Oddfellows Arms 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 7-9-1935

Tuesday, September 3^rd: Before Alderman T.S. Franks, Alderman Mrs. E. Gore, Dr. F. Wolverson, and Mr. R.J. Stokes.

William Richard Page and Henry Waller, two Folkestone young men, were summoned for being idle and disorderly persons on August 24^th, by fighting. The defendants admitted the offence.

P.S. Lawrence said at 10.50 p.m. on August 24^th he was outside the police box in Beach Street when he saw Page walk towards him. He was rather unsteady and had been drinking, but he was quiet and orderly. When he got about 25 yards past him and opposite the Royal George public house, Page stopped and approached about ten or twenty youths talking under the railway arch. Without any more to do one of the youths stepped out from the crowd. They both took off their coats and struck a fighting attitude. There was only one blow struck, and the next he saw was that both men were on their backs on the ground. He got Waller away from the ground and told him to go home. He did so. Waller had been drinking, but was not drunk. He (witness) went back to the crowd, and Page was still knocked out unconscious. He was bleeding from a cut at the back of his head, and he (witness) summoned the motor ambulance, and Page was taken to the Royal Victoria Hospital, where two stitches were inserted in the wound, and the defendant was detained.

The Clerk (Mr. C. Rootes): Was there anyone else involved in it?

P.S. Lawrence said apparently the defendant struck the road pretty hard. It was all over in less than a minute.

Page told the Magistrates he knew nothing about it until he woke up in the Hospital on Sunday morning. Waller started the trouble when they were in the Oddfellows, where he was throwing his money about. That caused the bother.

Waller said he was in the same place having a drink. He could not have flashed his money about, as he had only 17/2½. Page had the money, not he. Page caused the trouble, and that was the result.

The Chief Constable (Mr. A.S. Beesley) said Waller was fined on May 31^st, and had various convictions against him, but he had been going on very well recently. With regard to Page, there was only one minor conviction against him, but during the last two or three weeks he had become a general nuisance, always ready to pick a quarrel and backed it up with a strong right arm.

The Chairman said the defendants would be bound over to be of good behaviour for a period of twelve months, and would have to pay the costs, 4/- each.

 

Folkestone Herald 7-9-1935

Local News

A Saturday night altercation near the Fishmarket had a sequel at the Folkestone Petty Sessions on Tuesday, when William Charles Page and Henry Waller were summoned for being idle and disorderly persons by disturbing the public peace by fighting. They pleaded guilty.

Sgt. Lawrence said at 10.15 on August 24th he was on duty outside the police box in Beach Street when he saw Page walking up from the direction of Tram Road. He was walking rather un­steadily; he had been drinking but he was orderly. When Page got about 25 yards away he stopped and approached 10 or 12 youths talking underneath the Fishmarket arch. Without any more ado some remark was passed, one of the youths stepped out of the crowd, and both defendants, taking off their coats, adopted a fight­ing’ attitude. When witness got over to the scene both men were on their backs. He got Waller away from the crowd and told him to go home. He immediately did so. He had been drinking, but he was not drunk. Page was still knocked out and he was being attended to by P.C. Farrier. Wit­ness found that Page was badly cut on the head and was unconscious. He was taken to the hospital, where two stitches were inserted in the head in­jury, and he was detained. Witness added that it was all over in a minute.

Page told the Magistrates he knew nothing about it until he woke up on Sunday morning in hospital. Page added that he was in the Oddfellows’ Inn drinking and Waller was there “splashing” his money about. That caused the trouble.

Waller said he was in the same place as Page had mentioned, but he could not have been “splashing” his money about because he only had 7s. 2d. It was Page who had the money; he had a week’s wages. Page caused the trouble. He (Waller) was very sorry.

The Chief Constable (Mr. A. S. Beesley) said Waller had been in trouble, but he had not been before them recently and as far as he could say he had latterly been going on very well. With regard to Page there was a minor conviction in 1934, but just lately, during the last few weeks, his officers reported he had been ready to pick a quarrel and back it up with a strong arm.

The Chairman (Alderman T. S. Franks) said the defendants would be bound over in the sum of £5 to keep the peace for 12 months, and they would have to pay the costs of the sum­monses, 4s. each.

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 12-2-1938

Annual Licensing Sessions

The annual licensing sessions for Folkestone were held at the Police Court on Wednesday, when the Chief Constable (Mr. A.S. Beesley) presented his annual report, from which it appeared that although there was an increase in the number of cases of drunkenness, only three of them concerned residents of the whole of the borough. A satisfactory feature was that the licence holders had conducted their premises exceedingly well and no proceedings had been taken against any of them.

The Magistrates on the Bench were Councillor R.G. Wood, Dr. W.W. Nuttall, Eng. Rear Admiral L.J. Stephens, Alderman Mrs. E. Gore, Alderman W. Hollands, Alderman J.W. Stainer, Mrs. Saunders, Mr. P. Fuller, Miss Grace Broome-Giles, and Alderman G.A. Gurr.

Plans were submitted for building the Oddfellows Inn on The Stade and the Magistrates approved of them on condition one slight interior alteration was effected.

 

Folkestone Herald 12-2-1938

Annual Licensing Sessions

During the past year 30 persons were proceeded against for drunkenness at Folkestone, but only three were residents, it was stated at the annual Folkestone Licensing Sessions, held at the Town Hall on Wednesday.

The Chief Constable (Mr. A.S. Beesley) referring to this feature of his report, asked the public not to give indiscriminately to people of the roadster type who called at their doors. He stated that people gave these callers money to buy food, but instead they obtained drink.

The Chairman of the Licensing Justices (Councillor R.G. Wood) pre­sided and there were also present Dr. W.W. Nuttall, Engineer Rear-Admiral L.J. Stephens, Alderman Mrs. E. Gore, Alderman W. Hollands, Alderman J.W. Stainer, Mrs. R.L.T. Saunders, Mr. P. Fuller, Miss G. Broome Giles and Alderman G.A. Gurr.

Plans for the rebuilding of the Oddfellows Inn, The Stade were approved.