information. It is a question whether they should be renewed or referred to the adjourned sessions. We know something by newspapers. We can defer the renewal and in the meantime think over what action we shall take.

Mr. Nicholson: The owners of these houses are not represented this morning. Is it proper for me to say anything about it?

The Chairman: Why are you here?

Mr. Nicholson: I did not ask to be here.

The Rev. Dr. Carlile: Is this an application now being made for the renewal of the four licences? If so, have the applications been made in order?

The Clerk, to Mr. Nicholson: Is there anything you have to officially mention? In the ordinary course there is an application for the renewal of all the licences, which does not affect what you are doing in the Radnor Street area.

Mr. Nicholson: I am not making any application this morning.

The Chairman: We would like to have some information of what is likely to happen.

Mr. Nicholson said as they were probably aware the Corporation had submitted to the Ministry of Health a compulsory purchase order. There were four licensed houses in the area. The Ministry declined to allow the Corporation to purchase three of the houses and they were struck out of the order. The remaining house, the Packet Boat, would be acquired by the Corporation as a going concern. It so happened that the Jubilee, the Ship, and the Oddfellows Arms, where they now stood, interfered with the proposed lay-out of the new houses, and on instructions he entered into negotiations with the owners. Two of them, the Jubilee and the Oddfellows Arms, agreed to re-erect, subject to the approval of the Magistrates, on alternative sites that would enable the Corporation`s lay-out scheme to be proceeded with. With regard to the Ship Inn, he had not yet received the decision of the owners as to whether they were prepared to pull down and re-erect a new house. The terms of the arrangements with the Jubilee and the Oddfellows were subject to applications which would be made to them in due course. There was to be an exchange of land in connection with them. There was to be no cost to the Corporation other than paying the tenant for the trade fixtures. With regard to the Ship Inn, he had not obtained information whether they were prepared to pull down. That house did not interfere with the scheme so much as the other two. It would be much better for the scheme if that house was pulled down and re-erected, but the Corporation could not insist upon it. The other owners had done all they could to assist in their scheme. The Packet Boat would be definitely acquired. Notice to treat had been served and a claim had been sent in. The Ministry confirmed the order which included that house.

Mr. E.H. Philcox, who stated he represented a number of residents in that area, said he would like to raise a question on the renewal of the houses.

The Clerk: I cannot see you have any locus standi.

Mr. Philcox asked if the matter for the removals would come up at the adjourned sessions. If so, he would be there to object. It seemed to him they would be able that day to only provisionally renew the licences for the time being, or mention that they would be referred on the ground of redundancy.

Dr. Carlile said a very considerable number of residents were interested in those four licences. If there was any consideration of the question of the renewal of the licences they definitely asked that their views might be considered in reference to redundancy.

The Chairman enquired what the police view was.

The Chief Constable said at the Magistrates` primary meeting he received instructions to go into the question of redundancy and ascertain whether it would be possible to differentiate between the houses. He did so and he found some considerable difficulty in saying because it was an established fact that there were not too many licensed houses for the summer trade in the area. All the houses did extremely well. Whether they were structurally adapted or not was open to enquiry. The houses less structurally fitted were doing a better trade. More customers were in those pokey houses than in the better houses. There was, he supposed, a psychological reason for it. He had had a system of paying monthly visits and it gave him a line on the trade. He had selected a certain number of houses and they had put them into three groups.

The Chief Constable then described the groups and gave details of the numbers of customers in them at certain times. The first group consisted of the Mechanics Arms, the Honest Lawyer, and the Harvey Hotel. The second group included the Harbour Hotel, the True Briton, the London and Paris Hotel, and the Princess Royal. The third group were the Alexandra Hotel, Royal George, South Foreland, the Wonder, the Pavilion Shades, the Chequers, the Wellington, the Royal Oak, and the Lifeboat.

The Magistrates retired to consider the matter and on their return the Chairman said they had decided to renew all the licences with the exception of the Mechanics Arms, which they renewed until the adjourned licensing sessions when it would be considered with regard to redundancy.

Dr. Carlile: Then no objection can be taken here and now, or in any other place, to the four licences involved in the scheme?

The Clerk: There will be applications for removals later and anyone can be heard at the time those applications are made. That is the position.

The Chairman: It will be better for the objections to be raised when the transfer comes along.

Dr. Carlile: It puts us at a very serious disadvantage. There will only be a question of renewal then.

The Chairman: It is a question of renewing them for one year now.

Dr. Carlile: It will be a question of the removal of licences that have already been granted.

The Chairman: That is the position.

Folkestone Herald 16-2-1935

Annual Licensing Sessions

Another year of sobriety was re­ported by the Chief Constable (Mr. A.S. Beesley) to the Licensing Magistrates at the annual Licensing Sessions for the Borough, which were held at the Town Hall on Wednesday. All the licenses were renewed with the exception of that of the Mechanics’ Arms, which was referred to the ad­journed annual Sessions with a view to the question of redundancy being considered. During the Sessions reference was made to the four licensed houses in the Radnor Street area, a statement being made by the Town Clerk.

The Magistrates were Mr. R.G. Wood, Mr. A.E. Pepper, Mr. J.H. Blarney, Dr. W.W. Nuttall, Alder­man T.S. Franks, Alderman Mrs. E. Gore, Mr. P. Seager, Alderman W. Hollands and Alderman J.W. Stainer.

The Town Clerk (Mr. C. F. Nicholson) was present and it was suggested he should address the Magistrates. He said that he did not quite understand what they wanted him to tell them.

The Clerk (Mr. C. Rootes): What is the position of the licensed houses in the Radnor Street area?

The Town Clerk: You want me to explain what the effect of the Corporation’s proposals in regard to the Radnor Street area will be?

The Clerk: These licences won’t be renewed, will they?

The Town Clerk: Certainly. The Corporation don’t own any of the licences at the moment.

The Clerk: They may.

The Town Clerk: Only one. If the Bench want me to explain what the position is likely to be I shall be pleased to do so.

The Chairman said they were asked to renew four licences in the area. They had no official information as to what would happen to them. The ques­tion arose whether they should be re­newed that morning or put over to the adjourned Sessions.

The Town Clerk pointed out that the owners of the houses were not repre­sented that morning. Was it proper for him to say anything about it in their absence?

The Chairman: Why are you here?

The Town Clerk explained that he was asked to come.

The Clerk said he thought the Magistrates might like some information.

Dr. J.C. Carlile, who was present with other clergy and ministers, then asked if an application was now being made for the renewal of these licences in the Radnor Street area.

The Clerk (to the Town Clerk): Is there anything you have to mention this morning why the licences should not be renewed in the ordinary way?

The Town Clerk said it would not affect what the Corporation were doing in the Radnor Street area if the licences were renewed. He pointed out that he was making no application to the Magistrates that morning. As they were probably aware the Corporation had submitted to the Ministry of Health a Compulsory Purchase Order for the acquisition of most of the properties in the Radnor Street area. Included in the order were four licensed houses, the Jubilee Inn, the Oddfellows’ Inn, the Ship Inn and the Packet Boat Inn. When the Minister came to consider the order he declined to allow the Cor­poration to purchase three of those houses, the Jubilee, the Oddfellows’ and the Ship. They were struck out of the order on the ground of the expense which would be involved if the Corpora­tion had to acquire them. The remain­ing house, the Packet Boat Inn, would be acquired by the Corporation. It so happened that the position of the Jubilee Inn and the Oddfellows’ Inn as they stood at the present time inter­fered with the proposed lay-out of the new houses. On the instructions of the Corpora­tion he had entered into negotiations with the owners of the houses con­cerned and two of them, namely the Jubilee and the Oddfellows, had agreed, subject to the approval of the Magis­trates, to pull down and build new houses on alternative sites. That would enable the Corporation’s lay-out scheme to be proceeded with, but with regard to the other house, the Ship Inn, he had not yet received the decision of the owners of that house as to whether they were prepared to pull down and erect a new house on a new site. These terms of the arrangements with the owners of the Jubilee and Odd­fellows’ were subject to an application which would be made to the Magis­trates in due course. The owners of the houses were conveying to the Cor­poration the sites of their existing houses in exchange for sites on which they would build new houses. There was to be no cost to the Corporation other than certain compensation to the tenant. In spite of the fact that the houses were struck out of the order, the way in which the owners had met the Cor­poration would enable the lay-out scheme to be proceeded with as they desired.

The Chairman: That’s for two of the houses?

The Town Clerk replied that that was so. With regard to the Ship Inn, as he had stated, he had not yet ob­tained the decision of the owners of the house. If they decided to stay where they were, their house would not interfere with the scheme so much as the other two had done. It would mean that their house would abut in front of a line of cottages which were going to be built there.

The Chairman: It won’t seriously in­terfere with you?

The Town Clerk: No, but it would be much better if they would. We cannot insist on them doing so. The other owners have done all they can to meet the wishes of the Corporation. Continuing, the Town Clerk said the fourth house was the Packet Boat Inn which was to be acquired by the Corporation.

Dr. Carlile: Is it?

The Clerk: Don’t interrupt, please.

Continuing, the Town Clerk said notice to treat had been served and a claim had been sent in. That house was being acquired because the site was definitely required in connection with the lay-out scheme, and the Ministry had confirmed an order which included that house but excluded the other three.

Mr. E.H. Philcox, a solicitor, then rose and asked permission to speak. He stated that he represented a number of residents in the area: He wanted to address the Bench on the question of the renewal of these licences.

The Clerk said he could not see any locus standi.

Mr. Philcox said when the matter did come before them again in connection with the removals of these houses he would be there to object on behalf of a number of residents. It did seem to him, however, that it would be more satisfactory if they only provisionally renewed those licences that day.  Amongst the points he would make would be one on the grounds of redundancy.

Dr. Carlile said if the Magistrates were going to discuss this matter he wished to point out that a considerable number of residents were interested in these four houses and if there was any consideration of the question of the renewal of these licences then they asked that their views might be con­sidered in reference to the question of redundancy. If the Magistrates were going to refer them back no further word need be said now on the subject.

The Chief Constable said he received the Magistrates’ instructions at their preliminary meeting in regard to the question of redundancy. He had found some considerable difficulty in deciding. It was an established fact that there were not too many licences in the borough for the summer trade, for all houses did extremely well during the period, whether structurally adapted for the purpose or not. One found that houses the least structurally fitted were doing a better trade. They found more customers in these pokey houses. He supposed there was a psychological reason for it. He had had a system since he had been there of monthly visits and those visits gave him a line on what trade the houses were doing. He had selected a number of houses and grouped them into three groups.

The first group included the Mechanics Arms, the Honest Lawyer, and the Harvey Hotel. He had taken comparative figures for the year and these figures showed that the Honest Lawyer had an average of 19 custo­mers on every occasion they were visited; the Harvey Hotel 16, and the Mechanics Arms six. They made a special series of visits between January 17^th and February 3^rd and they found that the Mechanics Arms had an average of five; the Harvey 10; and the Honest Lawyer 17. They would see from those figures that the figures were pretty well the same for the whole year. It would appear superficially that of these three the Mechanics Arms was the one to go.

He had another group made. It con­sisted of the Harbour Hotel, the True Briton, the London and Paris and the Princess Royal. The figures for the year showed an average of 28.5 for the Harbour Hotel; 17.5 for the True Briton; 46.5 for the London and Paris; and 7 for the Princess Royal. The licensee of the Princess Royal had been there for 25 years and in spite of the figure he had mentioned they seemed to be making a living somehow or other.

The Chief Constable mentioned a third group which included the Alex­andra, the Royal George' the South Foreland, the Wonder, the Pavilion Shades, the Chequers, the Wellington, the Royal Oak and the Lifeboat. The two which were doing the least trade, judged by' his figures, were the' Wonder with an average of 12 and the Lifeboat with an average of 14. The others were not doing very much better. It. was difficult to differentiate in that group. He was prepared to take directions from the Magistrates, but he was not prepared to give any.

The Magistrates then retired.

The Chairman stated on their return that with reference to Dr. Carlile’s question, the Bench had decided that later on he (the Chairman) should renew all the licences with the exception of the Mechanics Arms, the licence of which the Magistrates had decided not to renew that morning but refer to the adjourned Sessions to have evidence of redundancy or otherwise.

Dr. Carlile: That means ho objection can be taken here and now or at any other place to the four licences in­volved in the Radnor Street scheme?

The Chairman: I think now is the time for you to raise any objection.

The Clerk pointed out that there would be applications for the removals of these licences later on and then anyone could be heard.

The Chairman: That will be the better time, then.

Dr. Carlile said it put them at a very serious disadvantage because the licences would be granted again and there would only be the question of removal. It meant that when it came to the question of removal of the licences, it would be the removal of a licence which was already in being.

The Chairman: I am afraid that that is the position.

The Chairman then announced the renewal of all licences with the excep­tion of the Mechanics Arms, which he stated would be deferred until the adjourned sessions.

Folkestone Express 16-3-1935

Local News

On Wednesday the Licensing Justices of the Folkestone Bench approved of an application made to them for the re-building of the Jubilee Inn, Radnor Street, on a new site, 81 yards away from its present site, in consequence of the re-building of the whole area under the slum clearance scheme.

The Magistrates on the Bench were Mr. R.G. Wood, Mr. A.E. Pepper, Mr. J.H. Blamey, Dr. W.W. Nuttall, Alderman T.S. Franks, Alderman Mrs. E. Gore, and Eng. Rear Admiral L.J. Stephens.

Mr. Rutley Mowll appeared to make the application for the owners, Messrs. Mackeson and Co., and the tenant, Mr. Chawner, and Mr. E. Philcox, of London, appeared to oppose on behalf of 179 persons resident within the district.

Mr. Rutley Mowll said he appeared to ask them for the removal of the Jubilee licence on behalf of Messrs. Mackeson and Co., and their tenant, Mr. Chawner, and before opening the case he would like to inquire who were the opponents. Mr. Philcox, solicitor, of London, represented a list of people; he understood there were 179 names. He only hoped he would not find it necessary to call all of them. The first-named was Mr. Hook, but all were persons who were entitled to object. Although the application was obliged to be in the form of an application for the removal of the licence of the Jubilee, it was in substance simply an application for the re-building of the Jubilee on a slightly different site at a distance of about 81 yards from the present position. By the Order made by the Ministry of Health, called the Borough of Folkestone,  Radnor Street No. 1 Order, 1934, an Order made under the Housing Act, the Corporation were entitled to purchase land compulsorily in and adjoining a clearance area, and when the matter came before the Ministry, the Ministry withheld the right of compulsory purchase in respect of three public houses, of which the Jubilee Inn was one. So far as the Jubilee was concerned, there was in the Corporation no power to acquire that property compulsorily. Looking at the plans, the Magistrates would see that on the left hand side of the plan there was shown in yellow a new road which was an essential part of the lay-out, and as they passed their mind from left to right of that new road they would find the Jubilee Inn standing right athwart of the road, completely blocking it. The road was marked red on the north and south, and the road itself was coloured yellow. That was an awkward position for the Corporation, because they could not carry out the scheme unless they could come to terms with the owner and the occupier of the Jubilee. The Jubilee still stood right across the scheme, and having regard to the fact that there was no power to acquire the Jubilee compulsorily, it was quite obvious that those interested in it, had they been so minded, might have held the Corporation to ransom over it, because the scheme could not be carried out unless some arrangement could be made with the owner and occupier of the Jubilee. Instead of doing that, Messrs. Mackeson and Co. had met the Corporation very fairly, he thought he might say very generously, because they had asked nothing in the way of compensation for themselves, but had accepted the suggestion of the Corporation to re-build the Jubilee at their own expense. That was really what the application was for, to re-build the Jubilee on a site convenient to the lay-out, 81 yards away from the present site. That was all there was in it. Mr. Philcox, opposing, would tell them, with all the ingenuity at his command, how people could come forward and offer opposition to such a very reasonable proposal. Unfortunately for him (Mr. Mowll), he was not allowed to reply, as he would dearly love to, to his friend`s remarks. Mr. Philcox got the last word, and he was a little bit in the dark to know quite how to deal with that opposition. He had to anticipate what his friend was going to say. Life was made up of proposals and rejections and it did not matter what scheme it might be, they would generally find amongst a large population, such as they had in Folkestone, some people who could find some reason for offering opposition even to any scheme, but when they came to touching public houses, of course, they touched a matter on which some people held views very sincerely. Often, though they might not agree with them, they admired them for the way in which, sometimes at the expense almost of ridicule, they stood up for what they believed was right. He was not there to deny the temperance reformer at all. On the other hand he would rather say personally he thought a great deal of good had been done by temperance reformers. They lived in an age when it was rightly considered to be a disgrace for anyone to be drunk, and it was something to the credit of those who had been preaching temperance for a large number of years. On the other hand one had to enter into the mentality of the Prohibitionists, which in America became so strong that they tried Prohibition – to cease to sell any intoxicants at all. They knew what a ghastly failure that was in America, so they had to abandon it. Then there was the mind of what they might call the reductionist, the mentality of the persons who went to bed with a text in front of them, and upon which they practically based their spiritual life – that text was redundancy. No-one could claim that the present Jubilee Inn was redundant, and he did not think that the new Jubilee, he hoped that it would be called the Silver Jubilee, would be redundant. If that was their idea then it was still open to them at some future date to seek to employ the powers of the Licensing Act under which redundant licences were extinguished, and if they thought there was going to be a less trade done at the new Jubilee than in the old days they would have an opportunity of extinguishing that licence at a much cheaper rate, because there would be smaller trade. What would be the value to those if they succeeded in their opposition, and the Magistrates refused what he preferred to call that application for re-building? There would be the old Jubilee still standing; there would be an end of that improvement, and who would be a whit better off? They would not have extinguished the licence, but the scheme would simply be damned. If they came to think it out, it did not look as if there was very much substance in the opposition, despite what his friend might put to them. He ventured to think that after having considered both the mentality of the Prohibitionists and that of the reductionists, there was one other mentality which would present itself to them – that was the mentality of the man who wanted to do the right thing. The ordinary rational being would say nothing could be fairer than the way in which the owners and occupier of the Jubilee had dealt with that matter in offering to rebuild the premises at their own expense. If that was granted then that public improvement could be carried out.

Mr. Philcox enquired if the owners had thought of giving up another licence in the area to secure the removal.

Mr. Rutley Mowll said they had not thought of doing that. That was simply a re-building, and not really a removal.

Mr. S.R. Church, a clerk in the employ of Messrs. Mowll and Mowll, gave evidence of serving the necessary notices.

Mr. Thomas W. Allen, a police pensioner, of 17, Queen Street, proved the posting of the notices.

Mr. Chawner, the licensee, also proved the posting of the notices on the premises.

Mr. P.F. Ingram, F.R.I.B.A., of Buckingham Palace Road, Westminster, said he had prepared the plans which were before the Magistrates.

In reply to the Chairman, Mr. Rutley Mowll said there was accommodation in a room upstairs for the supplying of refreshments to which a man and his wife could go.

The Chairman said he thought that it would be a feature in its favour if such accommodation was provided.

Mr. Mowll said on the plan a lift was shown by which they could bring up what was required from the service portion on the ground floor to that refreshment room on the first floor. That lift went from the kitchen.

The Chairman: It looks as if the point I raise is being provided for.

The Chief Constable (Mr. A.S. Beesley) said he found the plans quite suitable from the point of view of police supervision.

In reply to Mr. Philcox, Mr. Ingram said he had no idea what the annual value of the premises would be.

Mr. C.F. Nicholson, the Town Clerk, said he heard the explanation of the layout of the scheme, and agreed it could not be carried out unless arrangements were made for the removal of the sites for the Jubilee and the Oddfellows Arms. He approached Messrs. Mackeson and asked them if they would carry out the removal of the Jubilee Inn at their own expense. They had agreed, and in his opinion they had treated the Corporation generously.

Mr. Rutley Mowll: Really this application for re-building proceeded from your suggestion on behalf of the town?

Mr. Nicholson: Absolutely.

Mr. Philcox: This plan or the whole area is dependent upon the removal of the Ship Inn?

Mr. Nicholson: No.

The Ship Inn is shown in a position which certainly could not stay where it is? – It would be more convenient to us if they had agreed to move it, but it does not upset the scheme. It does not seriously interfere with the scheme as the other two houses do. It does interfere with the scheme in this way. The scheme will not have so good an appearance because the Ship Inn will project in front of the proposed line of houses.

Does it not mean you will have to revise your plans? – Only in this way that the line of properties will be broken by the present Ship Inn.

The Chairman: The Ship is further east than the Jubilee?

Mr. Nicholson: Yes.

Mr. Allman said the Jubilee would project 11 feet for a distance of about 20 feet or a little more.

Mr. Nicholson, in reply to further questions, said it would be definitely to the advantage of the Corporation had the owners of the Ship Inn agreed to remove their premises as the owners of the two other houses had done.

Mr. Philcox: What will be the position in the future?

Mr. Nicholson: The Ship Inn will not remain there in every probability. In reply to another question, Mr. Nicholson said the site of the new Jubilee was slightly larger than the present site, but not so large as the owners would like to have it.

Mr. Philcox: Can you tell us the area of the site?

Mr. Nicholson: I have no knowledge of the area.

Can you tell us the annual value of the present building? – No.

Is it somewhere about £45? – I have no idea.

You will agree the new building will be more substantial? – Yes.

To that extent the brewers are getting a very good bargain? – I do not think the brewers are getting a particularly good bargain. I think the Corporation are getting a good bargain.

Originally you wanted to do away with all these houses? – It was not the original intention to do away with them in the original proposal. We included all four licensed houses, but on the ground of expense the Ministry declined to allow us to purchase the three on the other side of Radnor Street. The intention of the Corporation was to provide alternatively for two of the houses in order that the expense of the purchase of the houses would be lessened. If we had purchased the whole of the licensed houses in this area it would have cost about £25,000.

What is it costing for only one, the Packet Boat? – The compensation has not been settled yet. The claim is £4,693.

Was not the decision of the Ministry because they thought those houses should remain where they were? – No, certainly not.

Mr. Philcox, opposing, said his clients felt that really slum clearance or re-building the cottages was being sacrificed there, undoubtedly to satisfy the desires of the brewers owning the Jubilee Inn, who were being given a larger site that the one they had now, and they were considered as being very generous. What was happening as far as they were concerned was that they were giving up a very old house, which was hopelessly out of date on a small site and getting in return a much larger and modern house on a larger and more convenient site, and it was obvious that every extra piece of land given for that purpose meant less room for cottages. The principal idea of that scheme was to provide re-building and rehousing for the fishermen who were being removed from their present cottages. Having regard to the fact that the Ship Inn had not agreed to those proposals there, to some extent at least, the plans must be modified and the whole matter should be reconsidered, and the Jubilee could remain where it was on its present small site. The Ship was going to do the same, so that there must be reconsideration and re-planning, else there would be a projection of the Ship out into the pathway, which was a very unsightly aspect. His friend said they were spending four or five thousand pounds on their house, but they, as Licensing Justices, were used to hearing that sort of argument, but they knew that people and brewers or anyone else did not spend their money unless they expected to get it back. It was not generosity, but it was purely business with them. It was not merely a matter of philanthropy. They were getting a bigger site, a modern house, and getting considerable advantages. As he had suggested to his friend, what he felt they might have done – as in other parts had been done – in respect of that immediate area there were a large number of houses – later on they were considering one on the grounds of redundancy – so he came there half hoping they would offer to surrender another licence. It was a very common thing when brewers applied for the removal of a licence they agreed they would surrender an extra licence. He would refer them to a decision that removal might be refused upon the sole grounds that it would afford great pecuniary gains to the applicant and the public would lose certain monopoly value. In that case, he submitted, that was one of the factors that should be taken into consideration. If the Jubilee was moved from its present site to the suggested one they would have substantial monopoly value. As he said, he had hoped the brewers might have surrendered a licence somewhere else, and he asked the Magistrates to take that into consideration. His clients felt that the brewers were getting too much benefit out of the deal, and it would make it more difficult to house on the site all the people who had to be rehoused.

The Chairman said the Justices saw no ground for refusing the application, and therefore they approved the re-building of the new house on the proposed site.

The Clerk (Mr. C. Rootes): You are granting a provisional order for removal.

The Chairman said that was so. There would be a meeting later on for the whole of the Magistrates` decision regarding the plans.

It was decided that the plans and the whole matter should be considered on Tuesday, April 9^th.

Folkestone Herald 16-3-1935

Adjourned Licensing Sessions

The Licensing Committee of the Folkestone Magistrates on Tues­day, at the adjourned annual Licensing Sessions, granted an application for the removal of the licence of the Jubilee Inn, one of the licensed houses affected by the Radnor Street Clear­ance Scheme.

The application was made on behalf of the owners of the house, Messrs. Mackeson and Company, Limited, by Mr. Rutley Mowll, of Messrs. Mowll and Mowll.

Mr. E. H. Philcox, a London solicitor, opposed the application on behalf of a number of people. He presented a petition bearing 179 signatures.

The application was heard by Mr. R.G. Wood, Mr. A.E. Pepper, Mr. J.H. Blarney, Dr. W.W. Nuttall, Alderman T.S. Franks, Engineer Rear- Admiral L.J. Stephens, and Alderman Mrs. E. Gore.

Mr. Mowll, opening his case, said: Although this application is obliged to be in form an application for the removal of the licence of the Jubilee, it is in substance simply an application for the re-building of the Jubilee on a slightly different site, at a distance of about 81 yards from the present position. By an order made by the Ministry of Health, called the Borough of Folke­stone Radnor Street No. 1 Area, 1934, an order made under the Housing Acts, the Corporation are entitled to purchase lands compulsorily in and adjoining a clearance area, and when the matter came before the Ministry, the Ministry withheld the right of compulsory pur­chase in respect of three public houses, of which the Jubilee was one, so that as far as the Jubilee was concerned, there was for the Corporation no power to acquire that property compulsorily. As you look at the plan of the lay out you will see that on the left hand side of the plan there is shown a new road which is an essential part of the lay out, and as you take your mind from left to right on that new road you will find the Jubilee Inn stands right athwart the road, and completely blocks it. That was a very awkward position for the Corporation because they could not carry out the scheme unless they could come to terms with the owner and occupier of the Jubilee. The Jubilee has stood and does still stand right across the scheme, and having regard to the fact that there was no power to acquire the Jubilee compulsorily, it is quite obvious that those interested in it might-if they had been so minded - have held the Corporation to ransom, for as it was the scheme could not be carried out unless some arrangement could be made with the owners and occupiers of the Jubilee. Instead of doing that Messrs. Mackeson and Company have met the Corporation very fairly-I think I might say more than fairly, generously -because they have asked nothing in the way of compensation but have accepted the suggestion of the Corporation to re-build the Jubilee at their own expense, and that is really what this application is for. They are re-building the Jubilee on a site convenient to the lay out. Now about the position. My friend Mr. Philcox will tell you that people can come forward and offer opposition to such a very reasonable proposal. Unfortunately for me I am not allowed to reply - as I should dearly love to - to my friend’s remarks. He gets the last word, therefore I am a little bit in the dark as to know quite how to I deal with that position. I have anticipated what my friend is going to say. Of course, life is made up of proposals and objections, and it doesn't matter what the scheme may be, you will generally find, amongst a large population such as you have in Folkestone, some people who can find some reasons for offering opposition even to any scheme. When you come to touch public houses you touch a matter on which some people hold very sincere views, and even if you may not agree with them you admire them for the way in which, at the ex­pense of almost ridicule at times, they stand up for what they believe to be right. Continuing, Mr. Mowll said he was not there to decry the temperance reform movement. He would rather say that personally he felt that a good deal of good had been done by temper­ance reform. They were now living in an age which rightly considered it to be a disgrace for anybody to be drunk, and that was something to the credit of those who had been teaching what they called temperance for a large num­ber of years. On the other hand one had to enter into the mentality of others. There was the mentality of the Prohibitionists who in America became so strong that they tried Prohibition; that was ceasing to sell any intoxicants. They knew what a ghastly failure it was there and they had to abandon it. Then there was the mind of what one might call the reductionists; the mentality of those persons who go to bed with a text immediately in front of them on which they practically feed their spiritual lives. That text is “Redundancy”. He did not think that anyone could claim that the present Jubilee was redundant, and he did not think that they could claim the new Jubilee - he hoped it would be called the Silver Jubilee - was redundant. If that were their idea, it was still open to them at some future date to seek to employ the powers of the Licensing Act under which a redundant licence would be extinguished. If they thought there was going to be less trade done at the new Jubilee than at the old it would mean that they would have the opportunity of extinguishing that licence at a cheaper rate. What would be the value to these people if they succeeded in their opposi­tion that day? If they succeeded and the Magistrates refused that application, which he preferred to call an application for re-building, there would be the old Jubilee still standing. There would be an end to that part of a public improvement, and who would be a wit the better off? They would not have extinguished the licence; the licence would still remain, but the scheme would be damned. If they came to think that out there did not seem to be very much substance in the opposition. He ventured to think that after hav­ing considered the mentality of the Prohibitionists and the Reductionists there was one other mentality which would present itself to them and that was the mentality of the man who wanted to do the right and common-sense thing. No ordinary rational being would say anything could be fairer than the way in which the owners and occu­pier of the Jubilee had dealt with the matter in offering to re-build the premises at their own expense.

Mr. Mowll then called evidence.

Sydney R Church, a clerk in Messrs. Mowll and Mowll’s office, gave evidence of serving the necessary notices.

Thomas William Allen, 17, Queen’s Street, an ex-police officer of the Folke­stone Borough, proved that the neces­sary notices had been posted.

Harold Chawner, the licensee, said a notice had been posted on his premises in accordance with the requirement of the Act.  

Thomas Frederick Ingram, F.R.I.B.A., an architect of Buckingham Palace Road, Westminster, said he had pre­pared plans for the new premises.

The plans were examined by the Magistrates.

The Chairman asked if it was pro­posed to alter the character of the house.

Mr. Mowll said the idea was to trans­plant the present Jubilee. There would be, however, accommodation for ladies on the first floor.

The Chairman: If required they could serve people upstairs in that room?

Mr. Mowll: Yes, sir, I am sure a suggestion from you like that will have very great weight.

The Chairman: Such a point is in the application’s favour.

The Chief Constable (Mr. A.S. Beesley) said he had no objection to the plans.

Replying to Mr. Philcox, Mr. Ingram said he had no idea what the value of the new premises would be.

Mr. Mowll said the Borough Surveyor had examined the plans and he saw no objection to them.

The Town Clerk, Mr. C.P. Nicholson, then gave evidence. He said that Messrs. Mackeson were approached with a view to rebuilding the house on a site to be provided in exchange for the present Jubilee site, and they had agreed to do that. “In my opinion they have treated the Corporation very generously”, added Mr. Nicholson,  and this application proceeds from the Corporation’s sug­gestion to rebuild on another site”.

Mr. Philcox: Isn’t this plan of the lay-out dependent on the removal of the Ship Inn?

The Town Clerk: No. It can remain where it is. It would have been more convenient if they had agreed to pull down and rebuild.

Mr. Philcox: It does interfere with the scheme?

Mr. Nicholson said the scheme would not have such a good appearance be­cause the Ship Inn would project slightly in front of the line of houses. The line of cottages would be broken by the Ship Inn, but the public house would not project right across the pathway.

The Borough Surveyor (Mr. E.L. Allman) said the Ship Inn would pro­ject 11 feet to 12 feet. It had a front­age of 25 feet.

Mr. Nicholson, replying to the Chair­man, said it would have been of advan­tage for the Ship Inn to have been moved.

Mr. Philcox: You will have to alter your plans, won’t you?

The Town Clerk replied that that would not be necessary, and added that probably the Ship Inn would not be there for ever. Replying to another question, Mr. Nicholson said he agreed that the new Jubilee would be substantially more valuable.

Mr. Philcox: To that extent the brewers are getting a particularly good bargain.

The Town Clerk: I don’t think they are getting a particularly good bargain; I think the Corporation are.

Mr. Philcox: Originally you wanted to do away with all these houses, didn’t you?

The Town Clerk: No. We included all four licensed houses, but on the grounds of expense the Minister re­fused to let us purchase those on the south side. It had always been the in­tention of the Corporation to provide alternative sites. If we had had to pur­chase all the houses in the area it would have cost approximately £25,000.

Mr. Philcox: What is the cost now?

Mr. Nicholson: We are purchasing only one, the Packet Boat Inn. The compensation has not been settled yet, but we have been served with a claim for £4.693.

Mr. Philcox: Don’t the Ministry think the houses should remain where they are? - No, certainly not.

Without calling any witnesses Mr. Philcox then addressed the Magistrates for the opposition. He said that those he represented felt that the rebuilding of cottages was being sacrificed in order to satisfy the desires of the brewers. The owners of the Jubilee were being given a larger site than the one they had now and they were treated as having been very generous. It was quite obvious that what was really hap­pening was that they were giving up a very old house, hopelessly out-of-date, on a small site, and getting in return a much larger and modern house on a larger and more convenient site. It was obvious, too, that every piece of land given over for such a purpose meant that less remained for cottages. The object of the scheme was to provide rehousing for the fishermen in that area who were being removed from their present cottages His clients felt that having regard to the fact that the owners of the Ship Inn had not agreed to tbe Corporation’s proposals and therefore to some extent the lav-out must be altered, the whole matter should be reconsidered and the Jubilee Inn left on its present site. The projection of the Ship Inn on to the pathway would be very unsightly, even if it were not undesirable in other ways. Mr. Mowll had told him that the owners of the Jubilee were going to spend £4,000 to £5,000 on their house. They were spending that because they expected to get their money back; it was not generosity on their part, it was purely business. It was not a matter of philanthropy. They were getting a better site, a more modem house and considerable advantages. He felt that there might have been an offer by the owners to surrender another licence. That was done where a licence of a small house was removed to larger and better premises. Mr. Philcox quoted a case where Magistrates had refused to grant a re­moval because it would be conferring pecuniary advantages on the appellant and at the same time depriving the public of monopoly value. In that application it was one of the factors to be taken into consideration. If the Jubilee were going to a new site and had no licence a substantial monopoly value would have had to be paid, and he felt the suggestion that the brewers might surrender some other licence should be considered. His clients did feel that the brewers were getting much the better of the deal. The granting of the applica­tion would give them a larger site and make it more difficult to rehouse on the site those people who had to be housed.

After brief consideration the Chair­man said the Magistrates saw no ground for refusing the application, therefore they approved the plans for the new building on the proposed site.

The Clerk (Mr. C. Rootes): That is to say you are granting a provisional order for removal. It will come before the whole of the Licensing Justices for confirmation in three weeks’ time.

The hearing of the application for the confirmation of the order was fixed for Tuesday, April 9th.

Folkestone Express 13-4-1935

Local News

The Folkestone Magistrates on Tuesday confirmed the order made at the adjourned licensing sessions for the removal of the Jubilee Inn for a distance of 81 yards to another site on the area which comes under the Radnor Street slum clearance scheme.

Mr. Rutley Mowll, who made the application, said the facts were thoroughly gone into at the previous application, which they might remember indicated that this was really a step taken to assist in the carrying out of a great public improvement in that district, and without the removal the improvement could not be effected. He wondered if the Bench wanted to hear any more, especially as there was no opposition present.

The Chairman (Mr. R.G. Wood) said that as there was no opposition they did not require to hear any more, and the confirmation was made for the removal of the licence.

Folkestone Express 5-10-1935

Local News

L/Bomb. Frederick Shenton, Royal Artillery, appeared before the Folkestone Magistrates on Saturday charged with committing wilful damage the previous evening. It was alleged that he broke a window in the door of a bar in the Oddfellows Inn, the property of Mrs. Florence Skinner, and further with doing damage to a pane of glass at the Jubilee Inn, the property of Harold Chawner.

George Taylor said he was in the Oddfellows public house the previous evening when he saw seven or eight men including the prisoner there. They had been drinking and were swearing. The licensee asked them to stop swearing and refused to serve them. As they were going out the prisoner put his fist through the window of the door. He followed the men out and when they got to the Jubilee Inn he saw the prisoner break away from his companions and put his fist through another window. He pointed the prisoner out to the police and they arrested him. In his opinion the prisoner was not drunk.

The prisoner said they were playing about and his arm swung through the window.

James Albert Skinner, a son of the licensee of the Oddfellows Inn, said there were seven or eight men in the bar and they began to get a little rowdy and in his opinion had had enough. The prisoner`s mates had to lift him into the passage as he did not want to go and seemed excited. He banged on a door in the passage and then put his fist through the window. It would cost 1/- or 1/6 to replace the glass.

In reply to the prisoner, witness said he served the men with beers and whisky.

Defendant said he had four whiskies, and that was the cause of the trouble because he was not used to it.

Harold Chawner, licensee of the Jubilee Inn, said at 10.15 p.m. he was in the cellar when he heard the smashing of glass. He went out into Radnor Street and found a window about ten inches by nine inches broken.

P.C. Williams said at about 10.15 p.m. he received a complaint from the first witness, who said a crowd of soldiers in civilian clothes were coming along Radnor Street smashing windows. He went into the street and saw the prisoner and noticed that his right hand was bleeding. The men were not drunk. He told the prisoner he would be taken into custody. He was charged at the police station, and he replied “I do not want to say anything”. When he took him into custody he saud “Won`t you let me pay for it now?”

Defendant said he was full of drink and he was sorry it had happened.

An officer in the prisoner`s regiment said the prisoner was a non-commissioned officer. He was a good soldier and it was just a foolish prank, as he said.

Chief Inspector Pittock said in May last year Shenton assisted police officers to bring a prisoner to the police station. The trouble the previous night was due to the fact that he had some drink.

The Chairman (Alderman G. Spurgen) said it was a sad case for one in the defendant`s position. He had received his first step in the Army by being a N.C.O. The Bench did not want to be hard with him, and if he paid the value of the broken windows, 3/6, and 4/- costs the case would be dismissed.

Folkestone Herald 5-10-1935

Local News

“The Bench do not wish to deal I harshly with you”, said the Chairman of the Folkestone Magistrates, Alder­man G. Spurgen, on Saturday, when L-Bdr. Frederick Shenton, of the Royal Artillery, was charged with do­ing wilful damage by breaking a pane of glass, valued Is. 6d., at the Oddfellows’ Inn, and another pane of glass, valued 2s. at the Jubilee, Radnor Street. The charge against Shenton was dis­missed on condition that he paid the damage. Shenton pleaded guilty to the first charge, but denied the second alleged offence.

George Taylor said he was in the Oddfellows’ about 9.55 p.m. on Friday and saw defendant there with seven or eight friends. The licensee had to speak to them about swearing and refused to serve them with further drinks, and as they were going out Shenton put his fist through a window in the bar. Defendant then went into the street and witness followed. Shenton and others proceeded to the Jubilee and he saw defendant break away from his comrades and put his fist through an­other window there. Witness communicated with the police and pointed out Shenton to an officer.

Chief Inspector H.G. Pittock: Was defendant sober?

Witness: He was not drunk.

Defendant said he denied deliberately breaking the window of the Jubilee. There were four or five of them and they were playing about. He swung his fist and caught the window accidentally.

James Alfred Skinner, the son of the licensee of the Oddfellows’ Inn, said about 9 o’clock the previous evening he was in the bar and he saw defendant and others. After about three-quarters of an hour they began to get a little rowdy and in his opinion they had had enough drink. Defendant's comrade lifted him and took him from the room into the passage, and just afterwards Shenton deliberately broke the window. Shenton was not drunk, but he was very excited.

Replying to defendant, witness said Shenton and his comrades had been drinking beer and whisky.

Shenton: I am not used to whisky and that was what caused the trouble.

Harry Chawnor, the licensee of the Jubilee Inn, said a small pane of the glass was broken.

P.C. Williams said about 10.15 p.m. in consequence of a complaint he went to Radnor Street, He saw a crowd of about eight or nine men there. They had all had some drink, but they were not drunk. Shenton was pointed out to him. His right wrist and three fingers of his right hand were bleeding. He took him to the two public houses. He told defendant he would be taken into custody for doing wilful damage. Later he was charged and he replied: “I don’t want to say anything”. When he first took Shenton into cus­tody he said “Won’t you let me pay for them now?”

Defendant said it was just a foolish trick and he was very sorry it had hap­pened. He could not remember break­ing the second window.

An officer said Shenton was a good soldier. He was an N.C.O. and had never given any trouble before. He thought it was just a foolish outbreak, as defendant had said.

Chief Inspector H.G. Pittock said in May of this year Shenton had assisted P.C. Williams in bringing a refractory prisoner to the Police Station. He thought the trouble the previous night was caused by the drink.

The Chairman said it was very sad for a young man to find himself in the position of the defendant. The Bench did not wish to deal harshly with him; if he (defendant) paid the damage (3s. 6d.) and 4s. costs they would dis­miss the case. They hoped this would be a warning to him.

The Clerk (Mr. C. Rootes) said the officer present would no doubt pay the money on behalf of defendant.

Folkestone Express 18-4-1936

Local News

The Jubilee public house, which for many years has been one of the principal buildings on Folkestone Fish Market, will after next Wednesday close its doors for ever and will shortly be m the hands of the house-breakers. A new Jubilee has been coming into being dur­ing the past few months and the licence from the old to the modern building, which has been completed, will be trans­ferred to it on that day.

On Wednesday at the Folkestone Police Court, Mr. Rutley Mowll ap­peared before the Justices and said that was positively his last appearance in connection with the application for the transfer of the Jubilee. He presumed that that was why it was called the final order. He thought some of the magistrates had had an opportunity of going over the premises and must have been satisfied that they had been erected in accordance with the plans. The matter came before them that day so that they could give their sanction to the premises being licensed as having been completed in accordance with the plans. Mr. Chawner was known to them as the holder of the licence. Mr. Findlay, who represented the owners, would be able to formally prove that the premises had been completed in accordance with the plans and ask them to grant the final order. It would be a convenience if the premises were to be opened on Wednesday, April 22nd. It was proposed that the licence for the old buildings should be continued until the morning of that day and the new premises would be opened in the after­noon. The two premises must not be going at the same time.

Mr. Findlay, the Managing Director of Messrs. Mackeson and Co., said he was able to assure the Bench that the new Jubilee premises had been erected precisely according^- to the plans which the magistrates approved when the order was granted.

The Chairman said two or three of the magistrates had been down and had seen that the plans had been carried, out in the fullest detail. There were one or two minor little things about which he was not clear. With regard to the staircase from the club room, there was no rail.

Mr Findlay said that was so when the magistrates visited the premises, but the rail had been removed because it was not quite suitable. There would, however, be rails on both staircases.

The Chairman said then again they would like to know whether there was lavatory accommodation on the first floor near the club room.

Mr. Findlay said there was such ac­commodation for women, but not for men on that floor.

The Chairman then enquired as to the accommodation on the ground floor.

Mr. Findlay said there was a con­venience for men both at the front and the back of the house, but there were no wash basins.

The Chairman said the magistrates thought there should be provision for such basins.

Mr. Findlay said there would be suffi­cient. room for such provision in the back portion and he would see that it was provided.

The Chairman said the magistrates were pleased to hear that. They had decided to grant the final order and agreed to the date of the opening of the new Jubilee being Wednesday, April 22^nd.

Folkestone Herald 18-4-1936

Local News

The new Jubilee Inn, on the Stade, will be opened next Wednesday afternoon, it was stated at the Folkestone Police Court on Wednesday, when an application was made to the Magis­trates for a final order in connection with the premises.

Mr. Rutley Mowll, for Messrs. Mackeson, said that was positively his last appearance in connection with that application and he presumed that that was why it was called a final order. He believed some of the Magistrates had had the opportunity of going over the premises, and they must have been satisfied that they had been erected in accordance with the plans. The matter came before them that day to give their sanction to the premises being licensed as having been completed in accordance with the plans, and he thought the Clerk would advice them that that was really a ministerial action on their part. Mr. Chawner, the licensee, was already known to them as having been the licensee of the old premises, and he proposed to put Mr. Finlay in the box formally to prove that the premises had been completed in accordance withthe plans and to ask them to grant the final order. It would be convenient if the new premises were to be opened on Wed­nesday, April 22^nd. They would con­tinue at the old premises until the morning of that day and open the new premises in the afternoon. The point was that the two premises must not be open at the same time.

Mr. Findlay, managing director of Messrs. Mackeson and Company, Ltd., gave evidence that the new premises had been erected in accordance with the plans.

The Chairman (Mr. R.G. Wood) said two or three of them had met him there last week, and as far as they could see the plans had been fully carried out.

Replying to the Chairman, Mr. Findlay said a handrail had been provided for both staircases.

The Chairman asked if there was provision for washing hands in the big room upstairs.

Mr. Findlay said there was no accommodation for men, but he suggested that it might be possible to provide such accommodation in the saloon bar. He would take the matter up with the architect.

The Magistrates then granted the application and also approved the opening of the building next Wednesday.

Folkestone Express 25-4-1936

Editorial Comment

How many Folkestone people would be able to say where the sign of the Skylark used to adorn the Fish Market? Very few I should imagine. In days gone by, about the time of the Napoleonic wars, a licensed house hearing the name of the Skylark was one of the chief meeting places, not only of the fisher folk, but even of the “big” men of the town, and the dangers of invasion were discussed. The new Jubilee Inn, which opened its doors on Wednesday, and which now adorns the Fish Market, ha& brought to mind that its predecessor was the Skylark of well over a century ago.

It was in the Queen Victoria’s jubilee that the name of the house was changed to the Jubilee. The subsequent jubilees since also had a connection with the house, for in the dia­mond jubilee year, the old house was re­built, and the new and attractive Jubilee, which supercedes its namesake, was com­menced in King George’s silver jubilee year. The site on which it now stands was formerly a portion of Radnor Street, Mr. Goddard’s herring hang, and the Packet Boat Inn.

Local News

The slum clearance scheme in the Radnor Street area will undoubtedly provide a most attractive approach to the East Cliff sands judging by the houses and buildings which have al­ready been erected and occupied there.

That particular district can now boast of the most up-to-date licensed premises in Folkestone, and the new Jubilee, which opened its doors on Wednesday, is a building which would do credit to any road in the town. Externally the architecture is most pleasing, but inter­nally its appointments provide accommodation, which it would have been considered impossible not many years ago, and everything possible has been done to make it exceedingly attractive and comfortable for the customers of the house. Messrs. H. Mackeson and Co., the owners of the house, have cer­tainly spared no expense in connection with it.

On the ground floor the saloon bar, the private bar and the public bar are quite luxuriously appointed, and the bright decorative scheme and the pleas­ing and effective scheme of lighting adds greatly to the attractiveness of the house. The serving bar is practically continuous throughout the whole of the floor and everything has been so arranged that efficient and quick service is assured. Oak has been largely used in the construction and furnishing of the interior of these departments.

Not only has considerable thought been given to the needs of liquid refreshment, but on the first floor running the length of the front there is a large club room, which will be used for the serv­ing of teas and also for meetings and dinners. Adjoining it is a marvellous kitchen in which the latest equipment has been installed. This room should be a great boon for the visitors, particu­larly in the season, for it is intended that teas shall be served during those hours when alcohol cannot be served. At such times a shutter will be pulled down, so effectively screening off the bars from view. This room, with its quite dainty chairs and tables, provides a picturesque view of the Harbour.

The old Jubilee closed its doors on Wednesday afternoon, when it ceased to be licensed, its licence having from that time been transferred to the build­ing which has replaced it.

In the evening many visitors entered the new building, which evoked a good deal of admiration. There was a house warming party in the club room, where Mr. C.M. Findlay, the managing director of Messrs. Mackeson and Co., acted as host, and success to the new Jubilee was heartily drunk.

The Jubilee is certainly a credit to Mr. A. Ingram, its architect, and Messrs. C Jenner and Sons, the contractors for its erection.

 

Folkestone Herald 25-4-1936

Local News

The new Jubilee Inn, which has been built on the Stade and forms part of the Radnor Street improvement scheme, was opened last Wednesday.

A most modern and delightful inn has taken the place of the old house.The new hostelry faces south and looks out across the Harbour and the Channel, and the owners, Messrs. Mackeson and Company, Ltd., of Hythe, are to be congratulated on the all-round excellence of their new premises. The three bars on the ground floor, public saloon and private, have been carried out in a pleasing design of oak, open brick fireplaces and a lighting scheme which gives an atmosphere of comfort and excellent taste. On the first floor there is a large room which will be used for the serving of teas. Here again the excellence of design and workmanship strikes the eye at once. Adjoining this room is an up-to-date kitchen with the very latest equipment for the uses of the staff.

The new Jubilee stands on the site of the old Packet Boat Inn, a part of Radnor Street as it was, and Goddard`s herring hang.

It is interesting to recall that the first Jubilee was built in the days of the Napoleonic Wars. At one time the house was called The Skylark, but the name of the hostelry was changed to The Jubilee in 1887, and structural alterations made in 1897.

There was a house warming party at the Jubilee on Wednesday evening, when Mr. N.C M. Findlay, the managing director of Messrs. Mackeson, received a number of guests who drank to the success of the company’s enterprise.

The new Jubilee was built by Messrs. C. Jenner and Son, to plans prepared by Mr. T. Ingram, the architect.