West Cliff Shades 1950s

Folkestone Gazette 25-1-1950

Local News

Leonard Barker, licensee of the West Cliff Shades Hotel, Folkestone, pleaded Not Guilty to an offence on December 14^th, 1949, when it was alleged that he sold gin which had 14 parts of 100 of added water. Barker applied that Arthur William Pilcher, a barman, of 2, Ingles Mews, Folkestone, should be brought before the court because he alleged that it was the barman who was responsible for the contraven­tion of the Food and Drugs Act.

Miss Dorothy Dix (instructed by Messrs. Haines and Bonniface), appearing tor Barker, pleaded Not Guilty. Pilcher pleaded Not Guilty to knowingly adding water.

Mr. Salt, prosecuting, said the circumstances were very similar to the previous case. Taking the minimum statutory standard for gin there was, in the opinion of the Public Analyst, 14 parts in 100 of added water in the gin sampled. The same sampling officers a little later in the morning went to the West Cliff Shades, where they ordered two double gins. Having been served with two doubles they ordered a third. Alter they had disclosed their identity they sampled the gin they had purchased. The magistrates would appre­ciate that in a case where the barman had been joined it was necessary for the defence to prove that the employee exer­cised due vigilance.

David Prebble, Sampling Officer, said he ordered the gins from the barman, who gave his name as T.R. Hinchcliffe, of Segrave Road, Folkestone. The barman brought the glasses to the bar and he told Hinchcliffe who he was. Hinchcliiffe straightaway said he must fetch Mr. Barker. Witness said he told Barker that he had taken a sample of the gin and asked both men whether he could see the bottle from which the gin had been taken. They brought a bottle labelled “Gordon’s London Gin, 70 degrees proof”; it was approximately five-eighths full.

Barker, giving evidence, said he had been the licensee of the hotel for the past four years and previously had been a licensee in Folkestone at the Prince Albert and the Railway Bell for about 20 years in all. He had never been convicted of any offence. Prior to becoming a licensee he was a police officer at the Houses of Parliament. Continuing, he said on Decem­ber 8^th, 1949, he received a de­livery of certain spirits and other commodities from his brewer, Messrs Style and Winch. The defendant produced in­voices and an excise certificate relating to the delivery. The invoice included a case of 12 bottles of Gordon's gin and showed that the gin was 30 de­grees under proof. The bottles were placed in the cellar, the key of which he held. On December 12^th he had occa­sion to fetch some bottles from the cellar, including one bottle of gin which he placed in the saloon bar for sale. Normally a bottle of Gordon’s gin would last a week or ten days at that time of the year. Pilcher was on duty on Decem­ber 12^th and 13^th as regular bar­man but Hinchcliffe was employ­ed as a relief barman. Pilcher had been regular barman at the hotel for over 21 years. Barker said when he took over the hotel Pilcher was recom­mended to him by the previous licensee, who was his (Barker’s) nephew. Until the present case he had had no occasion to com­plain of the way Pilcher had done his work and conducted the bar. Defendant said he had given instructions to the relief barman on how the bar was to be con­ducted and told him never to put anything back into bottles. When he received the sum­mons on January 6^th he made enquiries amongst his employees to find out how the gin had be­come diluted. On January 9^th Pilcher came to him and made a statement in which he was alleg­ed to have said that two men came into the bar on December 12^th and 13^th and had two half pints of beer and then called for two double gins. He then left the bar and when he returned the men said they did not like the gin he had served and asked whether he would change it for two double Booth's. He did so and returned what they had left to the Gordon's bottle. On January 13^th Pilcher made a similar statement in writing in which he was alleged to have added “I can only think while I was out of the bar the two men drank the gin and filled the two glasses with water. Gordon’s gin looks similar to plain water when in a glass”.

Barker said before Pilcher signed the statement he was warned by a solicitor in whose office the statement was made.

Replying to Mr. Salt, defend­ant said sampling officers had never before visited the West Cliff Shades during the four years he had been there.  He did not bother to keep the bottle be­cause he thought the gin was all right. Pilcher was on duty when the sample was taken.

Arthur William Pilcher, giving evidence, said he had been bar­man at the West Cliff Shades for the past 22 years. He was off duty on December 14^th. On December 12^th or 13^th two men came into the bar and he gave them two large gins from the Gordon’s bottle. Then he had occasion to go into the yard for a few moments; there was nobody else in the bar. When he return­ed one of the men asked if they could have Booth's gin as they did not like Gordon’s. He took the two gins back and served them with Booth’s. He put the contents of the two glasses back into the Gordon’s bottle.

Mr. Salt: Why are you sure it was water you poured back?

Pilcher: I say that because there was water found in it. There was no other way water could have got into the gin.

They may have put some water into their gin? - They may have done. I was outside.

Thomas Rufus Hinchcliffe, of 22, Segrave Road, Folkestone, said he was relief barman and was on duty on December 14^th. There was only one bottle of Gordon’s gin in the bar.

Miss Dix: Did you add any water to that gin during the morning? - No.       

Miss Dix said Barker had acted with the utmost honest y towards his suppliers. If Pilcher had not told him what he did Barker might have had no reason to suspect that the gin had not been sold in the condition he had received it. If he could have satisfied the court that he had sold it in the condition received that would have been his defence. He had thrown on one side, however, the defence he could have put forward if he had chosen to suppress the information which Pilcher gave to him.

Barker, therefore, had to show the Magistrates that the contra­vention of the Act was due to a default by Pilcher and that he (Barker) used due diligence and complied with all the conditions. There was only one possible explanation of the way the gin could have been watered and that was the explanation given by Pilcher, who should have known better than to pour it back into the bottle. Referring to the alleged action by the two men, she said it seemed to be a clever way of getting a second gin free. “Mr. Pilcher has taken the responsibility of having been careless”, she continued, “and doing what no barman should do – (a) pouring back in the bottle, and (b) leaving the bar unattended in such circumstances. We say that is the act which caused the contravention of the provisions of the Act”.

The Magistrates retired to con­sider their decision and when they returned the Chairman (Eng. Rear Admiral L.J. Stephens) said they had decided to dismiss the case against Barker, but they found Pilcher guilty and he would be fined £5 with 25/- costs.

Pilcher was allowed 14 days in which to pay the fine.

Folkestone Herald 28-1-1950

Local News

A visit by Corporation Sampling Officers to a Folkestone bar, where it was alleged they were sold spirits which had been watered, was described at Folkestone Magistrates` Court on Tuesday.

A summons against Leonard Barker, licensee of the West Cliff Shades Hotel, Folkestone, alleging that he sold watered gin on December 14^th was dismissed. Arthur William Pilcher, barman at the West Cliff Shades, was brought before the Court on the application of Barker, it being alleged that he was responsible for the offence under the Food and Drugs Act. He was fined £5 with 25/- costs.

Barker, represented by Miss Dorothy Dix (instructed by Messrs. Haines and Bonniface), and Pilcher pleaded Not Guilty.

It was alleged by the prosecution that the gin purchased in the saloon bar of the West Cliff Shades had 14 parts of added water in 100. Mr. K. Salt, prosecuting, said the Food and Drugs Act provided a standard of the commodity which was required when the purchaser demanded it. There was an express provision in the Act to the effect that no offence was committed if there were at least 65 parts of Proof Spirit in 100. In this case the analyst had come to the conclusion that there were 14 parts in 100 of added water in the gin sampled. Mr. Salt said it was not for the prosecution to say how the added water came in; it was the feeling of the prosecution that the whole circumstances would speak for themselves. “It is hoped that you will bear in mind that this was undoubtedly a genuine purchase, one might say by members of the public, and that members of the public were undoubtedly defrauded”.

Two of the Borough Sampling Officers, who were new to the town and were not known, said Mr. Salt, went to the West Cliff Shades, where they ordered two double gins. Having been served with two doubles they ordered a third. After they had disclosed their identity they sampled the gin they had purchased. The Magistrates would appreciate that in a case where the barman had been joined it was necessary for the defence to prove that the employee exercised due vigilance.

David Prebble, Sampling Officer, said he ordered the gins from the barman, who gave his name as T.K. Hinchcliffe, of Segrave Road, Folkestone. The barman brought the glasses to the bar and he told Hinchcliffe who he was. Hinchcliffe straightaway said he must fetch Mr. Barker. Witness said he told Barker that he had taken a sample of the gin and asked both men whether he could see the bottle from which the gin had been taken. They brought a bottle labelled “Gordon`s London Gin, 70 degrees proof”; it was approximately five-eighths full.

Barker, giving evidence, said he had been the licensee of the hotel for the past four years and previously had been a licensee in Folkestone at the Prince Albert and the Railway Bell for about 20 years in all. He had never been convicted of any offence. Prior to becoming a licensee he was a police officer at the Houses of Parliament. Continuing, he said on December 8^th, 1949, he received a delivery of certain spirits and other commodities from his brewer, Messrs. Style and Winch. The defendant produced invoices and an excise certificate relating to the delivery. The invoice included a case of 12 bottles of Gordon`s gin and showed that the gin was 30 degrees under proof. The bottles were placed in the cellar, the key of which he held. On December 12<sup>th</sup> he had occasion to fetch some bottles from the cellar, including one bottle of gin which he placed in the saloon bar for sale. Normally a bottle of Gordon`s gin would last a week or ten days at that time of the year. Pilcher was on duty on December 12^th and 13^th as regular barman, but Hinchcliffe was employed as a relief barman. Pilcher had been regular barman at the hotel for over 21 years. Barker said when he took over the hotel Pilcher was recommended to him by the previous licensee, who was his (Barker`s) nephew. Until the present case he had had no occasion to complain of the way Pilcher had done his work and conducted the bar. Defendant said he had given instructions to the relief barman on how the bar was to be conducted and told him never to put anything back into bottles. When he received the summons on January 6<sup>th</sup> he made enquiries among his employees to find out how the gin had become diluted. On January 9<sup>th</sup> Pilcher came to him and made a statement in which he was alleged to have said that two men came into the bar on December 12<sup>th</sup> or 13<sup>th</sup> and had two half pints of beer and then called for two double gins. He then left the bar and when he returned the men said they did not like the gin he had served and asked whether he could change it for two double Booth`s. He did so and returned what they had left to the Gordon`s bottle. On January 13<sup>th</sup> Pilcher made a similar statement in writing in which he was alleged to have added “I can only think while I was out of the bar the two men drank the gin and filled the two glasses with water. Gordon`s gin looks similar to plain water when in a glass”. Barker said before Pilcher signed the statement he was warned by a solicitor in whose office the statement was made.

Replying to Mr. Salt, defendant said Sampling Officers had never before visited the West Cliff Shades during the four years he had been there. He did not bother to keep the bottle because he thought the gin was all right. Pilcher was off duty when the sample was taken.

Arthur William Pilcher, giving evidence, said he had been barman at the West Cliff Shades for the past 22 years. He was off duty on December 14^th. On December 12^th or 13^th two men came into the bar and he gave them two large gins from the Gordon`s bottle. Then he had occasion to go into the yard for a few moments; there was nobody else in the bar. When he returned one of the men asked if they could have Booth`s gin as they did not like Gordon`s. He took the two gins back and served them with Booth`s. He put the contents of the two glasses back into the Gordon`s bottle.

Mr. Salt: Why are you so sure it was water you poured back?

Pilcher: I say that because there was water found in it. There was no other way water could have got into the gin.

They may have put water into their gin? – They may have done. I was outside.

Thomas Rufus Hinchcliffe, of 22, Segrave Road, Folkestone, said he was relief barman and was on duty on December 14^th. There was only one bottle of Gordon`s gin in the bar.

Miss Dix: Did you add any water to that gin during the morning? – No.

Miss Dix said Barker had acted with the utmost honesty towards his suppliers. If Pilcher had not told him what he did Barker might have had no reason to suspect that the gin had not been sold in the condition he had received it. If he could have satisfied the Court that he sold it in the condition received that would have been his defence. He had thrown on one side, however, the defence he could have put forward if he had chosen to suppress the information which Pilcher gave to him. There was only one possible explanation of the way the gin could have been watered and that was the explanation given by Pilcher, who should have known better than to pour it back into the bottle. Referring to the alleged action by the two men, she said it seemed to be a clever way of getting a second gin free. “Mr. Pilcher has taken the responsibility of having been careless”, she continued, “and doing what no barman should do – (a) pouring back in the bottle, and (b) leaving the bar unattended in such circumstances. We say that is the act which caused the contravention of the Act”.

The Magistrates retired to consider their decision and when they returned the Chairman (Eng. Rear-Admiral L.J. Stephens) said they had decided to dismiss the case against Barker, but they found Pilcher Guilty and he would be fined £5 with 25/- costs.

Pilcher was allowed 14 days in which to pay the fine.

Folkestone Herald 15-11-1952

Local News

Folkestone Magistrates on Wednesday approved the transfer of licence as follows: West Cliff Shades from Mr. L. Barker to Mr. A.S.W. Chilton.

Folkestone Herald 13-2-1954

Annual Licensing Sessions

A music licence for the use of a piano was granted to the licensee of the West Cliff Shades, and plans for alterations at the Valiant Sailor were approved.

Folkestone Herald 16-3-1957

Adjourned Licensing Sessions

The licence of the West Cliff Shades, Folkestone, was transferred at the Folkestone adjourned Annual Licensing Sessions on Wednesday, from Mrs. Marie Elizabeth Chilton to Mr. Robert Anderson Kitson, former licensee of the Red Lion, Appledore.