Folkestone Herald
11-2-1939
Annual Licensing Sessions
Two applications were made at the annual Folkestone
licensing Sessions held at the Town Hall on Wednesday, for the removal of the
licences of two public houses to other premises in the borough. There was a
considerable amount of opposition to both proposals, which affected residential
districts that have developed rapidly during the past few years. After a
lengthy hearing both applications were refused.
The first application was for the removal of the
Justices` Licence respect of the Princess Royal public house, South Street, to
the Morehall Wine Stores, 284, Cheriton Road. The second application was to remove the licence
of the South Foreland public house, Seagate Street, to the Imperial, Tile Kiln
Lane.
Mr. B. H. Waddy, instructed by Frederic Hall and Company,
Folkestone, appeared for Mr. J.H. Kent, who made the application in the first
case. Mr. B.H. Bonniface opposed on behalf of a number of licensees in the
immediate neighbourhood of the Princess Royal; Mr. Rutley Mowll opposed on
behalf of the owners of the White Lion Hotel, Cheriton, and Mr. H.T. Samway,
the licensee; and Mr. L. Pocock appeared for H.M. Commissioners of Customs and
Excise. The proposal was also opposed by the Rev. W.J.T. Brown on behalf of the
Cheriton Baptist Church and a number of ratepayers.
The Clerk (Mr. C. Rootes) said he had before him a
letter or two. There were resolutions opposing from the Cheriton Baptist
Women`s Meeting, and the Ashley Avenue Congregational Church Women`s Meeting.
Mrs. Longhurst and the Rev. H.E. Charleston, of St.
Andrew`s Methodist Church, Morehall, also opposed the application.
Mr. Waddy said it was an application which if
granted would have the effect of bringing about a redistribution of the
licences in the district and a reduction in their number by one. That was a
fact which might well appeal to those who opposed in the temperance interests.
If they agreed to the removal of the licence of the Princess Royal they need
have no fear that the premises would be used as club premises because part of
the policy of the owners of the property, Messrs. Ind, Coope and Allsopp, was
to insert a clause, when disposing of the premises, barring its use as a
registered club.
Mr. Bonniface: In that event I withdraw entirely my
opposition; the application now has my support. Continuing, Mr. Waddy said
Messrs. Ind, Coope and Allsopp owned both premises. The Magistrates had to be
satisfied that the removal of the premises would not hurt the public in any way.
Within a quarter mile radius of the Princess Royal there were already 28 full
licences, and if they added to that all the other licences in the area, beer
licences, “off” licences, etc., there were 45 licensed premises in the quarter
of a mile circle. Messrs. Ind, Coope and Allsop had no other house in the area
so it could not be said that they hoped to transfer the trade of the Princess
Royal to some other house belonging to them In the same district. The trade
would go to other houses. Referring to the Excise opposition, Mr. Waddy said on
an application for a removal monopoly value did not have to be paid; Parliament
made provision for such applications He realised that there had been abuse in
some cases in the past, for instance where a little country “pub” had been
shifted on to an arterial road perhaps several miles away and had blossomed out as a roadhouse, but no
suggestion of that kind could be made in regard to that application. Nor could
it be suggested that they were removing a house with a dying trade out of a
congested area. The beer consumption at the Princess Royal for the year ending
1936 was 108 barrels, said Mr. Waddy. For 1937 the figure was 132 and for 1939,
150 barrels, which showed an Increase over 1936 of very nearly 50 percent. In
regard to the wines and spirits trade, the figure for 1936 was 89 and in 1938
it had risen to 92½.They were seeking to remove to “off ” licence premises
known as Morehall Wine Stores, which had been in business under a Justices’ Licence
since 1912. Before that the business had been carried on there under an Excise
Licence. If they granted the removal then that licence would go because an “on”
licence included an “off”. In that way the number of licences would be reduced
by one. Within a half mile radius of the Morehall Wine Stores there was the
White Lion Hotel to the west, and south of the railway there was the Railway
Hotel, which did not oppose. In his submission the opposition of the White Lion
Hotel was very much of "a dog in the manger” character because in 1904 the
owners of the White Lion applied for a full “on” licence actually within 100 yards
of his client's premises. Since 1912 there had been a very considerable
increase in the district, and many of the houses there today had been erected
since 1927. A count had been made and the number of houses in a quarter-mile
circle of the premises was 900, and in a half-mile radius was 1,975. In the
district they had some 8,000 to 10,000 people. Since 1927 the number of houses
erected was 727. Mr. Waddy said alterations would be carried out to the
Morehall premises, but no-one would be able to suggest that what they were
going to do there would be an eyesore.
The Chairman: Is the present build-ing coming down?
Mr. Waddy: No.
Continuing, counsel said if the application were
granted arrangements would be made for Mr. Robbins, who was temporary manager
of the Princess Royal, to help at these premises at Morehall under Mr. Kent.mHe submitted it was just the right sort
of house for the district. It dealt with the situation with the minimum amount
of trouble or alteration and it would provide all the accommodation required.
The Chairman: We don`t see any room available for
women and children.
Mr. Waddy: There is not one at the Princess Royal.
If we propose to put in accommodation like that, we at once het the Customs
people saying “You are building bigger premises”.
Referring to the church opposition, Mr. Waddy said
it was always a difficult type of opposition to deal with from an advocate’s
point of view, but they were quite mistaken in thinking that the granting of
that facility would do any harm to anyone. He did not know whether any petition
was going to be laid before them, but if so he would ask them to scrutinise it
with the greatest possible care. Petitions might be some evidence of local feeling,
but sometimes they were not evidence at all.
The Rev W.J.T. Brown then put in a petition signed
by about 220 persons, 21 of whom, it was stated, lived in the immediate area.
The Clerk (Mr. C. Rootes) said the petitioners
asked the Magistrates to refuse the application on the grounds that in their
opinion a licence was not necessary and would be detrimental to the well-being
of the locality.
Mr. Waddy then called evidence in support of his
application.
Thomas William Allen, 17, Queen Street, Folkestone, and
Frank Haisell, employed by Messrs. Frederic Hall and Company, gave formal
evidence of serving notices in connection with the application.
Edward Carr, General Manager of Messrs. Ind, Coope and
Allsopp, stated that his firm were the owners of the premises known as the
Morehall Wine Stores. His company were prepared to give an
undertaking that the site of the Princess Royal would not be used as a
registered club as that was against the policy of the company. The Princess
Royal lost its tenant during the latter half of 1938 and Mr. Robbins was installed
as temporary manager, but he would be found a position under Mr. Kent in the
new premises.
Mr. Mowll: It was stated by your counsel that the
Railway Hotel did not oppose the application?
Witness: That is so.
Isn't it a fact that the Railway Hotel is owned by
your company? - Yes.
I suggest to you that you would not be making this
application unless you knew you were going to do a much greater trade at Morehall?
- I understand from Mr. Kent that there need for a full “on” licence there.
Mr. Pocock: Do you seriously mean to tell me that
the reason for your application for a removal order is purely to benefit the
public?
Witness: Naturally we expect to get something out
of it.
Enough to justify these alterations? -That remains
to be seen.
Mr. Pocock: The phrase "re-distribution of
licences’’ means getting away from fierce competition to an area where there is
little or none, so your order is to enable you to remove from a place where
there are 45 other licensed premises to another district where there are only
two in a half- mile radius? - I think it is sound.
James Henry Kent said he was the licence holder of
the Morehall Wine Stores. He had held a Justices’ Licence there since 1912 and
he had also held “on” licences at three other houses in other parts of the
country. He was definitely of the opinion that “on” licence facilities were
required in that district. He was to be the tenant of the new premises.
William Bertram Macgowan, 7, Beachborough Villas,
Folkestone, stated that he had lived there for 34 years. He supported the
application although he happened to be a total abstainer. Witness said it was expected that there
would be a large increase in the population Of Morehall shortly. A large block
of flats was being built and he considered that when they were completed there
would be only two bigger buildings in Folkestone, the Grand and the Metropole
hotels. He was of the opinion
that full licence facilities were required.
Many people had complained to him that there was not an “on” licence in
Morehall.
William Wood. 285, Cheriton Road, a retired
builder, said that his house was opposite the Morehall Wine Stores. He also supported
the application. If anyone wanted a drink they had to go either to the White
Lion Hotel, or to the Bouverie, Cheriton Road.
Mr. Mowll: I understand you do
drink?
Witness: Yes, sir, anything I can get hold of.
(Laughter)
Do you have beer in your house? - Yes, but I have
to put it on the mantlepiece otherwise I can’t get the atmosphere. (Laughter)
George Arthur Wood, 11, Trimworth Road, Morehall, a
retired civil servant, also gave evidence in favour of the application.
Mr. Mowll said if those making the application expected a large custom,
then he suggested it was case in which they should pay monopoly value. If that
were not suggested, then there was no need for a licence. He represented Mr.
Samway, who was the tenant of a very expensive house. If this trade was going
to be re-distributed, then it was obvious that Mr. Samway`s prosperity was not
going to be enhanced. His submission to the Bench was that having regard to all
the circumstances there might not be any need for further accommodation. People
who had come to reside in the district knew that there was no public house at
Morehall and they also knew probably that the Magistrates had persistently
refused to grant an application for one there in the past.
Mr. Pocock asked the Magistrates to consider
whether that was a proper case in which they could exercise the discretion
which was theirs. Was it not unfair competition when all over the country other
licensees were made to pay, made to pay dearly, when opening up in a district
like this one? He did not think it would be fair to allow this new licence in this
rapidly growing area without monopoly value being paid.
The Rev. W.J.T. Brown said he had been in the
district for over nine years. He had seen nearly all the new houses built and
he knew quite a number of the tenants who occupied them. Seeing that an
application was refused some years ago on the grounds that there was no demand
for it by the older people, an application was now being made on the grounds
that people who had since come into the district required such facilities. He
submitted that the people who occupied the type of houses in the district were
not the kind of people who frequented public houses. Legal arguments were not
the only arguments in those cases; there were also moral arguments against the
granting of such applications. The effects of strong drink were only too well
known to some of them. As Magistrates they had to consider the welfare of the
community, and he respectfully asked them not to grant the application.
The Clerk said a count showed that 223 people had
signed the petition. In some cases there was more than one surname to the same
house.
The Rev. H.E. Charleston said he associated himself
very definitely with Mr. Brown’s remarks.
Mrs. Longhurst said they did not want a public
house there because they considered the neighbourhood was well served. She had
collected a number of the signatures to the petition and only three persons out
of the large number of people on whom she called wanted a public house there.
The Magistrates retired and after being absent some
time the Chairman announced that the application was not granted.
Sitting with Councillor Wood were Dr. W.W. Nuttall
Mr. A.E. Pepper. Alderman Mrs. E. Gore, Alderman W. Hollands and Dr. F.
Wolverson.
Folkestone Herald
11-2-1939
Annual Licensing Sessions
Two applications were made at the annual Folkestone
licensing Sessions held at the Town Hall on Wednesday, for the removal of the
licences of two public houses to other premises in the borough. There was a
considerable amount of opposition to both proposals, which affected residential
districts that have developed rapidly during the past few years. After a
lengthy hearing both applications were refused.
The first application was for the removal of the
Justices` Licence respect of the Princess Royal public house, South Street, to
the Morehall Wine Stores, 284, Cheriton Road. The second application was to remove the licence
of the South Foreland public house, Seagate Street, to the Imperial, Tile Kiln
Lane.
Mr. B. H. Waddy, instructed by Frederic Hall and Company,
Folkestone, appeared for Mr. J.H. Kent, who made the application in the first
case. Mr. B.H. Bonniface opposed on behalf of a number of licensees in the
immediate neighbourhood of the Princess Royal; Mr. Rutley Mowll opposed on
behalf of the owners of the White Lion Hotel, Cheriton, and Mr. H.T. Samway,
the licensee; and Mr. L. Pocock appeared for H.M. Commissioners of Customs and
Excise. The proposal was also opposed by the Rev. W.J.T. Brown on behalf of the
Cheriton Baptist Church and a number of ratepayers.
The Clerk (Mr. C. Rootes) said he had before him a
letter or two. There were resolutions opposing from the Cheriton Baptist
Women`s Meeting, and the Ashley Avenue Congregational Church Women`s Meeting.
Mrs. Longhurst and the Rev. H.E. Charleston, of St.
Andrew`s Methodist Church, Morehall, also opposed the application.
Mr. Waddy said it was an application which if
granted would have the effect of bringing about a redistribution of the
licences in the district and a reduction in their number by one. That was a
fact which might well appeal to those who opposed in the temperance interests.
If they agreed to the removal of the licence of the Princess Royal they need
have no fear that the premises would be used as club premises because part of
the policy of the owners of the property, Messrs. Ind, Coope and Allsopp, was
to insert a clause, when disposing of the premises, barring its use as a
registered club.
Mr. Bonniface: In that event I withdraw entirely my
opposition; the application now has my support. Continuing, Mr. Waddy said
Messrs. Ind, Coope and Allsopp owned both premises. The Magistrates had to be
satisfied that the removal of the premises would not hurt the public in any way.
Within a quarter mile radius of the Princess Royal there were already 28 full
licences, and if they added to that all the other licences in the area, beer
licences, “off” licences, etc., there were 45 licensed premises in the quarter
of a mile circle. Messrs. Ind, Coope and Allsop had no other house in the area
so it could not be said that they hoped to transfer the trade of the Princess
Royal to some other house belonging to them In the same district. The trade
would go to other houses. Referring to the Excise opposition, Mr. Waddy said on
an application for a removal monopoly value did not have to be paid; Parliament
made provision for such applications He realised that there had been abuse in
some cases in the past, for instance where a little country “pub” had been
shifted on to an arterial road perhaps several miles away and had blossomed out as a roadhouse, but no
suggestion of that kind could be made in regard to that application. Nor could
it be suggested that they were removing a house with a dying trade out of a
congested area. The beer consumption at the Princess Royal for the year ending
1936 was 108 barrels, said Mr. Waddy. For 1937 the figure was 132 and for 1939,
150 barrels, which showed an Increase over 1936 of very nearly 50 percent. In
regard to the wines and spirits trade, the figure for 1936 was 89 and in 1938
it had risen to 92½.They were seeking to remove to “off ” licence premises
known as Morehall Wine Stores, which had been in business under a Justices’ Licence
since 1912. Before that the business had been carried on there under an Excise
Licence. If they granted the removal then that licence would go because an “on”
licence included an “off”. In that way the number of licences would be reduced
by one. Within a half mile radius of the Morehall Wine Stores there was the
White Lion Hotel to the west, and south of the railway there was the Railway
Hotel, which did not oppose. In his submission the opposition of the White Lion
Hotel was very much of "a dog in the manger” character because in 1904 the
owners of the White Lion applied for a full “on” licence actually within 100 yards
of his client's premises. Since 1912 there had been a very considerable
increase in the district, and many of the houses there today had been erected
since 1927. A count had been made and the number of houses in a quarter-mile
circle of the premises was 900, and in a half-mile radius was 1,975. In the
district they had some 8,000 to 10,000 people. Since 1927 the number of houses
erected was 727. Mr. Waddy said alterations would be carried out to the
Morehall premises, but no-one would be able to suggest that what they were
going to do there would be an eyesore.
The Chairman: Is the present build-ing coming down?
Mr. Waddy: No.
Continuing, counsel said if the application were
granted arrangements would be made for Mr. Robbins, who was temporary manager
of the Princess Royal, to help at these premises at Morehall under Mr. Kent.mHe submitted it was just the right sort
of house for the district. It dealt with the situation with the minimum amount
of trouble or alteration and it would provide all the accommodation required.
The Chairman: We don`t see any room available for
women and children.
Mr. Waddy: There is not one at the Princess Royal.
If we propose to put in accommodation like that, we at once het the Customs
people saying “You are building bigger premises”.
Referring to the church opposition, Mr. Waddy said
it was always a difficult type of opposition to deal with from an advocate’s
point of view, but they were quite mistaken in thinking that the granting of
that facility would do any harm to anyone. He did not know whether any petition
was going to be laid before them, but if so he would ask them to scrutinise it
with the greatest possible care. Petitions might be some evidence of local feeling,
but sometimes they were not evidence at all.
The Rev W.J.T. Brown then put in a petition signed
by about 220 persons, 21 of whom, it was stated, lived in the immediate area.
The Clerk (Mr. C. Rootes) said the petitioners
asked the Magistrates to refuse the application on the grounds that in their
opinion a licence was not necessary and would be detrimental to the well-being
of the locality.
Mr. Waddy then called evidence in support of his
application.
Thomas William Allen, 17, Queen Street, Folkestone, and
Frank Haisell, employed by Messrs. Frederic Hall and Company, gave formal
evidence of serving notices in connection with the application.
Edward Carr, General Manager of Messrs. Ind, Coope and
Allsopp, stated that his firm were the owners of the premises known as the
Morehall Wine Stores. His company were prepared to give an
undertaking that the site of the Princess Royal would not be used as a
registered club as that was against the policy of the company. The Princess
Royal lost its tenant during the latter half of 1938 and Mr. Robbins was installed
as temporary manager, but he would be found a position under Mr. Kent in the
new premises.
Mr. Mowll: It was stated by your counsel that the
Railway Hotel did not oppose the application?
Witness: That is so.
Isn't it a fact that the Railway Hotel is owned by
your company? - Yes.
I suggest to you that you would not be making this
application unless you knew you were going to do a much greater trade at Morehall?
- I understand from Mr. Kent that there need for a full “on” licence there.
Mr. Pocock: Do you seriously mean to tell me that
the reason for your application for a removal order is purely to benefit the
public?
Witness: Naturally we expect to get something out
of it.
Enough to justify these alterations? -That remains
to be seen.
Mr. Pocock: The phrase "re-distribution of
licences’’ means getting away from fierce competition to an area where there is
little or none, so your order is to enable you to remove from a place where
there are 45 other licensed premises to another district where there are only
two in a half- mile radius? - I think it is sound.
James Henry Kent said he was the licence holder of
the Morehall Wine Stores. He had held a Justices’ Licence there since 1912 and
he had also held “on” licences at three other houses in other parts of the
country. He was definitely of the opinion that “on” licence facilities were
required in that district. He was to be the tenant of the new premises.
William Bertram Macgowan, 7, Beachborough Villas,
Folkestone, stated that he had lived there for 34 years. He supported the
application although he happened to be a total abstainer. Witness said it was expected that there
would be a large increase in the population Of Morehall shortly. A large block
of flats was being built and he considered that when they were completed there
would be only two bigger buildings in Folkestone, the Grand and the Metropole
hotels. He was of the opinion
that full licence facilities were required.
Many people had complained to him that there was not an “on” licence in
Morehall.
William Wood. 285, Cheriton Road, a retired
builder, said that his house was opposite the Morehall Wine Stores. He also supported
the application. If anyone wanted a drink they had to go either to the White
Lion Hotel, or to the Bouverie, Cheriton Road.
Mr. Mowll: I understand you do
drink?
Witness: Yes, sir, anything I can get hold of.
(Laughter)
Do you have beer in your house? - Yes, but I have
to put it on the mantlepiece otherwise I can’t get the atmosphere. (Laughter)
George Arthur Wood, 11, Trimworth Road, Morehall, a
retired civil servant, also gave evidence in favour of the application.
Mr. Mowll said if those making the application expected a large custom,
then he suggested it was case in which they should pay monopoly value. If that
were not suggested, then there was no need for a licence. He represented Mr.
Samway, who was the tenant of a very expensive house. If this trade was going
to be re-distributed, then it was obvious that Mr. Samway`s prosperity was not
going to be enhanced. His submission to the Bench was that having regard to all
the circumstances there might not be any need for further accommodation. People
who had come to reside in the district knew that there was no public house at
Morehall and they also knew probably that the Magistrates had persistently
refused to grant an application for one there in the past.
Mr. Pocock asked the Magistrates to consider
whether that was a proper case in which they could exercise the discretion
which was theirs. Was it not unfair competition when all over the country other
licensees were made to pay, made to pay dearly, when opening up in a district
like this one? He did not think it would be fair to allow this new licence in this
rapidly growing area without monopoly value being paid.
The Rev. W.J.T. Brown said he had been in the
district for over nine years. He had seen nearly all the new houses built and
he knew quite a number of the tenants who occupied them. Seeing that an
application was refused some years ago on the grounds that there was no demand
for it by the older people, an application was now being made on the grounds
that people who had since come into the district required such facilities. He
submitted that the people who occupied the type of houses in the district were
not the kind of people who frequented public houses. Legal arguments were not
the only arguments in those cases; there were also moral arguments against the
granting of such applications. The effects of strong drink were only too well
known to some of them. As Magistrates they had to consider the welfare of the
community, and he respectfully asked them not to grant the application.
The Clerk said a count showed that 223 people had
signed the petition. In some cases there was more than one surname to the same
house.
The Rev. H.E. Charleston said he associated himself
very definitely with Mr. Brown’s remarks.
Mrs. Longhurst said they did not want a public
house there because they considered the neighbourhood was well served. She had
collected a number of the signatures to the petition and only three persons out
of the large number of people on whom she called wanted a public house there.
The Magistrates retired and after being absent some
time the Chairman announced that the application was not granted.
Sitting with Councillor Wood were Dr. W.W. Nuttall
Mr. A.E. Pepper. Alderman Mrs. E. Gore, Alderman W. Hollands and Dr. F.
Wolverson.
Folkestone Express
11-3-1939
Adjourned Licensing Sessions
On Wednesday, at the Folkestone adjourned licensing sessions
the justices granted the application of Mr. J H. Kent for a full licence for
the Morehall Wine Stores in Cheriton Road, in respect of which there has been
an off-licence in existence since 1912. At the licensing sessions in February
the justices refused an application by
Mr. Kent for the removal of the full
licence of the Princess Royal to South Street to the same premises, among the
opposition being that of the Customs and Excise on the ground that a monopoly
value should be paid if a full licence was granted to the premises.
The application
came before the Licensing Committee, which consisted of Councillor R.G. Wood,
Mr. A.E. Pepper, Dr. W.W. Nuttall, Dr. F. Wolverson, Alderman Mrs. E. Gore and
Alderman W. Hollands.
The application was
opposed by Mr. Christmas Humphreys (instructed by Mr. Rutley Mowll), on behalf
of Mr. Samways, the licensee of the White Lion Hotel, the Rev. W.H. Brown, on
behalf of the Cheriton Baptist Church, and Residents in the area, and Mr. H.G.
Wood, who resides next door to the premises, on his own
behalf.
Mr. Waddy said he was
applying for the grant of a full licence at the Morehall Wine Stores, 284,
Cheriton Road, where there was at present a full off-licence, and where there
had been a full off justices’ licence since 1912. If the justices granted the
application it would not increase the number of licences in the borough,
though, of course, it would alter the character of one, from off to a full
licence.
On
the last occasion, as they would remember, he told them that Messrs. Ind Coope
and Allsop Co., Ltd., were the owners of the premises, and they put before the
Bench a removal scheme - to remove the Princess Royal out of the Harbour
district and take it up to the Morehall Wine Stores. They would remember also
how it was almost bitterly opposed by the Customs and Excise on the ground that
monopoly value should be paid for a licence there. But that day they were on
new ground, and their view that there was going to be a very good trade if the
licence was granted. He thought he ought to tell the Court that it had
been agreed between the Customs and Excise and the applicants that the value
which should be submitted to them, if the licence was granted, for their approval
was no less a sum than £3,500. He
rather stressed that figure, because, in his submission, it was very
impressive evidence of a demand. As the Bench were aware, those figures were fixed by the
Revenue authorities through their expert surveyors, who were dealing with that
type of thing all over the country, and who had a remarkable knowledge of a
district and what was likely to happen.
The Chairman: I question whether you should stress that.
Mr. Waddy: It would seem evidence with regard to
the view of experts concerning demand. I can bring you evidence of a
substantial demand for full on-licensed
facilities.
The Chairman: That is better ground.
Mr. Waddy said in that district they had a very
substantial population un-catered for by way of full on-licence facilities.
They would remember on the last occasion a petition was put before them by the
opposition of people who were opposed to the granting of a full on-licence for
that house. His clients did not put any
petition forward. As no doubt they
were aware some benches did not consider petitions fruitful, but it might be
that his clients would have been better off if they had tested the requirements
of the neighbourhood. The opposition put before them on the last occasion a
petition containing 223 signatures. He did not have any opportunity of
analysing them, but as far as he recollected it came from a very wide area,
covering pretty well the whole half-mile radius shown on the map. As the Clerk
pointed out there were more than one name from a house in several instances.
As a result of that,
within the short month they had had since the last hearing they had attempted
to test the neighbourhood. Two residents in the immediate neighbourhood of
the Morehall Wine Stores came forward and offered their services to make a test
of the neighbourhood. They had canvassed the area within a quarter mile
circle of the premises, and only the houses that were on the north of the
railway line. Within that area there were 748 houses, and they had not taken
more than one name per house. They had got 442 signatures in favour and they
had found that 116 were neutral, neither for nor against.
There were 57 houses at which they could not get any answer. That was
overwhelming evidence of those who lived in the neighbourhood that they
required a full on licence. Then there could be no objection that the applicants
were wanting to get something for nothing, for they had agreed on the monopoly
value. With regard to the plans, they were depositing two sets. One of them
was before the Justices on the last occasion. The new plans showed the provision
of a children’s room. That was in consequence of a remark by the Chairman on
the last occasion that the magistrates thought a room for children should be
provided. His clients were of the opinion that really a children’s room was not
wanted, but if the Magistrates thought it was required his clients would be
pleased to provide one, and they would leave the Magistrates to choose between
the two sets of plans. Dealing with the opposition Mr. Waddy said they had the
opposition of the White Lion, which was half-a-mile away, with its own district
surrounding it. It was on a wide stretch of the road along which there was no
full on-licensed house from it until they got to the Bouverie Arms in
Folkestone. The Magistrates would remember that on the last occasion he told
them that in the year 1904 the owners of the White Lion thought that another
house was required, and they made an application for a full on-licence within
100 yards of the present Morehall Wine Stores. With regard to the opposition
coming from the Rev. W. Brown, they would remember on the last occasion Mr.
Brown addressed them on the moral arguments as opposed to legal arguments. The
moral arguments were really that no one ought to be allowed to have a drink on
the premises. Frankly, he (Mr. Waddy) thought Mr. Brown’s opposition was the
opposition of the total abstainer, and it was not really a
responsible opposition. Mr. Brown then presented a petition of 223 signatures,
and he thought they could take it that they were the signatures of people who did
not want to go into a public house and would not go in. They could not suggest
that they would be any annoyance or trouble in the public house. Mr. Wood’s
opposition was entirely of a different type. He lived in the house which was
next door to his client’s house. It was separated by the open space that was
the garden of the Morehall Wine Stores. Mr. Wood feared that when he left the
premises, which he intended to do fairly soon, he might find that his house had
depreciated in value. His (Mr. Waddy’s) submission was that was most unlikely.
Mr. Wood was living upon a main road and in what was substantially a business
area.
Mr. T.W. Allen gave
evidence of the serving and publishing of the necessary notices concerning the
application.
Mr. J. H. Kent, of 284,
Cheriton Road, said he was the tenant of the premises. He had known the
district since 1907, and it had grown largely. A full on-licence was necessary
for the neighbourhood. Since the previous hearing two volunteers had offered
their services to him to take round a petition, and they were not being
rewarded in any way whatever for what they did. The area canvassed was within a
quarter of a mile radius, and only one name was to be taken from one house. He
had made an analysis of the petition. There were 748 houses,
and there were 442 signatures in favour of the application for a full
on-licence.
Mr. Waddy: Can you tell
me whether there were any neutral?
Mr. Kent: Yes, 116, and
from 57 houses no answers were obtained. Proceeding, he said the petition
showed the list of the
particular roads and showed the number of houses canvassed, and the number of
people in favour. Two of the nearest roads were Morehall Avenue and Chart Road.
In Morehall Avenue there were 103 houses, and the signatures in favour numbered
65. In Chart Road there were 87 houses, and the signatures numbered 63.
Cross-examined, Mr. Kent said no pressure was
placed upon anyone to sign.
Mr. Christmas Humphreys: Would it not have been
better to have had a postcard referendum?
Mr. Kent: I do not know about that.
The people in favour would then have posted them
back to you? - Possibly. On the other hand, however, people came voluntarily to
the premises to sign the petition.
Mr. W.B. Macgowan, of Beachborough Villas, again
supported the application. He
said there was a block of 36 fiats quite close to the Wine Stores. With regard
to Mr. Wood’s apprehension if there was a full on-licence next door to his
house that it would lose in value, he had not had any opportunity to give that any consideration, but speaking, apart
from being a valuer and house agent, he thought it was a matter of imagination
on Mr. Wood’s part. It might even be that the licence desired might enhance the
value of the house.
Mr. R.J.T. Stamford, 97,
Morehall Avenue, said he had lived there for the past 19 years. His house was
about 150 vards from the Morehall Wine Stores. After the failure of the last
application for the full on-licence he saw Mr. Kent and offered his services
freely to canvass the district. He did so without receiving any reward. The
canvass was limited to a quarter mile radius of the Wine Stores north of the
railway. He visited roughly about 500 houses, and went at various times to the
houses, morning, afternoon and evening. He found only between 20 and 30 against
the licence. In his experience during the last ten years there had been a big
demand for a licence. He had to get his drink in a bottle. A large number of
visitors came into the neighbourhood in the summer, and they complained that
there was no place where they could go for a drink in the evening.
Mr. Humphreys: Nearly all
these signatures are of men only. Did you get men mostly to sign?
Mr. Stamford: I did not
take particular notice of that. I only obtained one signature per house.
Mr. H. Chapple, of 1,
Station Road, Folkestone, said he had lived for some years at his present
house, which was 50 yards away from the Morehall Wine Stores. He volunteered
his services to Mr. Kent and assisted in the canvass without fee or reward. In
the houses he visited there were quite a few neutral, but only two or three
were definitely against the licence. He thought there was a need for such a
house in that district. If he wanted to go to a place to have a drink he got on
a bus and came into Folkestone.
Mr. Humphreys: I suggest
out of the first three pages of the petition there are only the signatures of
three or four women? You got the men’s signatures, and if you had seen the women
they would have been against?
Mr. Chapple: There are
possibly more men.
Mr. Humphreys: A woman
usually gives her full name when signing, or writes Mrs. I am going to suggest
to you this licence is what the men want and what the women do not want.
Mr. Chapple: I do not
know about that.
Mr. Humphreys: Just go
through those first three pages and I do not think you will see the signatures
of more than four or five women.
Mr. Chapple then pointed
out several signatures of women on the first page, and Mr. Humphreys said he
was satisfied.
The Clerk (Mr. C. Rootes) read the petition, which
was as follows: We, the undersigned, believe that a full on and off licence
house at the above address (Morehall Wine Stores) is necessary to meet local
requirements and that there is a large demand in the neighbourhood for such a
house from residents and visitors, and we support the application at the
adjourned general annual licensing sessions on the 8th March, 1939, by Mr. J.H.
Kent for such a licence.
Mr. Christmas Humphreys
said in 1912 an off licence was granted and put into a building which had
always had the appearance of a public house and had appeared to be successful
as an off licence. Then there was an application to remove the Rose Hotel and
put it where the Morehall Wine Stores were. That was refused 12 years ago. Then
they came to 1939 and there was an application to remove the Princess Royal, a
house doing a substantial trade, without paying a monopoly value. That
application was refused.
Precisely one month after
they had that application. There was only one possible assumption upon which
the brewers one month later should take up their time, and that was on the
assumption, which got no support from the Bench, that the only reason for that
application being refused was because the original application was made by way
of removal. Nothing, however, was said by the Bench, and Mr. Waddy had no
reason to suppose that that was the reason. The application stood exactly as it
was save now they were not reluctant to pay that sum of monopoly value, not to
the justices, not to Folkestone, but to the Government for the privilege of
that licence, which he suggested was not wanted. What the applicants were
asking was to complete their grasp of that area. They had got the whole of the
area south of the railway line, and now they wanted to come and take
about three-quarters of Mr. Samways’ trade by putting this licence down where
the houses are. They could not make any application in respect of south of the
line. The centre of the housing estate they were considering was exactly half-way
between Mr. Samways’ house and the Wine Stores. In that application the
justices were not considering the desires of the brewers, but considering the
demands oi the neighbourhood. There was a big distinction. The distinction was
assessed ever 30 years ago, in 1904. It showed that the brewers had the
desire to get another licence in that area. He would just like to
give them a few facts regarding the White Lion hotel, which had been described
as in its own district. That should not carry any weight with the magistrates.
The house had been and was doing the trade that was necessary in
the neighbourhood. Mr. Samways had five bars, catering for every type
of trade, including a saloon bar, which was never full. At present the women,
who might use the saloon liar, went to the off licence department, and the men
went into Folkestone to their clubs. Mr. Samways was doing a substantial off
trade and deliveries, and there were plenty of off licence facilities. Though
his trade was substantial, Mr. Samways had got to pay a rent of £210, rates £170,
and wages £16 a week. Therefore he had to take £27 10s. a week before he got
a penny profit. Unfortunately his trade was declining, and that was partly due
to the fact of the opening of the Red Car Company’s club nearby. So serious was
that trade taken away from his bars that he had sacked two employees. His
trade was declining, though at present he was serving the whole of the area.
Could they imagine what tbe effect to his trade would be if another house was
put down within a half-a-mile of his premises? If they granted that
application they did not lose any licence and there was no need for another
licence to be surrendered. There would be the monopoly value, but that would
not affect Folkestone at all. He contended that it was very unsatisfactory for a
petition to be presented as showing the true test of the demands. The honest
and proper way of finding what was the demand of the neighbourhood was that
laid down and adopted by many London brewers, and that was by the system which
none could gainsay. A postcard was sent out, to the number of 1,000, 2,000 or
3,000, to every house on which the questions were asked are you in favour,
against, or neutral? People who required
a licence in the district would send that postcard back. By that means they
would get a referendum of the people in the area. He, therefore, suggested the
petition was worthless as finding the true desires of the neighbourhood.
The Rev. W.J. Brown said the signatures on the
petition against the application were taken within the quarter of a mile
radius. As he mentioned at the previous hearing 21 people, nearby tradesmen
and resident, signed that petition. He associated himself with the arguments
eloquently put by Mr. Humphreys. He wished to touch upon the moral point of
view. It was a recognised fact that the drink trade was a social evil in any
community. He thought the Bench Should take that into consideration. On the
last occasion he submitted resolutions from two women’s meetings in the locality.
If the licence was granted it would mean damaged lives and homes and broken
hearts.
Mr. Wood, in submitting
his opposition, said he lived next door to the Wine Stores, and at present he
had nine windows overlooking the beautiful garden at the rear of the premises.
He understood there was to be a car park reaching within three feet of his side
windows.
The Chairman asked if
that was so.
Mr. Waddy said the matter
had been referred to the Ministry of Transport, who had been asked whether a
oar park would be permitted. It was not absolutely certain whether they would
want it.
Mr. Wood said that
instead of looking on a garden they would, if the licence was granted, look
upon the rear of a public house and a car park. Anyone who came out of the car
park would be able to step over the low wall separating the two premises. A car
park was certainly not a nice thing to have under one’s windows, and he took
it that there would be entrances and exits in the licensed premises connecting
with the car park.
The Magistrates retired
to consider their decision, and on their return the Chairman said they had
given the application for a new on-licence at the Morehall Wine Stores full
consideration, which they granted.
Mr. Waddy then asked the
Committee to approve the monopoly value at £3,500.
Mr. E. Wright, surveyor
of Customs and Excise, Dover, said that was the amount which had been agreed
between the applicants and the Commissioners of Customs and Excise.
Mr. Waddy said the £3,500
would be payable on taking out the first excise licence.
The Chairman said the
arrangements made between the Commissioners and applicants concerning the
monopoly value were agreed to by the magistrates.
Mr. Waddy said he would
ask the Bench to approve the plans. He did not know which set they would like,
with or without the children’s room.
The Chairman said they
did not like the term children’s room. The Bench were in favour of a tea room,
such a room where a family could go.
Mr. Waddy said he would
accept that suggestion.
The Chairman said the
justices had sympathy with Mr. Wood, and they thought a car park should not be
forced upon him at once, but that the garden should remain if possible.
Mr. Waddy said his
clients would give an undertaking that they would not change the garden into a
car park without coming to the Magistrates and asking for their approval.
The Chairman: That shows
you are giving him some consideration.
Folkestone Herald
11-3-1939
Adjourned Licensing Sessions
An application to the Folkestone Licensing Magistrates for a
full “on” licence for the Morehall Wine Stores, 284, Cheriton Road, Folkestone,
succeeded at the adjourned annual licensing sessions, held at the Town hall on
Wednesday.
Opposition to the application was entered by the owners and
licensee of the White Lion Hotel, Cheriton, the Rev. Wilfred Brown, on behalf
of the Cheriton Baptist Church and a number of ratepayers in the district, and
Mr. H.G. Wood, whose house adjoins the wine stores.
The Magistrates also approved
of monopoly value amounting to £3,500, a figure which had been agreed between
the parties.
The
application was heard by Councillor R.G. Wood, Dr. W.W. Nuttall, Mr. A.E.
Pepper. Dr. F. Wolverson, Alderman Mrs. E. Gore and Alderman W. Hollands.
Mr.
B.H. Waddy, instructed by Frederick Hall and Company, Folkestone, appeared Tor
the applicants, and Mr. Christmas Humphreys, instructed by Mowll and MowII,
Dover, represented the owners and licensee of the White Lion Hotel. Mr. E.
Wright watched the proceedings for the Commissoners of H.M. Customs. and Excise.
Mr.
Waddy said he was asking for the grant of a full “on” licence in respect of the
Morehall Wine Stores, 284 Cheriton Road, Folkestone, where there was at the
present time a full “off" Justices’ licence. There had been such a licence
there since 1912 therefore if they granted the application it would not
increase the number of licences in the borough, although it would, of course,
alter the Characteristics of one licence from “off” to “on”. Messrs. Ind, Coope
and Allsopp were the owners of the premises. Last
month they put before the Justices a scheme for the removal of the licence ol
the "Princess Royal" to the Morehall Wine Stores. That application
was opposed by the Customs and Excise on the grounds that monopoly value should
be paid because in their view a very good trade would be done there. It had been agreed between his clients and the
Customs and Excise that the figure that should be submitted to them for
approval was no less than £3,500 as monopoly value. He rather stressed that figure because
in his submission it was very impressive evidence of the demand in this
district. Those
figures were fixed for the Revenue authorities by their expert surveyors who
were dealing with that type of thing all over the country. They had a remarkable knowledge of the requirements
of districts.
The Chairman:
I question whether you ought to stressing that point at this juncture.
Mr.
Waddy said he was putting it before them as evidence of the demand, but he
could put before them other evidence of the substantial demand in the district
for these licensing facilities.
The
Chairman: That's better ground.
Mr.
Waddy next referred to the number of houses in the district and mentioned that
at the last hearing t petition was put before them on behalf of the opposition.
His clients did not
put in a petition: as they were no doubt aware some Benches did not consider
petitions were very helpful; some did. The petition put before them by the
opposition the last time contained 223 signatures, and as far as he recollected
it had been obtained from a very wide area covering pretty well the whole of
the half-mile circling the stores. In some cases more than one name from one
house had been obtained. During the last month they had attempted to test the
feeling of the neighbourhood, and it had been done this way. Two gentlemen,
residents in the immediate neighbourhood, came forward and offered their
services quite voluntarily for the purpose of making a canvass of the neighbourhood.
They had canvassed houses lying only within a quarter-mile circle and only houses
north of the railway line. There were 748 houses which lay within that
quarter-mile circle north of the railway. The canvassers had not taken more than
one name per house, and they had obtained 442 signatures in favour; another 116
were neutral and there were 57 houses from which they could not get an answer. In
his submission that was overwhelming evidence that the people who lived in the
immediate neighbourhood did desire full “on” licence facilities and there could
now be no objection to the application on the grounds, as suggested by the
Customs at the last hearing, that they were getting something for nothing. Mr.
Waddy next dealt with the plans for alterations to the premises, and mentioned
that a children`s room, as suggested by the Chairman, had been provided. The
view of his clients was that in a house of this kind a children`s room was not
really wanted, but they were quite agreeable to provide such a room. Counsel,
referring to the opposition of the White Lion Hotel, contended that there was
further evidence that such a house was required by the fact that they had
instructed Mr. Christmas Humphreys, a learned counsel, to come there to oppose
the application. He (Mr. Waddy) contended, however, that the White Lion had no
right to ask for an area stretching right down to the Bouverie Arms, in
Folkestone, because that was what in fact their opposition amounted to. As he
had told them on the last occasion, in 1904 the owners of the White Lion Hotel
made an application to place a full “on” licensed house not 100 yards from the
premises in which he was making an application. Their opposition was purely
trade opposition and, in his submission, purely “dog in the manger"
opposition. The opposition of the Rev. W.J.T. Brown was based on the argument
that no one should be allowed to have a drink on these premises. It was the
opposition of the total abstainer and was not really a resident`s opposition at
all. The opposition of Mr. Wood was of an entirely different type. He lived in
a house which was next door to their clients` premises. His home was separated
by an open space which at the present time was the garden of the Morehall Wine
Stores. Mr. Wood feared that when he wanted to sell his house he might find it
had depreciated in value. In his submission that was most unlikely. Mr. Wood
was living on a main road in what was a substantial business area, and he (Mr.
Waddy) hoped to satisfy them, even if he could not satisfy Mr. Wood, that it
was highly unlikely that his premises would be affected because the character
of the licence of the Morehall Wine Stores was changed.
Evidence
of serving the necessary notices was then given by Thomas W. Allen.
James
H. Kent, 284, Cheriton Road, the tenant of the Morehall Wine Stores, said he
known the district since 1907. Since then it had grown very largely, and in his
view full “on” licence facilities were required in the district. Two residents
had volunteered their services in regard to the petition mentioned by Mr.
Waddy. The area of canvass was a quarter of a mile, and no canvass was made
south of the railway. Mr. Kent then gave the figures referred to by Counsel,
and said that of the 103 houses in Morehall Avenue 65 of the residents were in
favour, while of the 87 in Chart Road 63 supported the application.
Replying
to Mr. Christmas Humphreys, Mr. Kent said he preferred a petition to taking a
referendum of a district by postcard.
Mr.
Christmas Humphreys: Do you know that the saloon bar at Mr. Samway`s house is
very seldom full?
Mr.
Kent: No, I don`t know.
William
B. Macgowan, 7, Beachborough Villas, an auctioneer and house agent, who
supported the application last time, said lie did not know in what way the
Morehall Wine Stores would depreciate the value of Mr. Wood's house. Some
people thought they were too far away from licensed premises. The closer
proximity of the premises might enhance the value.
Richard J.T. Stamford, 99, Morehall Avernue,
said he had lived there for the past 19 years. He was about 150 yards away from
the Morehall Wine Stores. After the last application he offered to canvass the
district, limiting it to a quarter-mile circle north of the railway. Only one
signature was taken from each house. He visited some 500 houses, and during his
canvass he found 20 to 30 against. From his experience, during the last 10
years there had been a big demand for licensed facilities in the district.
During the summer there was a great number of visitors in the district and he
had heard them complain of having so far to go to get a drink.
The
Clerk (Mr. C. Rootes) said the petition which was put in was worded as follows:
“We the undersigned believe that a full “on” and “off” licensed house at the
above address is necessary to meet the local requirements and that there is a
large demand in the neighbourhood for such a house from residents and visitors
and we support the application”.
Harry
Chapple, 1, Station Road, Folkestone,
said he lived 50 yards from Mr. Kent's premises. After the failure of the
previous application he also offered to make a canvass. He found that there
were quite a few neutral, but the number against was three or tour. He considered there was a need for “on” licence
facilities in the district.
Mr.
Christmas Humphreys commented that it was most unusual tor a woman to sign her
name using only the initials of her Christian names, and he suggested that in
the petition put in nearly all the signatures were those of men. He submitted
the petition showed what the men wanted but the women's viewpoint had been
ignored.
Mr.
Chapple pointed out several signatures bearing only initials which were those
of women.
Addressing
the Magistrates for the opposition, Mr. Christmas Humphreys said they were not
opposed to these premises, but the application in regard to these premises. In
1912, he said, an "off” licence was granted for a building which had all
the appearances of a public house. Then,
in 1927, an attempt was made to remove the licence of the Rose Hotel to these
premises, but the application failed. Twelve
years went by in silence and then they had the application for the removal of
the licence of the ‘'Princess Royal”, a house doing a substantial trade, but
so loath were these brewers to pay monopoly value, that they tried to remove
the licence of this house. That Application, however, also failed. There was only one possible ground, continued
counsel, on which these brewers were entitled to take up the Justices’ time in
order to hear that application again, and that was on the assumption that the
only reason for refusing the application last time was because it was made by
way of removal and not by way of a new licence. Occasionally a Bench would drop
a broad hint to that effect and a new application would be made, but nothing
like that had been hinted in this case. There was nothing else new. There were
no new houses in the district; the
application stood as it did before except that the brewers were prepared
reluctantly to pay this monopoly value. Counsel
said they had not to consider the desires of the brewers; they were
considering the demand of the neighbourhood. It was not because this firm was
asking for a new licence that thereby there was shown any demand; they were
only shown their desire. The White
Lion Hotel had been described as big in its own district. The house had been
there a long time, and he suggested that it did all the trade that was
necessary in the neighbourhood. In that
house Mr. Samway had five bars, catering for several types of trade. There was
also a saloon bar, but that bar was never full, showing that there was not a
demand for that type of trade in the district. The other bars were often quite
full. He was also doing a substantial "off" trade. Mr. Samway s trade
was substantial, but he had got to find a rent of £210 a year, rates amounting
to £170 a year, and wages coming fo £16 odd a week. That meant that he Had got
to take £27 10s. a week before he got a penny profit for himself. His trade was
declining. He had recently suffered a heavy blow to his trade by the opening of
the East Kent Car Company's Club nearby. So serious was that that he had been
forced to "sack" two employees. That had nothing to do with the
winter trade. His trade was declining although at the present time he was doing
the whole of the area. Couldn’t they imagine the effect on his house if another
were opened about half a mile away? When it came to deciding the demand of the
locality they got this unsatisfactory, and ho would suggest, absolutely useless
petition, continued Mr. Christmas Humphreys. Counsel
suggested that the much more satisfactory way would hive been a postcard referendum,
every householder in the area being asked to say whether he was in favour,
against, or neutral.
The
Rev. Wilfred J.T. Brown said he had put in a petition at the previous hearing.
Signatures were obtained within a quarter-mile radius and 21 of the signatories
were nearby residents and tradespeople. From a moral point of view it was a
recognised fact that the drink trade was a social evil throughout the country. On the previous occasion they
put in two resolutions, carried at women's meetings, opposing the application. If
this licence were granted it would mean damaged lives, broken homes and broken
hearts. That was an acknowledged fact.
Mr.
Wood told the Magistrates that nine windows at the side of his house overlooked
the garden of the Morehall Wine Stores. One of those windows was that of his
boy’s study. There was a proposal to make the garden a car park and that would
bring it within three feet of his side windows.
Mr.
Waddy said in regard to the proposed car park, the matter had been put before
the Ministry of Transport to ascertain whether a pull-in for cars would be
permitted. They did not know whether they would get permission or not, and it
was not absolutely certain that they would want it. It would depend on whether
people came there with cars.
Mr.
Wood said it would be difficult to say where their premises finished and his
began. Anyone could step over a low wall and go out by way of his gate.
The
Magistrates then retired. On their return the Chairman said they had given the
application full consideration and had decided to grant it. They also approved
the monopoly value, to be paid on talking out the first excise licence.
Mr.
Waddy asked for approval of the plans with or without a children`s room.
The
Chairman said they did not like the term ‘'Children’s room”. The Bench, however,
were in favour of a tea room to which a family could go.
Mr.
Waddv said they would change the name then to "Tea room”.
The
Chairman said with regard to the garden, the Magistrates would prefer that Mr.
Wood should have a sympathetic consideration and for the moment, the matter
should not be forced on him.
Mr.
Waddy said his clients were prepared to give an undertaking that a car park
would not be provided without first coming before the Bench and asking for
their approval.
The
Magistrates approved the plans, and it was agreed that the confirmation of the
licence should come before the Magistrates on Friday, March 31st.
Folkestone Express
18-3-1939
Letter
To the Editor.
Dear Sir, As I am responsible for the erection
of the thirty-six flats, Cherry Court, now nearing completion, mentioned by
Mr. W.B. Macgowan and reported in your current issue, I should like to make it
quite clear that I do not associate myself with the application and, in fact,
knew nothing about it. Personally, I do not consider that the licence was necessary and I think
it was quite irrelevant of Mr. Macgowan to mention the new flats. They are not
yet inhabited and I feel quite sure the type of tenants these modern flats will
attract will not require the “facilities” which apparently are going to be provided
in future. Furthermore, it is an exaggeration to say that these flats are
“quite close” to the licensed premises in question, which, I consider would not
be an advantage.
Yours faithfully,
R.R. Gordon-Barrett
71, Sandgate Road.,
Folkestone.
13th March, 1939.
Folkestone Herald 1-4-1939
Local News
At the Folkestone Police Court yesterday, Mr. B.H. Waddy
applied for the confirmation of the licence which was granted to the Morehall
Wine Stores at the Adjourned Annual Licensing Sessions. He asked for the
confirmation subject to a monopoly value of £3,500 being paid on taking out the
first Excise Licence, the changing of the name of the “children`s room” to “tae
room”, and an undertaking that the brewers should not convert the garden space
into a car park before first coming to
the Magistrates for permission. Mr. Waddy said there was no opposition and he
therefore formally applied for the confirmation of the licence.
Replying to the Clerk
(Mr. C. Rootes) Mr. Waddy said there would be no “on” sales until the premises
were quite in order.
The Chairman (Councillor
R.G. Wood) announced that the Magistrates confirmed the licence on the understanding
that the points mentioned by Mr. Waddy were adhered to, especially in regard to
the garden.
Mr. Waddy said ff they
wanted to turn the space Into a car park they would come before them with
alterations to plans. They might never want it.
Folkestone Express
8-4-1939
Local News
Mr. B.H. Waddy applied at the Folkestone
Police Court on Friday for the confirmation of the licence which was granted to
the Morehall Wine Stores at the adjourned annual licensing sessions.
Mr. Waddy asked for the confirmation subject
to a monopoly value of £3,500 being paid on taking out the first Excise
licence, the changing of the name of children’s room to tea room, and an
undertaking that the garden space should not be converted into a car park
without first coming to the Magistrates for permission.
The Mayor (Alderman G.A. Gurr) said the Magistrates
confirmed the licence subject to the understanding that the conditions
mentioned were adhered to.
Mr. Waddy said if they wanted to turn the
space into a car park they would come before them, but they might never want
it.
No comments:
Post a Comment