Updates

21st March, 2015: Folkestone Gazette and Folkestone Herald Reports for 1972 Added

Duke of Edinburgh 1905 -

Folkestone Chronicle 11-2-1905

Licensing Sessions

Wednesday, February 8^th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Lieut. Colonel Westropp, Lieut. Colonel Fynmore, and Mr. W.C. Carpenter.

There was the usual animated scene as the names of licensees were called out in alphabetical order, and the usual theatrical ring of the burly constables shouting “Get your money ready, please”.

The Chairman opened the Sessions by briefly saying “I will ask the Chief Constable to read his annual report”.

Chief Constable Reeve then read the following:- Chief Constable`s Office, Folkestone, Feb. 8^th, 1905. To the Chairman and Members of the Licensing Committee. Gentlemen, I have the honour to report that there are at present within your jurisdiction 139 places licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquore, viz., full licences 87, beer (on) 11, beer (off) 6, beer and spirit dealers 16, grocers 12, chemists 4, confectioners 3. This gives an average (according to the Census of 1901) of one licence to 220 persons, or one on licence to every 313 persons.

Eighteen of the licences were transferred during the year, viz., 12 full licences, 3 beer on, and three spirit dealers. One full licence was transferred twice during the year.

The orders which were made at the last licensing meeting to close the back entrances to various licensed houses, and to make certain alterations to others, were complied with by the licensees.

Proceedings were taken by the police against three of those licence holders during the year, one for harbouring prostitutes, and two others for permitting drunkenness. The former only was convicted. He has since transferred his licence and left the house.

Two other licence holders were proceeded against by the Inland Revenue Authorities (six informations were laid against one defendant, and three against the other), and in each case a conviction followed, the defendants being fined 20s. and costs upon each summons.

For selling drink without a licence 8 persons were proceeded against by the Inland Revenue Authorities, and two by the police, in each case a conviction being recorded.

For drunkenness, 171 persons (143 males and 28 females) were proceeded against, 156 convicted, and 15 discharged. This is an increase of 17 persons proceeded against as compared with the previous year. One person was convicted of refusing to quit licensed premises when requested.

Six occasional licences and extension of hours on 42 occasions were granted to licence holders during the year.

There are 16 places licensed for music and dancing, and three for public billiard playing.

Eleven clubs where intoxicating liquors are sold are registered in accordance with the Licensing Act, 1902.

The general conduct of the licensed houses being in my opinion at present satisfactory, I have no objection to offer to the renewal of any of the present licences on the ground of misconduct.

I beg to point out that within the area formed by a line drawn from the Harbour through South Street, High Street, Rendezvous Street, Dover Road to the Raglan Hotel, thence over Radnor Bridge to the sea, there is a population approximately of 5,090, with 45 “on” licensed houses, giving a proportion of one licensed house to every 113 inhabitants. I would ask the Bench to exercise the powers given them by the Licensing Act, 1904, and refer the renewal of some of the licensed houses in this area to the County Licensing Committee for consideration, and payment of compensation should any of the renewals be refused.

The houses situate in this congested area which in my opinion should be first dealt with under the provisions of the Act are the following, viz.:- Victoria Inn, South Street, Duke Of Edinburgh, Tontine Street, Cinque Ports, Seagate Street, Providence Inn, Beach Street, Star Inn, Radnor Street, Perseverance Inn, Dover Street.

I would respectfully suggest that the consideration of the renewal of the licences of these houses be deferred until the Adjourned Licensing Meeting.

I am, gentlemen, your obedient servant. H. Reeve, Chief Constable.

The Chairman: The report just read by the Chief Constable is very satisfactory as to the general conduct of the houses, but we are sorry to see an increase of 17in the number of charges for drunkenness, and we hope that the licence holders will assist the police by doing all in theor power to prevent drunkenness, and a decrease in charges during the coming year. As a Licensing Bench we cannot close our eyes to the fact, as shown by Chief Constable Reeve`s report that there are a very large number of licensed houses in one certain area, and as the legislature have taken steps to compensate licence holders for the loss of their licences, we have decided to adjourn the granting of the six licences mentioned in the Chief Constable`s report, viz., The Victoria, Duke Of Edinburgh, Cinque Ports, Providence, Star and Perseverance. In the meantime notice of objection to the licences will be served, and the recommendations of the Justices will be considered by the Court of County Quarter Sessions (Canterbury), and if one or the whole of these houses are closed the owners will be compensated.

Folkestone Express 11-2-1905

Annual Licensing Sessions

Wednesday, February 8^th: Before E.T. Ward Esq., Colonel Hamilton, Colonel Fynmore, W.G. Herbert Esq., and W.C. Carpenter Esq.

The Chief Constable`s report was read (see Chronicle for full report).

The Chairman said the report was of a most satisfactory nature. The Magistrates were pleased to fine there were no complaints against any of the houses. It was, however, an unfortunate thing that there was an increase in drunkenness during the year, and they hoped that the licence holders would, in the coming year, be still more careful in trying to help the Bench and the police as much as possible in keeping down drunkenness, so that next year they might have a better report from the Chief Constable. With regard to the houses the Chief Constable referred to in what he called the congested area, there was no question that there were too many public houses there. By the new Act they were empowered to report to the County Quarter Sessions those houses which they thought were not required in the borough. They would therefore direct the Chief Constable to serve notices of objection against those six houses – the Victoria Inn, the Duke of Edinburgh, the Cinque Ports, the Providence Inn, the Star, and the Perseverance – so that they might report to the Quarter Sessions that those houses were unnecessary in the borough. Of course, if the Quarter Sessions upheld their decision with regard to those houses, or any one of them, then the owner would be compensated. If the Chief Constable would kindly serve the notices, the licences would be dealt with at the next Sessions.

The adjourned meeting was fixed for Monday, March 6^th. 

Folkestone Herald 11-2-1905

Annual Licensing Sessions

Wednesday, February 8^th: Before Mr. J. Pledge, Lieut. Colonel Hamilton, Alderman W.G. Herbert, Councillor R.J. Fynmore, and Mr. W.C. Carpenter.

The Chief Constable read his report (see Folkestone Chronicle for details).

The Chairman said that the report of the Chief Constable was very satisfactory, and the Licensing Bench were very pleased to find that there was no complaint against any licence holders. There was an unsatisfactory matter in connection with the report, and that was the increase in drunken persons during the year, but the Bench hoped that the licence holders would be more careful, and so try to help the Bench in the matter of keeping down drunkenness, so as to have a better report from the Chief Constable next year. With regard to those houses which had been reported upon, there was no question about it that in the congested district there was a large number of houses, viz., one to every 113 persons. By the new Act, the Bench were empowered to report to the County Quarter Sessions those houses which they thought were not required in the borough, and they would therefore direct the Chief Constable to serve notices of objection before the adjourned meeting against those six houses. The Bench would then report to the Quarter Sessions that, in their opinion, those houses were unnecessary in the borough. If Quarter Sessions upheld the decision of the Bench in regard to one or all of those houses, those houses would be compensated.

Folkestone Daily News 6-3-1905

Adjourned Licensing Sessions

Monday, March 6^th: Before Messrs. Ward, Pursey, Fynmore, Hamilton, and Carpenter.

The Duke of Edinburgh

Mr. Avery K.C., instructed by Nicholson, Graham and Co., solicitors, appeared for the owners and tenant.

The Chief Constable repeated his previous statement as to population, and said the house was owned by Flint and Co., of Canterbury, and occupied by Mr. Ralph. Within a radius of 200 yards there were 39 public houses. The accommodation was meagre both for tenant and public. Structural alterations were ordered at the last Sessions. There was very little trade, and the licence was unnecessary.

Cross-examined by Mr. Avery: He fixed the area, and could have made it larger or smaller. If he had made it larger it would have included more private houses and made a smaller average. He made no complaints against the house. If it did a trade of 3½ barrels he should be surprised and modify his opinion.

Mr. Ralph, examined by Mr. Avery, deposed that he averaged 3½ barrels of beer per week, and paid his way. He occasionally worked as a bricklayer, but relied on the trade of the house.

Mr. John Jones gave evidence in favour of the house, and said he had known it ever since it was opened, and it would be an inconvenience to the inhabitants of Tontine Street to lose the house, which was largely used for supper beer.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 11-3-1905

Adjourned Licensing Sessions

Monday, March 6^th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Lieut. Colonel Hamilton, Lieut. Colonel Fynmore, W.C. Carpenter, C.J. Pursey, and W.G. Herbert Esqs.

Six licences were objected to by the Chief Constable, acting under the instructions of the licensing authority. These were: The Victoria Inn, South Street, tenant Mr. Alfred Skinner; Mr. Minter representing the brewers, Messrs. Mackeson and Co.

The Cinque Ports Arms, tenant Samuel Robert Webster; Mr. W.R. Mowll for the brewers, Messrs. Leney and Co.

The Duke of Edinburgh, Mr. Ralph tenant; The Perseverance, tenant Robert Henry Tracey, and The Providence. The brewers, Messrs. Flint and Co., were in these three cases represented by Mr. Horace Avory, K.C., instructed by Messrs. Nicholson and Graham.

The Star, Radnor Street; In this, the last of the six houses objected to, Mr. Haines appeared for the brewers and the tenant.

In all six cases both brewers and tenants objected to their licences being taken away simply on the grounds of redundancy.

Mr. Avory`s objections were practically the same as those which has been urged throughout the Kentish district, and were on all fours with the advocates` objections who represented the other houses.

Chief Constable Reeve did not in any single case object on the ground of misconduct on the part of the licensee, but purely on the grounds of redundancy.

Mr. Avory K.C. submitted that the congested area in which the six licences objected to was an unfair one. If the boundary on the map were extended a mile, then it would be found that the houses were spread over and serving a large population. It was not a suffcicient ground to take away a man`s licence on the grounds of redundancy without comparing the threatened house with other houses. He seriously submitted that it was worthy of the Magistrates` consideration as to whether any practical result could follow a reference to Quarter Sessions of these cases. So many licences in Kent had already been referred to Quarter Sessions that he doubted whether sufficient funds would be available for compensation purposes. The result would be a deadlock when these cases came to be considered; the Quarter Sessions would either be obliged to hold their hands, or there would be a gross injustice by the reduction of compensation below the proper amount.

After a long hearing the whole of the six licences were sent back to Quarter Sessions for reference.

Folkestone Express 11-3-1905

Adjourned Licensing Sessions

Monday, March 6^th: Before E.T. Ward Esq., Lieut. Col. Fynmore, Lieut. Col. Hamilton, W.G. Herbert, W.C. Carpenter, and C.J. Pursey Esqs.

The licence of the Duke of Edinburgh was then considered. Mr. H. Avory K.C., instructed by Messrs. Nicholson and Graham, appeared for Messrs. Flint and Co., the owners of the house.

The Chief Constable said he first of all put in a map showing the congested area. The whole of the “on” licensed premises were marked in red. The area he had marked was from the bottom of the steps leading to The Bayle, across the top of High Street, Rendezvous Street, Grace Hill, Dover Road, along Radnor Bridge Road, to the sea. Within that area there were 916 houses for a population approximately of 4,580. That included 46 “on” licensed houses, giving a proportion of one “on” licence to about every 313 inhabitants. There were also within the area six “off” licence holders. He should also like to point out that within the borough during the past year they had 171 charges of drunkenness. He had found that 94 of those charges arose within that particular area.

The Chief Constable said the Duke of Edinburgh was an ante 1869 beer “on”, and was situate in Tontine Street. He put in the same figures of the number of houses, etc., in the area marked on the map. The licensee, Mr. Frederick Ralph, obtained the transfer on April 22^nd, 1891. The registered owners were Messrs. Flint and Co., Ltd., Canterbury. The rateable value was £24.The house adjoined the Clarendon Hotel, which was a fully licensed house. Within a radius of 100 yards there were 17 other “on” licensed houses, within 150 yards there were 33, and within 200 yards there were 39. The accommodation provided for the public was very small, consisting of two small compartments or bars in the front, and also a small room at times used at the back of the bar. The urinal provided for the customers opened directly out of the small left hand side of the bar. In February of last year an order for structural alterations was made by the licensing justices with regard to the urinal, and also to stop up a back entrance which led from the house into Dover Street. It appeared to him there was very little trade at the house. The present licensee was a bricklayer, and worked at his trade, but at present was out of employment. In his opinion the house was quite unnecessary for the requirements of the neighbourhood.

Cross-examined, the Chief Constable said he drew the area shown on the map on his own responsibility. He thought it was a natural boundary and would be a fair average. There was no complaint against the tenant. The order of last year in regard to certain alterations was duly carried out. He should not think that there was quite so much as three and a half barrels sold in the house in a week. For a smaller house that amount would be a fair trade.

Det. Sergt. Burniston said there were very few customers at the house, and the majority of those who did use it were women who walked the streets. For the past several months he had visited the house almost every day and found it almost empty. The licensee was a bricklayer, and worked when he had an opportunity.

Cross-examined, witness said Mr. Ralph had told him that if he did not go to work he could not pay the brewers.

Mr. Avory said he proposed to call Mr. Ralph. Messrs. Flint and Co. were concerned in three cases, so he proposed to make only one speech.

Mr. Ralph went into the box. He said he had been the tenant of the house for 14 years. He had always paid his way in the house. He did on average three and a quarter barrels a week. He only worked occasionally at his trade, and he depended upon the beer-house for his living. His wife had been to the residents in Tontine Street, and 36 of them had signed a petition (produced) in favour of the licence being continued.

In answer to the Chief Constable, Mr. Ralph said the class of people using his house were fishing people generally. He sometimes sold more than three and a half barrels in the summer. People wanted the house when there were only 10,000 people in Folkestone, and now there were more people they wanted to take the licence away. He thought the house was absolutely necessary for the requirements of the neighbourhood.

Mr. J. Jones said he was a member of the Borough Council and the Watch Committee. The Watch Committee had given no sanction to the police to oppose that licence because it had never been brought before them. He had known the house for many years, and it had always been well-conducted. In his opinion the house was doing a legitimate and fair trade, and was a great convenience to the street. He should like to see more of that kind of house in Folkestone.

The Chairman said the Magistrates thought they were bound to refer the case to the Quarter Sessions.

Folkestone Herald 11-3-1905

Adjourned Licensing Sessions

Monday, March 6^th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Alderman W.G. Herbert, Councillor Fynmore, Lieut. Colonel Hamilton, Mr. W.C. Carpenter, and Mr. C.J. Pursey.

It will be remembered that at the February Sessions the Bench instructed the Chief Constable (Mr. H. Reeve) to oppose the renewal of six licences on the grounds that they were not required for the districts in which they were situated.

The next house which was brought before the Court was the Duke of Edinburgh, of which Mr. Frederick Ralph is the landlord. Mr. Horace Avory, K.C., appeared for the owners of the house.

The Chief Constable put in a large plan showing the congested area, the map being on a scale of 1 inch in 500, and the public houses being marked in red. Taking the area from the Bayle Steps, South Street, High Street, Rendezvous Street, Dover Road to the Raglan Hotel, and thence to the sea, there were 916 houses, with a population, approximately, of 4,580. That included 46 on-licensed houses, which meant one on-licensed house to nearly every 100 inhabitants, though for the borough at large there was one house for every 131 inhabitants. There were six off-licence holders in the area under notice. Chief Constable Reeve said that this house was an ante 1869 beer on-licence, and was situated in Tontine Street. The holder obtained the transfer of the licence in April, 1891. The registered owners were Messrs. Flint and Co., of Canterbury, and the rateable value was £24. The house adjoined the Clarendon Hotel, which was a fully-licensed house. Within a radius of 100 yards there were 15 licensed houses, within 150 yards there were 33 houses, and within 200 yards there were 39 houses. The public accommodation was very small, and consisted of two compartments in the front, and a small room, used sometimes, at the back of the house. In February of last year an order for structural alterations was made as to the urinals, and also to stop up a back entrance. The present licensee was a bricklayer, and very often worked at his trade. In his opinion the licence was quite unnecessary for the requirements of the neighbourhood. Very little trade was done.

Cross-examined by Mr. Avory: Witness himself had settled upon the area, and prepared the statistics submitted to the Bench. There was no opposition to the house other than it was unnecessary, nor had there been any complaint against the tenant since he had been in occupation. The class of customers served at the Clarendon Hotel, next door, was quite different to that of the Duke of Edinburgh`s customers. If 3½ barrels per week were sold at the house in question that would be a fair trade. There was no other beerhouse going north in the street.

Detective Sergeant Burniston asserted that very few customers used the house, and the majority of those who used it were women hawking flowers. There were not very often many people in the house in the evening, and in the daytime he had seen it empty. Mr. Ralph had told him that if he didn`t go to work he could not pay the brewer.

Mr. Avory: Yet he is out of work, and does pay the brewer. (Laughter)

Mr. Ralph, the tenant of the house, said that for 14 years he had held the licence under the same brewers, and had always paid his way. On average he did about 3½ barrels of trade per week. He had brought up a family in the house, and had seven children still living. He was a bricklayer, but worked very little at his trade. He depended upon the beerhouse for a living. Thirty six residents in Tontine Street had signed a petition (produced) in favour of the licence being continued. The petition prayed for the reconsideration by the Bench of the licence of the house, and bore testimony to the good conduct of the house. One of the petitioners was a member of the Borough Council.

Cross-examined by the Chief Constable: Witness had not gone out to work during the greater part of the time he had occupied the house. The people who frequented the house were mostly fishermen. Witness could not give the names of the Tontine Street people who patronised his establishment. He did not consider that there were sufficient houses in Tontine Street for the accommodation of the public.

Councillor Jones, who was next called, described himself as a fruiterer, greengrocer, and a man of several occupations, and said that he was well-known in the town. (Laughter) He was a member of the Watch Committee, and the question of opposing licensed houses had not been brought before the Committee. He had known the house ever since it had been opened, and it had always been well-conducted. He used the house very frequently years ago, and his girl and boy very often went there for the supper beer, which was very good beer. The house was very handy, and was of much convenience to the public.

Cross-examined by the Chief Constable:  He had not sampled the beer himself; he only knew that his people made no complaint against it. He would like to see a great many of that kind in the neighbourhood, and he should think that two or three of that kind were necessary. He was a teetotaller – and all the Bench knew it – from physical incapacity to drink it.

Mr. Avory postponed his address until other cases with which he was connected had been dealt with.

The Bench decided to refer the case to Quarter Sessions. 

Southeastern Gazette 14-3-1905

The adjourned licensing sessions for Folkestone were held on Monday, before E.T. Ward Esq. (in the chair).

Mr. Minter applied for the renewal of the Victoria Inn, South Street, on behalf of the owners, Messrs. Mackeson and Co., Ltd. The police objected on the grounds that the house was excessive. In that district there was one “on” licensed house to every 100 inhabitants. The Bench unanimously decided to refer the house to the Quarter Sessions, granting the tenant a provisional license in the meantime.

Mr. Mowll next applied on behalf of the owners, Messrs. Leney and Co., for the renewal of the Cinque Port Arms, held by Samuel Robert Webster. After hearing the evidence, the Bench came to a similar decision.

They also referred the following licenses to Quarter Sessions:—The Duke of Edinburgh, Messrs. Flint and Co., owners; the Providence Inn., Henry Green, licensee; the Perseverance Inn, Robert Henry Tracey, licensee; and the Star, held by Ticknor Else.

 

Folkestone Daily News 11-5-1905

Local News

We learn that the Compensation Committee at Canterbury appointed by the Quarter Sessions only intend to deal with 11 cases out of the 15 that were sent to them. There were six from Folkestone, five from Hythe, and four from Elham.

The six from Folkestone were The Providence, The Perseverance, The Cinque Ports, The Victoria, The Edinburgh Castle (sic), The Star.

The Committee have decided that there is no need to interfere with the Providence. The objection to that has been thrown without asking for further evidence. The other five will be dealt with shortly.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 13-5-1905

East Kent Licensing Authority

Lord Harris presided at the preliminary meeting of the East Kent Licensing Authority, held at the Sessions House, Canterbury, on Friday, when cases from Ramsgate, Folkestone, Hythe, and Elham were reported.

It was decided that the principal meeting to be held pursuant to the Licensing Rules, 1904, by the Compensation Authority for the East Kent Area should be fixed to take place at the Sessions House, Longport, Canterbury, on the 26^th May, at 10.15 a.m. At that meeting the Authority will be prepared to hear, with reference to the renewal of the licences of the following premises, all those persons to whom, under the Licensing Act, 1904, they are bound to give an opportunity of being heard: Victoria Inn, South Street, Folkestone; Star Inn, Radnor Street, Folkestone; Cinque Ports Arms, Seagate Street, Folkestone; Duke of Edinburgh, Tontine Street, Folkestone; Perseverance, Dover Street, Folkestone; Rose and Crown, High Street, Hythe; Old Portland, Market Square, Hythe; Walmer Castle, Adelaide Gardens, Ramsgate; Kent Inn, Camden Road, Ramsgate; Bricklayers Arms, King Street, Ramsgate; and Albert Inn, High Street, Ramsgate.

Folkestone Daily News 26-5-1905

East Kent Licensing Authority

At the Canterbury Quarter Sessions this morning, before Judge Selfe and the licensing Magistrates, the cases of renewing the licences of the Duke of Edinburgh in Tontine Street, the Victoria in South Street, the Star in Radnor Street, the Perseverance in Dover Street, and the Cinque Ports in Seagate Street came up for hearing.

Mr. Pitman, instructed by Mr. Bradley, appeared for the Folkestone Justices; Mr. Hohler appeared for the Star; Mr. Bodkin for Messrs. Flint and Sons and Messrs. Mackeson; Mr. G.W. Haines for the tenant of the Perseverance; and Mr. Mowll for the Cinque Ports.

Mr. Bodkin raised a point of law as to whether the justices had investigated the matter before remitting it to Quarter Sessions.

Sir L. Selfe, however, decided against him, and the cases were proceeded with on their merits.

Mr. H. Reeve, the Chief Constable, recapitulated his evidence given before the Folkestone Justices. He was severely cross-examined by Mr. Bodkin and Mr. Hohler, but they failed to shake his evidence.

Mr. Tiddy and Mr. Jones, of Tontine Street, gave evidence in favour of the Duke of Edinburgh.

The Magistrates retired to consider the matter, and on their return into court Sir W.L. Selfe announced that they had come to the decision to do away with the licences of the Star, the Victoria, the Cinque Ports, and the Duke of Edinburgh.

These houses will be closed as soon as the question of compensation is settled.

The Perseverance, in Dover Street, was not interfered with at present.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 27-5-1905

East Kent Licensing Authority

The principal meeting of the Compensation Authority for East Kent was held at the Sessions House, Canterbury, on Friday, before Judge Sir W.L. Selfe.

The Folkestone licensed houses under consideration were: Victoria Inn, South Street, licensee Alfred Skinner; Star and Garter (sic), Radnor Street, licensee Henry T.T. Else; Cinque Ports Arms, Seagate Street, licensee Samuel R. Webster; Duke of Edinburgh, Tontine Street, licensee Frederic Ralph; and the Perseverance, Dover Street, licensee Robert H. Tracy.

Mr. Bodkin and Mr. Hohler appeared for the brewers, Mr. Pittman for the Justices of Folkestone, Mr. Haines and Mr. Rutley Mowll for the tenants.

Mr. Pittman having opened the case for the Justices of Folkestone, formal evidence as to the trade done by the various houses and their general character was given by Chief Constable H. Reeve and Detective Sergt. Burniston.

Mr. Bodkin said there was nothing against the five houses except the statement of two police officers that the trade done in two of them was small. The Victoria had been held by Mr. Skinner for about six years, and was used for a particular class of trade. It is used by sailors, fishermen, and railway men. It had a good steady trade, which had been fairly maintained for the last few years.

As to the Perseverance, Mr. Tracy went in last November and paid £180 for it. He had done a fairly good trade, and if now the licence would be taken away the compensation would be very small, and although he had conducted it with perfect respectability, he would be fined the difference between £180 and the small quantum of compensation that the Committee could award. He would ask on what possible basis the Justices selected the house, when close by was the Welcome, against which a conviction was obtained this year and one last year?

As to the Duke of Edinburgh, where the tenant, Mr. Ralph, had been 14 years, and had maintained himself and was satisfied, although it was next door to a fully-licensed house, it attracted a different class of trade, and was of use to the locality.

Mr. G.L. Mackeson, Managing Director of Mackeson Limited, and Alfred Skinner, the tenant, gave evidence as to the Victoria,

Eventually a licence was granted in the case of the Perseverance, but refused in all the other Folkestone cases.

Folkestone Herald 27-5-1905

East Kent Licensing Authority

Yesterday the Special Committee of Licensing Justices of East Kent, to whom the local authorities had referred the licences of five Folkestone houses, under the licensing Act of 1904, sat at the Canterbury Sessions Hall, and considered the reports which had been presented to them, as well as the reasons advanced in favour and against the renewal of the respective licences. Sir William Lucius Selfe was the Chairman of the Committee.

The houses in question were the Victoria, South Street, the Perseverance Inn, Dover Street, the Star Inn, Radnor Street, the Duke of Edinburgh, Tontine Street, and the Cinque Port Arms, Seagate Street.

 

Mr. Pitkin, barrister, appeared for the Licensing Justices, Mr. H.C. Bodkin, barrister, for the owners of the Victoria, the Perseverance, and the Duke of Edinburgh (Messrs. Flint and Co.), Mr. Hohler was for the owners of the Star (Messrs. Ash and Co.), Mr. G.W. Haines represented the tenant of the Perseverance, and Mr. Rutley Mowll (Dover) appeared for the owners of the Cinque Ports Arms (Messrs. Leney and Co.).

Mr. Pitkin said that at the annual licensing meeting this year the Chief Constable gave notice that he intended to oppose the renewal of the five licences named, and one other, that of the Providence. The notices were served on the people who required notices under the Act, and at the adjourned meeting the Chief Constable and his Detective Sergeant gave evidence, while evidence was also called on behalf of the licensees of the houses. At that meeting it was proved that in the area which the Chief Constable had marked out on the map, namely, from South Street, up High Street, down Grace Hill, to the railway arches, and across to the sae, there were in all 916 houses to a population of 4,580. Of these 46 were on-licensed and 6 were off- licensed. That was one licence to rather more than every hundred of the population, and if that was so there could be no doubt that that was a case in which some reduction was necessary. The renewal authority were unanimous in referring the whole of the five licences under discussion. At the preliminary meeting it was decided that the case of the Providence should not be proceeded with. The Chief Constable would tell them that in selecting those five houses he was guided by the fact that the houses were those which were doing the least trade, and that he had selected in each case one out of a cluster of houses, and that which appeared to be the worst of each cluster.

Mr. Harry Reeve, the Chief Constable, repeated the figures as to population, etc. He said in the whole borough there was one on-licence to every 313 people. During the year 1904 there were 171 cases of drunkenness in the borough, and 94 of those arose within the specified area. The Victoria was in South Street, which was merely a paved passageway from the High Street to the Lower Sandgate Road. The owners were Messrs. Mackeson, of Hythe, and the present holder of the licence was Mr. Alfred Skinner. The rateable value was £24. In South Street there were two houses on one side, and on the other three were adjoining. The accommodation in the Victoria Inn for the public was described by witness, and also that of the landlord. Within a radius of 100 yards of the Victoria there were 18 other on-licensed houses, and within 200 yards there were 34. Witness considered that the landlord did very little trade. There had been four tenants since April, 1894, though the present tenant had been in the house since the 2^nd August, 1899. In selecting that house he had been guided by the principles that it was the house in the vicinity doing the least trade, and was the least suitable for a public house. Dealing with the Perseverance, in Dover Street, witness said that that was an ante 1869 beerhouse, and the registered owners were Messrs. Flint and Co., of Canterbury. The present holder of the licence was Robt. Tracey, who obtained it in December, 1904. In eight years there had been five tenants. The rateable value was £27 per annum. Within a radius of 100 yards there were 17 on-licensed houses, within 150 yards there 29 houses, and within 200 yards there were 39 houses. There seemed to him to be very little trade done at the house. He was past he house a few evenings ago, and saw one of the bars in total darkness, so that it did not appear that they were doing much trade. As to the Duke of Edinburgh in Tontine Street, the owners of which were Messrs. Flint and Co., that was an ante 1869 beer on-licence. The present licensee had been there since 1891. The rateable value of the house was £24. It was a very small establishment. There were 17 other on-licensed houses within 100 yards, 33 within 150, and 39 within 200 yards. Very little business was done at the house, and the holder of the licence went out working a great deal of his time. The Star Inn was in Radnor Street, and there were 63 houses in the street, of which seven were fully licensed houses. The registered owners were Messrs. Ash, and the present tenant was Mr. Else, who had held it since May of last year, being the seventh tenant since 1881. The rateable value was £20. Witness considered that the trade at the Star Inn was very little, the chief business being that of letting lodgings to those of the tramping class. Within one hundred yards there were four other licensed houses, within 150 yards there were eight, and within 200 yards there were 15 other on-licensed houses. With regard to the Cinque Ports Arms, it was one of a block of three licensed houses in Seagate Street. The owners were Messrs. Leney and Co., of Dover, and the tenant was Samuel Webster, who had held it since August, 1901. The rateable value was £24. Seagate Street was 43 yards long, and on one side of the street was a dead wall, and on the other there were four houses, the first of which was a boot shop. Then came the Cinque Ports house, with a stable, the Chequers public house, and the South Foreland. Within a radius of 100 yards there were 21 houses, within 150 yards there were 32 houses, and within 200 yards there were 39 houses, all of which were on-licensed. The tenant was a basket maker, and very often worked at his trade. Very little trade was done at that house.

Cross-examined by Mr. Bodkin: It was from the whole of the Licensing Justices that he received instructions. With regard to the Victoria Inn, South Street, he had no definite knowledge of the state of trade, his opinion being gathered from what he saw as he went by. The licensee had been in occupation for six years, and while the population might not have altered in eight years, the population generally of the borough had increased very considerably. In 1881 there were 18,000, in 1891, 24,000, until last year it was 31,200. It had not increased much of late years, though it had not gone back much. As to the Perseverance, the tenant went in last year, having paid about £180 to go in. He could not say for certain what the trade was, and he had no complaint at all as to the conduct of the premises. No objection had been given to the renewal of the Welcome. He would not consider that the Welcome, during the past few months, was a well-conducted house, and there had been two convictions against it in twelve months, though the tenants in each case were different people. The last conviction was since the last Licensing day. The present landlord of the Perseverance was a very respectable man. There was no complaint against the landlord of the Duke of Edinburgh. The Victoria had been repaired during the last few months, and he believed it was in an excellent state of repair.

Cross-examined by Mr. Haines: The last tenant of the Perseverance was a Mr. Morgan. He had been there for three years, and the previous tenant to that was a Mr. Riddalls, who had been there four years, as had a tenant before him. In the season the population greatly increased in Folkestone.

Cross-examined by Mr. Hohler: The Star Inn was well-conducted, and he had no complaint against it. He could not say that any of the 171 cases were traced to the Star Inn, for, unfortunately, he could not often trace the origin of the cases of drunkenness.

Cross-examined by Mr. Mowll: In 1903 the Magistrates called for plans of the Cinque Ports Arms, and no order was made. The tenant had conducted the house properly.

Re-examined by Mr. Pitkin: Witness had based his opinion that the trade was small at the five houses from his observations. The statistics as to the growth of the town applied to houses outside the congested area. Before the Justices a petition was presented in favour of the renewal of the licence of the Duke of Edinburgh.

Detective Sergeant Burniston said that he had known the Victoria Inn for ten years, and also the other houses, which he had had to visit occasionally when making enquiries. Very few people used the houses. He had served Skinner with the notice of objection, and he had said “I wish I could leave this house tomorrow”. He said that on account of the trade being so bad. The Duke of Edinburgh did a very small trade, the majority of the customers being hawkers. He had visited the houses many times during the day, and had usually found the bars empty. Many times the landlord`s wife had said that she did not make enough money to pay the brewer his rent. Witness knew the Perseverance, and there a very small trade was done, the customers being principally fishermen. Tracey, the tenant, when he received the notice of objection, said that he wished he had not speculated his money in the house, and on a later date he said that he did not take sufficient money to pay the rent. As to the Star, that did a very small trade, the landlord depending chiefly on the lodgers he had. Very few people in the street used the house. The landlord often spoke to witness, and had remarked that he was sorry he had taken the house. As to the Cinque Ports, that also did a very small trade, about one barrel a week. Very few residents used the place. From what he had seen, he would think that it was almost impossible for the landlords to get a living. The houses were not necessary for the needs of the neighbourhood.

Cross-examined by Mr. Haines: The tenant Tracey made his statement after he had been served with a notice.

Cross-examined by Mr. Hohler: The Star was a quiet house, though badly constructed.

Mr. Bodkin submitted that there was under that particular provision of the Act upon which the Committee sat, precisely the same powers as under the old conditions of appeal to Quarter Sessions. He would submit that there must be as careful and as exhaustive an enquiry in reference to the issue to each house as there ever had been under the Licensing Act of 1838. The chief case upon which one must rely in interpreting the duties of the Quarter Sessions was the well-known Farnham case, and in that case a statement was made by the Master of the Rolls, which really gave the key to the whole of the decisions. The Justices in that case formed themselves into a Committee, or appointed a Committee, and after an exhaustive enquiry, made personally by themselves, they declined to select from the houses generally within their area any particular houses which they might oppose prima facie before going round and making an inspection, and so finding out what they considered to be absolutely unnecessary for the requirements of the locality. What they did was decided as being the only possible and fair way of dealing with the question. Instead of giving notice of objection to individual cases selected out of Court, if he might so express it, they gave notice of objection to every single house in their area. What the Master of the Rolls said was “They (the Justices) were of opinion that the only fair and satisfactory way of dealing with the question was to cause objections to be served on all the owners of licensed houses, so that the cases of all of them might be formally inquired into, and for that purpose authority was given to the Justices` Clerk to object to such renewals on the general ground that the houses were not required, and also on the special grounds set out in that notice. That course gave everyone concerned their opportunity, and the Justices had the opportunity of weighing the merits and acting judicially in the matter of which public houses should remain and which licences should be taken. That is one course that might be taken, and it seems to me the reasonable and proper course”. That procedure had not been adopted in that case. It was very far from it. The procedure in this instance apparently had been to adopt the view of a particular official, the Chief Constable, and to instruct him to serve notices of objection solely on the houses which he had selected without giving any opportunity to the occupiers of such houses to show, by way of comparison of trade, accommodation, situation, the state of repair, and matters of that kind, how discrimination by the Justices should be made, and which should be referred to Quarter Sessions. In doing so, he submitted the Folkestone Justices had not followed the proper and legal course. They might have given just as easily instructions to the Chief Constable to serve notice on all houses in that selected area. How was a Quarter Sessions, sitting 50 or 100 miles away from a town, to distinguish between those and other houses in a selected area? A great many of the compensation authority would be absolutely ignorant of the locus in quo. Before any legal decision could be given in reference to any one property, in accordance with the procedure conducted by the Folkestone Justices, it was essential that there should be an enquiry into the needs of the neighbourhood. The case of Howard and King in Parliament was followed by the Raven and Southampton case, in which it was contended that the procedure adopted in the Farnham case was a reasonable one so that the course adopted by the Folkestone Justices was not equivalent.

The Chairman said that he would advise the Committee that the action of the Committee was sanctioned by an action in the King`s Bench Division. For the purposes of that day they would not act under the decision of the King v Tolhurst. If the King`s Bench had considered that the hearing in the Tolhurst case carried the case any further than the Raven case, they would no doubt have followed the decision in the Raven case.

Mr. Hohler said that he had acted for the Justices in that case, and they said that they had not only acted on the police evidence, but they had also acted upon their own local knowledge. The Lord Chief Justice, in his judgement, had referred to that.

The Chairman said the Tolhurst case had decided that the evidence must be sufficient to justify the Magistrates referring the matter to that Court.

Mr. Bodkin asked the Committee to state a case on that decision.

The Chairman: No, certainly not.

Mr. Bodkin said that he had no authority to say so, but he had every reason to believe that that decision was to be appealed against.

The Chairman replied that the Committee could not stay their hands on the possibility of an appeal to the Court of Appeal.

Mr. Bodkin then addressed the Committee on behalf of his clients, and he then called his evidences.

The Duke of Edinburgh

Mr. Frederick Ralph, the landlord, said that he had been the tenant since 5^th March, 1891, and lived there with his wife and children. By trade he was a bricklayer, and since he had been in occupation he had had to work occasionally at his trade. He had had 15 children, of whom 7 had died. He did not work continuously at his trade. Witness and his wife looked after the business. The actual trade was about 3 or 3½ barrels a week, and he paid 34s. per barrel. He made a profit upon that from which he could live. He was quite willing to remain in the house. Thirty or forty residents in Tontine Street had petitioned the Justices, asking that the licence should be renewed. Witness had a jug trade at his house from the residents in Tontine Street and thereabout. Fishermen, tradesmen, and labourers came into his house, and sometimes women came in, for he supposed they liked beer as well as anybody else. There was not more trade done at the house next door to him (the Clarendon). They were soldiers, and girls, and tradesmen; respectable people. Sometimes soldiers came to his house.

Cross-examined by Mr. Pitkin: Witness denied that he told the Detective Sergeant that he did not do much trade.

Councillor J. Jones said that people sent to that house mostly for supper beer. Old-established people always liked Flint`s beer in Folkestone. One could always send a boy or a girl there, for there was not much chance of their being interfered with, the house being a quiet one. He should have thought that the house did as fair a trade as any house of its class in England. He would be sorry to see that house taken away from the street, and he thought that it was the last house that should be interfered with.

Mr. Horace Offen, a baker and confectioner, of Dover Road, stated that he had used the Duke of Edinburgh nearly every day for the last seven or eight years. The middle class of people used the house. They were working people, and he did not know of any people in Tontine Street who visited it. He had always found people in the house.

Mr. Wm. Tiddy, photographer, of 60, Tontine Street, said he had gone in the house sometimes in the evening, and had always found it very quiet indeed. It was used by the mechanic class.

After retiring to consider their verdict, the Committee, through their Chairman, announced their decision. Sir William Selfe said that in the course of Mr. Bodkin`s arguments on the question of law, it had been said that the procedure of the Justices below in referring the licences for the consideration of that Court was not in accordance with the law. He (the Chairman) expressed the opinion that it was. The Committee had considered each case separately, without regard to any of the other cases that had been heard, and they had decided to refuse the renewal of all the licences except that of the Perseverance, which they would renew.

Southeastern Gazette 30-5-1905

East Kent Licensing Committee

The principal meeting of the East Kent Licensing Committee was held at the Sessions House, Canterbury, on Friday and Saturday. At the first day’s sitting, Judge Sir W. L. Selfe presided.

There were five applications from Folkestone, viz., in respect of the Victoria, the Perseverance, the Duke of Edinburgh, the Star, and the Cinque Port Arms. The licensees were represented by Mr. Bodkin, K.C., Mr. Hohler, Mr. Rutley Mowll and Mr. Haines, while Mr. Pitman appeared for the justices of Folkestone, and Detective Sergt. Bumiston having given evidence, Mr. Bodkin contended that the fact that compensation was now to be given did not affect the question, as to whether a license should be renewed or not, and the onus upon those who came there to prove that a license should be refused on the ground that it was not required was just as great as if they were acting last year instead of in the present year, and he thought it was necessary to bear this in mind because one heard in various quarters views expressed that now compensation was payable, these licensing cases might be got through in as short, and, if he might say so, as perfunctory a way as possible, without any enquiry of any sort, or careful attention given to the interests involved. Mr. Bodkin further argued that the primary duty of the Licensing Justices was that laid down in the Farnham case, viz., that they should personally select the houses which they deemed were not required, instead of leaving such selection to the discretion of the Chief Constable.

All the licenses were refused, with the exception of that of the Perseverance.

 

Folkestone Express 3-6-1905

East Kent Licensing

The Special Committee of Licensing Justices of East Kent considered on Friday, at the Canterbury Sessions Hall, five Folkestone licences which had been referred to them under the Licensing Act of 1904. The Chairman was Sir William Lucius Selfe. Mr. Pitman, barrister, appeared for the licensing justices, and Mr. H.C. Bodkin, barrister, for the owners of the Victoria (Messrs. Mackeson and Co.), the Perseverance and the Duke of Edinburgh (Messrs. Flint and Co.); Mr. Hohler for the owners of the Star (Messrs. Ash and Co.); Mr. G.W. Haines for the tenant of the Perseverance, and Mr. R. Mowll (Dover) for the owners of the Cinque Ports Arms (Messrs. Leney and Co.).

Mr. Pitman said that in 1903 the licensing justices announced their intention of exercising the power which they then had of reducing the number of licensed houses in the area of Folkestone, and especially in the neighbourhood of the Harbour district. In the beginning of 1904, in the King`s Speech, there was mentioned a prospect of the present Licensing Act coming into force, and the justices determined therefore to hold their hand, and nothing was done in 1904. At the annual meeting that year, the Chief Constable gave notice that he intended to oppose the renewal of the five licensed houses which had been mentioned, and one other, the Providence. At the adjourned meeting the Chief Constable and the detective who assisted him in the enquiries made gave evidence, in which they stated that the area which the Chief Constable had marked off was a congested area, there being 915 houses for a population of 4,580. There were 46 on-licensed houses and 6 off-licensed houses, so there was rather more than one licence to every 100 of the population. He did not think that there could be any doubt that in such circumstances some reduction was necessary. The renewal authority recommended that the renewal of the six houses mentioned should be considered, but at a preliminary meeting it was decided that the Providence should not be proceeded against. He might mention that the Chief Constable, in selecting those houses for his opposition, was guided by the fact that they were the houses doing the least trade, and that he had selected in each case one out of a cluster of houses, and that which appeared the worst of each cluster.

Mr. H. Reeve, the Chief Constable, was the first witness, and he repeated his evidence given before the local licensing justices. In cross-examination by Mr. Bodkin, he said he received his instructions with regard to the houses from the whole of the Licensing Justices. With regard to the Victoria Inn, South Street, he had no definite knowledge of the state of trade, his opinion being gathered by what he saw as he went by. The licensee had been in occupation for six years, and while the population might not have altered in eight years, the population of the borough had increased very considerably. In 1881 there were 18,000, in 1891, 24,000, until in 1901 it was 31,200. It had not increased much of late years, though it had not gone back much. As to the Perseverance, the tenant went in last year, having paid about £180 to go in. He could not say for certain what the trade was, and he had no complaint as to the conduct of the premises. No objection had been given to the renewal of the Welcome. He would not consider the Welcome, during the past few months, was a well-conducted house, and there had been two convictions against it in twelve months, though the tenants in each case were different people. The last conviction was since the licensing day. The present landlord of the Perseverance was a very respectable man. There was no complaint against the landlord of the Duke of Edinburgh. The Victoria had been repaired during the last few months, and he believed it was in an excellent state of repair.

In answer to Mr. Hohler, he said he had no complaint to make against the Star, which was well-conducted. He could not say that any of the 171 cases of drunkenness were traced to the Star Inn. Unfortunately they could not very often trace the origin of the cases of drunkenness.

Det. Sergt. Burniston also gave similar evidence to that given before the licensing justices.

Mr. Bodkin said he submitted under that particular jurisdiction precisely the same duty fell upon that tribunal as was upon the Court of Quarter Sessions in deciding whether or not the licences should be renewed. He submitted there must be as careful and as exhaustive an enquiry as to each house as there had been under the Licensing Act of 1868. Therefore it was necessary to say what the law was with regard to those cases, and whether there had been any difference of distinction made between the procedure under that Act to what there was under the earlier legislation. The chief case upon which one must rely as interpreting the duties of the Quarter Sessions was the well-known Farnham case. In that case there was a statement made by the Master of the Rolls which really gave the key to the whole position. The justices in that case formed themselves into a committee, or rather appointed a committee, and after an exhaustive enquiry made personally by themselves, they declined to select from the houses generally within their area any particular house which they might oppose prima facie before going round on their tour of inspection and trying to find out what was unnecessary for the requirements of the locality. What they did was described as the only possible and fair way of dealing with the question, which was just as difficult as it ever had been. Instead of giving a notice of objection to individual houses selected out of court, they gave notice of objection to every single house in the division. The Master of the Rolls then said that the justices were of the opinion that the only fair and satisfactory way of dealing with the question was to cause objections to be served on all the owners of licensed houses, so that the cases of all might be formally inquired into. That course gave the justices an opportunity of weighing the merits and acting judicially in the matter of which public houses should remain and which licences should be taken. That was the one course which might be taken, and it was a most authoritative statement. It was the statement which was made, and it seemed to him (the Master of the Rolls) the reasonable and proper course. That was a procedure which was described as a fair, reasonable, and satisfactory procedure. It was not adopted in that case; far from it. The procedure apparently had been to adopt the view of the Chief Constable, and to instruct him to serve notice of objection solely on houses which he had selected without giving any opportunity to the occupiers of such houses to show by way of comparison of their trade, accommodation, situation, state of repair, or matters of that kind, how discrimination should be made by the justices as to the houses to be retained and which ought to be referred to the Quarter Sessions. In not doing so, he submitted that the Folkestone Justices had not followed the proper legal course. They might have given just as easily instructions to the Chief Constable to serve notices on all the houses in the selected area. How was a Quarter Sessions sitting 20 or 100 miles away from a town to differentiate between those and other houses in a selected area? Before any decision was come to, it was essential that there should be an enquiry into the needs of the neighbourhood and the pros and cons of the other houses by the justices below.

The Chairman: I should certainly say that the course had been sanctioned by the King`s Bench Division in the case The King v Tolhurst.

After further argument by Mr. Bodkin, the Chairman said it was suggested that the course in the Farnham way was a proper way, but not the only way. He ruled Mr. Bodkin`s contention out, so far as he was concerned. The justices below had made a prima facie case out against the houses, and it was for them to answer the case.

Mr. Bodkin asked if the Committee would state a case upon that point.

The Chairman said they could not stay their hands on the possibility of an appeal.

Mr. Bodkin then addressed the Committee on behalf of the Perseverance, the Victoria, and the Duke of Edinburgh.

The Duke of Edinburgh

Frederick Ralph, the landlord of the Duke of Edinburgh, said he had been the tenant at the house since March 5^th, 1891. He lived there with his wife and children, and paid £16 a year for rent. The house was rated at £25. He was a bricklayer by trade. Since he had been in the house he had to work at times because he had a large family. He had worked a few months in the summer, and a few months in the winter. His trade was from three to three and a half barrels per week. He paid 34s. per barrel for beer. He was satisfied with the trade, and was willing to remain in the house. His wife had got out a petition in favour of the licence being retained, which was signed by some thirty or forty residents in Tontine Street. Fishermen and tradesmen used his house. He had never had the least complaint made against him. The next door house did no more trade than he did.

Mr. J. Jones gave evidence in support of the licence being retained. He said he would be sorry to see it taken away.

Horace Offen and William Tiddy were also called on behalf of the owners.

The Committee retired, and on their return the Chairman said he still held that the procedure of the justices below was in accordance with the law. The Committee had considered each case separately without regard to any of the other cases which had been heard, and they decided to refuse the renewal of the licences except that of the Perseverance, which they would renew.

Southeastern Gazette 5-12-1905

East Kent Licensing Committee

This Committee sat at the Sessions House, Canterbury, on Wednesday, to award compensation in the cases of those licenses which had not been renewed. Lord Harris presided.

In the case of the Duke of Edinburgh, Folkestone, Mr. Prosser (Clerk to the Committee) stated that Messrs. Flint and Co., the owners of this house had at first declined to deposit any agreement, electing to leave the question of the compensation to the Inland Revenue. They had, however, decided at the last moment, to bring it before that Committee. Mr. Prosser observed that the claim put in by Mr. Hayward, the owner`s  valuer, was £924, the tenant`s, interest £97, and fixtures £77. Mr. R.M. Mercer represented the owners, and Mr. Rutley Mowll, the tenant. It appeared in evidence that the house was an ante ’69 beer-house. The trade for the past year had been just over 100 barrels and 65 dozen of bottled beer. This gave a total barrelage of 103 barrels, which yielded to the brewer a net profit of 13s. per barrel, amounting to £67. He had valued the property as an ante ’69 beer-house, rented at £16 per year, at £400, which gave a total altogether of £1,304. The premises unlicensed he might put at a rental of £30, and he would take off £5 for repairs, giving a net rent of £25. If they multiplied that by 18 years’ purchase, it gave £450. In order to get that £30 rent they would have to spend £70 in altering the premises. Thus a net sum of £380 had to come off the £1,304, which gave the sum for which he was asking.

Mr. Ben Tyman gave evidence far the tenant, and eventually his case was settled, but that of the owners would be further considered and compensation awarded in January.

Folkestone Herald 6-1-1906

Local News

The East Kent Compensation Authority, sitting at the Sessions House, Canterbury, on Tuesday last, Lord Harris presiding, considered the agreement deposited by Messrs. Flint and Co., owners of the Duke of Edinburgh, Folkestone, and by the tenant. Mr. R.M. Mercer appeared for the owners.

It will be remembered that at the regular sittings of this Authority Messrs. Flint refused to allow the Compensation Authority to deal with the matter, and expressed their intentions of going to the Inland Revenue Authorities. At the last moment, however, they presented an agreement, which Mr. Coble, the advisory to the Authority, was unable to accept, he having had no facilities for making a valuation of his own.

The Clerk (Mr. Prosser) said that the agreement now deposited was for a sum of £867, which were the figures suggested by Mr. Coble himself, the amount being divided as follows:- To the owners £737; to the tenant £70; to fixtures (belonging to the tenant) £60.

The Committee accepted the figures and the division.

Southeastern Gazette 9-1-1906

Local News

The East Kent Quarter Sessions were held at the Sessions House, Canterbury, on Tuesday, Lord Harris presiding.

A meeting of the Compensation Authority was held prior to the ordinary Sessions to consider the compensation to be awarded hi the case of the Duke of Edinburgh, Folkestone. Mr. Prosser stated that the owners and tenants of this house had deposited an agreement for £867, the same figures as suggested by Mr. Cobb, the advisers of the authority. The money was allocated as follows: — Owners £737, tenant’s fixtures £60, and the tenant £70. The tenant agreed to this division.

Folkestone Herald 4-9-1920

Obituary

We regret to announce the death of Mrs. Edith Ralph, aged 62 years, which took place after a long illness, on August 28^th, at the residence of her daughter, 1, London Street, Folkestone. Deceased will be remembered as being the licensee of the old Duke of Edinburgh Inn, in Tontine Street, before the licence of the house expired. The funeral took place on Wednesday.

Folkestone Herald 25-3-1944

Obituary

We regret to record the death of Mrs. Margaret Annie Bridge, of “Coombe Warren”, Capel-le-Ferne, which occurred recently at the age of 87.

Mrs. Bridge was the widow of Mr. Albert William Bridge, who died nearly two years ago.

Mr. Bridge was the licensee of the Martello Hotel, Dover Road, Folkestone, for 23 years, and licensee of the White Horse, Hawkinge, for a similar period. He had also held the licences of the Duke of Edinburgh, Tontine Street, Folkestone, and the New Inn, Elham.

Mrs. Bridge`s father, Mr. John Whittingham Boorn was also connected with the licensed trade for many years, and was at different times landlord of the Royal Oak, on the Folkestone – Dover road, and the now extinct Packet Boat and Channel, in Folkestone.

Mrs. Bridge, who is survived by one son and three daughters, was buried at the Folkestone borough cemetery, Hawkinge, on Thursday last week.

Folkestone Herald 25-3-1972

Local News

Alterations to a shop in Tontine Street, Folke­stone, have revealed that the premises at one time were a public house. From 1938 the premises have been used as a news­agent’s and tobacconist’s shop. But in 1896 they were the Duke' of Edinburgh public house. The sign, which has been uncovered, reads “Flint and Co. Ltd., fine ales and porter”. Early records show that the building was a refresh­ment room before it became a pub. After several years as a public house, the premises became a women’s and men’s outfitters. Another sign relating to the outfitters has been found. It bears the name of Mrs. E. Carpenter. The shop is at present owned by Mr. and Mrs. B. Limmer, who have had a new shop front put in.