Victoria (1), Beach Street (Kingsbridge Street), Renaming of Royal George 1830s - 1844

Section of Powell`s Survey of Folkestone, 1782

C.P. Davis`s index card

Licensees 

George Hogben c1839 c1840 

William Lee 1841 1842 

Joseph James Jeffrey 1842 1844 

 

Previously thought to have been the house of the same name (located on South Street) it can now be stated with a fair degree of confidence that at some stage in the 1830s this was actually a change of name for the previously existing Royal George until that house was demolished in 1844. Checking the index cards compiled by the late C.P. Davies (Reference librarian at Folkestone Library) shows George Hogben listed (in Pigot`s Directory) at the Victoria, Kingsbridge Street (former name of the area in which the later Beach Street was included). Tellingly, the Royal George is NOT listed in Pigot`s Directory. The next entry on the reference card shows Jeffrey at the same address according to the Rate Book for the town in 1842. Entry No. 3 on the card has Jeffrey, but the address is now South Street in 1845. This is after Jeffrey had left the first Victoria at the time of its demolition. Any lingering doubt that this particular Victoria was a renaming of the old Royal George should be removed by the description of the location of the house as given in the evidence at the Kent Assizes in a damages case Jeffrey took out against the South Eastern Railway Company – as reported by the Maidstone Journal.

Maidstone Journal 30-7-1844

Jeffrey v The South Eastern Railway Company

Mr. Sergeant Shee, with Mr. Lush, was for the plaintiff: Mr. Peacock and Mr. Russell for the defendants.

Mr. Lush having opened the proceedings, Sergeant Shee stated the case to the Jury. The plaintiff kept the Victoria Inn, at Folkestone, and the defendants were the South Eastern Railway Company. It appeared that the Victoria Inn was the property of a family of the name of Marsh, for whom Mr. Gravenor was trustee, and as such the freehold was vested in him. The premises were rented in 1841 by a person of the name of Lee, of whom they were taken in 1842 by the plaintiff. Mr. Jeffrey had carried on the business at the Victoria for some time with great success, and was daily improving it – the maintenance of himself and family depending upon it. When common people committed depredations they were punished for it by the criminal law, but when railway companies destroyed other peoples` property they were to be treated with indulgence; although if they choose to go to Parliament, they could obtain all the powers they required to carry their intentions into effect. But when the trespass of which he complained was committed they had no such powers, and yet they had made a railroad on a turnpike road. The principal business of the inn was derived from the parties who frequented a fish market opposite the plaintiff`s. The company had thought proper to take the turnpike road and make an embankment upon it, by which means the custom of the market was for some time entirely lost to the inn. The company had afterwards made a sort of archway, by which access to the market was obtained. The plaintiff did not complain of any injury done by the workmen employed, but of the loss sustained from the circumstance he had mentioned, and by the company afterwards making a road by which the public road in front of the plaintiff`s house was reduced to nine feet wide, and his trade had been in consequence entirely destroyed. The company had not thought it worthwhile to apply to Parliament, but took the thing into their own hands, thereby depriving the plaintiff of such fair compensation as he would have been entitled to under the provisions of an Act of Parliament. If it could be proved to them that at the time this injury took place the plaintiff had been carrying on a profitable business, and was suddenly deprived of a good connection, he was entitled to fair and reasonable damages.

Mr. Wm. Lee stated that he formerly kept the Victoria, which is in the lower part of the town of Folkestone. He held it under Mr. Ham Tite, and let it on 2^nd May, 1842 to Mr. Jeffrey, with the consent of Mr. Ham Tite. The plaintiff had paid him £150 for it - £75 for the goodwill and £75 for fixtures &c. There was a public road in front of the house, upon which the company had built a railroad. The house was now down. The railroad was about 5 yards from the house. There was a fish market about 25 yards in front of the house, and there were a great many persons continually passing along the road. There were a great many customers frequented the house, and by passengers calling for refreshment.

Cross-examined: He came here with the witnesses in the last cause. Mr. Robertson was attorney in both cases.

Sarah Hart stated that she was servant to Mr. Jeffrey at the Victoria Inn. Went to live there in August, 1843, before the railroad was commenced. There was a very respectable business carried on in the house. There was a fish market opposite and a great many persons came from there to the house, as well as persons walking along the road. They drank principally beer – there was a good company in the evening. About a week before she left the custom began to fall off. The dust and dirt was so great that no respectable persons would go there. She used to get a great many “vales” but the last month she had hardly any. Persons used to call them down the packets, but in consequence of the dust respectable persons would not call.

Cross-examined: When the arches were being built the fish market was removed lower down the beach. The greater number of the fishing boats were landed opposite the Victoria – the market had been removed 20 or 30 yards. The principal part of the custom that fell off were parties that came from the packets – several that used to attend from the market went to the other house. There were three or four houses the other side of the road – the Victoria was nearer to the fish market than the other houses before the road was made. The fish market stood almost the middle between the North Foreland and the Victoria – if anything it was a few yards nearer the Victoria.

Re-examined: The fish market was removed in consequence of the road being made.

Wm. Morford is a butcher at Folkestone, - he knew the situation of the Victoria. Previous to the works commencing he had frequently seen people going in there from the fish market. After that there was an obstruction, which prevented people from getting there. The embankment is so high that persons on the harbours where fish are landed cannot see the Victoria. When Mr. Jeffrey took the house he altered the bedrooms and made it more respectable for the accommodation of parties. He had supplied the house with meat, but after the works had begun the trade in steaks and chops had been gone altogether. It was never much of a house until the Dover railroad began, when the labourers working upon it frequented the Victoria.

Cross-examined: Mr. Jeffery had left the house about last May. It had been pulled down about a fortnight ago.

Re-examined: When the house was altered it was frequented by parties who came by the packets and visitors from Dover, because there was a beautiful view of the harbour from it.

Mr. Hawkins, excise officer, stated that the trade of the Victoria had considerably fallen off from the time of the tram road had commenced, which he thought was about the latter end of October.

Mr. Coomber deposed that the works commenced about September last.

Cross-examined: Was the plaintiff in the last case and had sent in the plaints which had been read.

Mr. Hawkins recalled: The trade had fallen off in spirits 3 or 4 gallons a week in each sort. He knew nothing about the beer.Persons from the fish market could get to plaintiff`s house under one or two of the arches.

Re-examined: The falling off in the first place was owing to the labour being taken off the road. The obstruction might have caused a further falling off.

By the Bench: There were not so many pleasure people in October and November as in other seasons.

John Timby deposed to the falling off in the business of the Victoria after the rent had been made.

Mr. Lee re-called: Mr. Ham Tite, the landlord of the Victoria, was a brewer and supplied the house with beer.

Mr. Peacock, in his address to the Jury, remarked upon the fact that neither the brewer nor the spirit merchant had been called, either of whom could have proved more readily the tailing off in the business than the witnesses who had been called.

The Learned Baron, in addressing the Jury, also alluded to that circumstance and said that it was the duty of the plaintiff to furnish them with the best evidence upon the plaint that he could. It would be, however, for them to award him such fair and reasonable compensation as they considered him entitled to for any loss he had sustained by the proceedings of the company.

Verdict for the plaintiff. Damages £125.

Note: No record of William Lee in More Bastions.

Canterbury Weekly Journal, Dover Chronicle 3-8-1844

Assizes: Nisi Prius Court (Before Mr. Baron Gurney)

Jeffery v The South Eastern Railway Company

Mr. Sergeant Shee (with whom was Mr. Lush) stated that the plaintiff in this case had been a licensed publican at the Victoria Inn, in Folkestone. The plaintiff carried on a most successful business. The railway company wanted communication between their railway and the harbour. When other persons than railway companies chose to break down people`s walls and destroy their trees they were indicted for it criminally, and placed in the dock, but railway companies could do an immense deal without being molested, and were allowed sometimes to do nearly as they pleased.

The ground of the plaintiff`s complaint was that his custom, which had depended very much on the fish market, and the traffic from the packets, was almost wholly cut off by the erection of the tramway, which the Company had executed without an Act of Parliament, and without any more authority than the man on the moon. They had committed a public nuisance, for which they were liable to be indicted, and in doing so they had done an injury to an individual, for which no sum that a jury would be likely to give could be considered an adequate compensation.

Mr. Peacock argued that before the opening of the railway the trade of the house was so bad that it was not worth anyone`s while to keep it open, and that the plaintiff could not prove any substantial damage. He also contended that the falling-off in the plaintiff`s trade arose principally, if not wholly, from visitors, whose attendance had fallen off as the winter approached.

Mr. Baron Gurney, in summing up to the jury, said that when a company obtained an Act of Parliament it was undoubtedly correct that they were enabled to take away men`s property, but they could even then only do so by compensating the parties under the provision of that Act. If they had got no Act they might still take property on agreement with parties. In this case it had not been shown either that the company had had any right to take the property, or that they had entered into agreement for it. The plaintiff in this case had given £75 premium for the house, and there was no question on the evidence that a very large portion of his trade had been cut off by the erection of the tramway in front of his house. It was for the jury to say to what compensation he was entitled.

The jury found for the plaintiff – damages £125.

Dover Telegraph 3-8-1844

Assizes: Nisi Prius Court

Jeffery v The South Eastern Railway Company

Mr. Sergeant Shee (with whom was Mr. Lush) stated that the plaintiff in this case had been a licensed publican at the Victoria Inn, in Folkestone. The plaintiff carried on a most successful business. The railway company wanted communication between their railway and the harbour. When other persons than railway companies chose to break down people`s walls and destroy their trees they were indicted for it criminally, and placed in the dock, but railway companies could do an immense deal without being molested, and were allowed sometimes to do nearly whatever they wanted.

The ground of the plaintiff`s complaint was that his custom, which had depended very much on the fish market, and the traffic from the packets, was almost wholly cut off by the erection of the tramway, which the Company had executed without an Act of Parliament, and without any more authority than the man on the moon. They had committed a public nuisance, for which they were liable to be indicted, and in doing so they had done an injury to an individual, for which no sum that a jury would be likely to give could be considered an adequate compensation.

The jury found for the plaintiff – damages £125.

West Kent Guardian 3-8-1844

Assizes: Jeffery v The South Eastern Railway Company

Mr. Sergeant Shee, with Mr. Lush was for the plaintiff; Mr. Peacock and Mr. Russell for the defendants.

Mr. Lush having opened the proceedings, Sergeant Shee stated the case to the jury. The plaintiff kept the Victoria Inn, at Folkestone, and the defendants were the South Eastern Railway Company. It appeared that the Victoria Inn was the property of a family of the name of Marsh, for which Mr. Gravenor was the trustee, and as such the freehold was vested in him. The premises were rented in 1841 by a person by the name of Lee, of whom they were taken in 1842 by the plaintiff, and the question would be – had Mr. Lee`s tenancy expired when they were transferred to the plaintiff?

Mr. Jeffrey carried on the business at the Victoria for some time with great success, and was daily improving it – the maintenance of himself and family depending upon it. When common people committed depredations they were punished for it by the criminal law, but when railway companies destroyed other peoples` property they were to be treated with indulgence; although if they choose to go to Parliament they could obtain all the powers they required to carry their intentions into effect. But when the trespass of which he complained was committed they had no such powers, and yet they had made a railway upon a turnpike road. The principal business of the Inn was derived from the parties who frequented a fish market opposite the plaintiff`s. The company had thought proper to take the turnpike road and make an embankment upon it, by which means the custom of the market was for some time entirely lost to the Inn. The company had afterwards made a sort of archway, by which access to the market was obtained. The plaintiff did not complain of any injury done by the workmen employed, but of the loss sustained from the circumstances he had mentioned, and by the company afterwards making a road by which the public road in front of the plaintiff`s house was reduced to nine feet wide, and his trade had been in consequence entirely destroyed. The company had not thought it worthwhile to apply to Parliament, but took the thing into their own hands, thereby depriving the plaintiff of such compensation as he would have been entitled to under the provisions of an Act of Parliament. If it could be proved to them that at the time this injury took place the plaintiff had been carrying on a profitable business, and was suddenly deprived of a good compensation, he was entitled to fair and reasonable damage.

The learned Sergeant having called witnesses in support of his statement, Mr. Peacock, in reply, argued that before the opening of the railway the trade of the house was so bad that it was not worth anyone`s while to keep it open, and that the plaintiff could not prove any substantial damages. He also contended that the falling off in the plaintiff`s trade arose principally, if not wholly, from visitors, whose attendance had fallen off as the winter approached.

Mr. Baron Gurney, in summing up to the jury, said that when a company obtained an Act of Parliament, it was undoubtedly correct that they were enabled to take away men`s property, but they could even then only do so by compensating the parties under the provisions of that Act. If they had got no Act they might still take property on agreement with parties. In this case it had not been shown either that the company had any right to take the property, or that they had entered into agreement for it. The plaintiff in this case had given £75 premium for the house, and there was no question on the evidence that a very large portion of his trade had been cut off by the erection of the tramway in front of his house. It was for the jury to say to what compensation he was fairly entitled.

The jury found for the plaintiff – damages £125.

Dover Chronicle 31-8-1844

The new hotel, which is building on the site of the “Old Victoria”, or better known as the “Old Royal George”, is getting on rapidly. It will be a splendid building, and will very much improve that part of Folkestone.

Kentish Mercury 31-8-1844

A new hotel upon an extensive scale is building by Messrs. Calvert upon the site of the old Victoria, which house was the subject of the action at the late Assizes, Jeffery v the Railway Company. The site of two adjoining houses is added to it and it will stand in a good situation for business.

Note: Appears to suggest that the Victoria had been demolished and was being rebuilt. “Extensive scale” does not match the description of the house when advertised for auction in 1870.

Dover Chronicle 22-3-1845

The splendid second-rate hotel, built on the site of the late Victoria is yet untenanted, and the tradespeople are complaining sadly owing to want of business, and not, we regret to say, without cause.

West Kent Guardian 29-3-1845

The splendid second-rate hotel, built on the site of the late Victoria is yet tenantless, and the tradespeople are complaining sadly owing to want of business, and not, we regret to say, without cause.

 

Railway Inn (1), Radnor Street c1842 - c1845 Became Radnor Inn

 

Licensees:

David Stevenson c1842 ????

John Back c1845 ????

 

Dover Chronicle 15-10-1842 & Canterbury Weekly Journal 27-10-1842

A serious disturbance took place here on Sunday, the 9^th inst., just after the close of Divine Service in the morning, which would probably have ended in bloodshed, had it not been for the prompt and energetic measures taken by the Mayor and Magistrates.

It appears that William Downing, one of the police, having witnessed an assault in High Street on Mr. Snelling, a butcher, by a man of the name of Cherry, a miner employed in the works of the railway, proceeded very properly to take the offender into custody, and succeeded in doing so, but the prisoner was soon rescued by some of his companions, who shortly came up. A sort of running fight then ensued between the rescuers and the police, and the man ultimately succeeded in getting into the Railway beershop, in Radnor Street.

The Mayor, on being informed of the riot, immediately attended on the spot, where he was joined by two of his brother Magistrates (Mr. David and Mr. William Major), and called out the whole of the police constables, who for some time endeavoured to recapture the man, but were prevented by a large body of his comrades, who has assembled in the beershop. The mob being continually increasing both within and without the house, and amounting to at least between four and five hundred persons, who evinced much disposition to violence and riot, the Mayor sent for the Preventive Force to aid the civil power in quelling the disturbance, and directed Mr. Bond, the Clerk to the Justices, to read the Riot Act, which was accordingly done.

The Preventive Force, under the command of Captain Peat and Lieutenant Kennicot, soon dispersed the mob from the front of the beershop, and the constables, after considerable difficulty, succeeded at length in capturing the man on the roof of the house, to which he had escaped to avoid being taken. Several of the mob within the house repeatedly threatened that there should be bloodshed if the police persisted in capturing Cherry.

The Preventive Force behaved with the greatest forbearance, and no-one was hurt except Downing, the policeman, who received several violent blows from the offender, who was a very powerful and active man.

The man was taken and lodged in gaol just previous to the commencement of Divine Service in the afternoon. Two other men were subsequently taken for having joined in rescuing Cherry, and the three prisoners were examined before the Mayor and Magistrates on Monday morning, and fully committed for trial at the approaching borough quarter sessions for the misdemeanour.

Dover Chronicle.

 

Victoria (2) 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 Victoria

Mr. J. Minter, who appeared for the owners and occupiers, admitted receiving a notice that the house was not required.

Chief Constable Reeve put in an ordnance map showing an area of 96 houses, including 46 licensed houses, giving a licensed house to every 100 inhabitants. In the same area there are six off-licences. Ninety four cases out of 171 charges of drunkenness last year were in this area. The Victoria was a fully licensed house, occupied by Mr. Skinner, and owned by Mackeson and Co. It was assessed at £24 per year. The house is situated in South Street, which was a paved passageway 95 yards long and from 10ft. to 15ft. wide. There were five licensed houses opening on the street. The Royal Pavilion Hotel had a large bar which faced the end of the street. There was a bar and tap room on the ground floor, and the top was occupied by the licensees. Within a radius of 200 yards there were 34 licensed houses. Last year the back entrance was ordered to be closed. There appeared to be very little trade at the house.

Cross-examined by Mr. Minter: South Street was a public street, and had been opened for 100 years. The Paris Hotel was a side entrance. The other houses had back entrances. All structural alterations had been done to his satisfaction.

Inspector Burniston deposed that there were very few people who used the house. He did not think the licence necessary.

Mr. Minter said the tenant did not want to lose the licence. He protested, on the evidence, having the case sent to Quarter Sessions.

The Bench decided to send the case to the Quarter Sessions.

 

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 first objection dealt with was that against the licence of Alfred Skinner of the Victoria Inn, in South Street. Mr. Minter, on behalf of Messrs. Mackeson and Co., Ltd., admitted receiving notice of objection.

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 Victoria Inn was situate in South Street. It was a fully licensed house. The present licensee obtained a transfer of the licence on August 2^nd, 1899. The registered owners were Messrs. Mackeson and Co., Ltd., of Hythe. The rateable value of the house was £24 a year. South Street was simply a paved passageway from the bottom of High Street to the Lower Sandgate Road. There were five fully licensed houses opening into the street, all at the Lower Sandgate Road end. Three of them adjoined each other on one side – the London and Paris, the True Briton, and the Harbour. The other two on the opposite side were the Princess Royal and the house in question. Directly opposite the end of the street was the Royal Pavilion Hotel, with a large bar opening into the Lower Sandgate Road. The accommodation was a front bar, divided into two compartments, with separate entrances. There was also a tap room at the back. The private apartments of the licensee were on the first floor, and were approached by a narrow staircase from a door in the tap room. Within a radius of 100 yards there were 18 other “on” licensed houses, within 150 yards, 26, and within 200 yards, 34. At the annual licensing meeting last year an order was made to close up a back entrance opening into a small yard at the rear of the house, and also to improve the ventilation and the urinal which opened directly from the tap room at the back of the bar. That order was complied with. It appeared to him at present there was very little trade to the house. In his opinion it was quite unnecessary for the needs of the neighbourhood.

Cross-examined, witness said there was no provision made for vehicular traffic in the street. The entrances in South Street of the Harbour and True Briton were only back entrances.

Det. Sergeant Burniston said he knew the Victoria Inn. Very few residents used the house. The class of people who used it were the workmen employed on the harbour. He considered the house was unnecessary for the requirements of the neighbourhood.

Mr. Minter said the tenant did not want to lose his licence, nor did the owners want to lose their licences. The opposition which had been given was that the licences were not needed, and therefore the police were asking the justices to report to the Quarter Sessions. He simply protested against it being sent to the Quarter Sessions upon the evidence, which he submitted did not justify them in doing so.

The Chairman said they had unanimously decided to report the licence to the Quarter Sessions. The tenant would be granted a provisional licence until that date.

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 case of the Victoria, South Street, was taken first.

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. The house with which he would first deal was the Victoria Inn. It was a fully licensed house, and the present licensee was Mr. Alfred Skinner, who obtained the transfer of the licence on the 2^nd August, 1899. The registered owners of the house were Messrs. Mackeson and Co., and the rateable value of the house was £24. South Street was simply a paved passageway for foot passengers, leading from the bottom of High Street to the Lower Sandgate Road. It was 95 yards long, and varied in width from 10ft. to 15ft. There were five other fully licensed houses opening into the street, all at the Lower Sandgate Road end. Three adjoined each other on one side, viz., the London and Paris, True Briton, and Harbour Inn. Directly opposite the end of South Street was the Royal Pavilion Hotel, with a large bar opening into the Lower Sandgate Road. The accommodation provided in the house for the public consisted of a front bar, divided into two compartments, with a separate entrance to each, and a tap room at the back. The private apartments of the licensee were on the floor above, and approached by a narrow stairway from the tap room. Within a radius of 100 yards there were 18 other on-licensed houses. Within 150 yards radius there were 26 houses, and within 200 yards there were 34 other on-licensed houses. At the annual licensing meeting last year an order was made to close up a back entrance at the house under notice, and to improve the ventilation in the tap room of the bar. That order was complied with. There appeared to be very little trade to the house, and in his (Mr. Reeve`s) opinion it was quite unnecessary for the needs of the neighbourhood.

Cross-examined by Mr. Minter: South Street had not been open to vehicular traffic. The London and Paris had a side entrance in South Street, and the other houses, the True Briton and the Harbour Inn, had back entrances.

Detective Sergeant Burniston said that very few residents visited the Victoria Inn. The class of people who used the house were workmen employed at the Harbour, and there were very few of them. The licence was unnecessary.

Mr. Minter said that neither the licensee nor the owner desired to lose the licence. The evidence before the Court did not justify the closing of the house.

The Bench unanimously decided to report 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 Victoria

Mr. C.L. Mackeson, Managing Director of the firm of Messrs. Mackeson and Co. Ltd., of Hythe, said that his firm owned the Victoria. The trade during the last year was 199 barrels and 380 dozen bottles. The spirit trade was about a gallon a week. The barrelage had gone up during the past year.

Cross-examined by Mr. Pitkin: Witness`s firm had four houses in the congested area. His firm suggested that the licence should be removed on one occasion.

Re-examined: That was in 1903. The application was unsuccessful. The house wanted was in Warren Road.

Counsel: The justices were so assured of the Victoria that they refused the application? (Laughter)

Mr. Mackeson: That is so.

Judge Selfe: It might be put in another way.

Alfred Skinner, the landlord, said he did nothing other than look after the house, and he looked to it as his sole means of support. The trade mentioned by Mr. Mackeson was well maintained, and was increasing. Railwaymen, sailors, painters and plumbers, and everybody in the street patronised the house. The customers used the bar and the tap room, and anyone looking at the former in the evening might think it empty in appearance, though the latter might well b filled.

Cross-examined by Mr. Pitkin: He had been content with his living in the house for ten years. He could not answer a question as to whether he had told Detective Sergeant Burniston that he could barely get a living at his house. He did a regular trade all the year round. He did not know what he made on beer a week.

Counsel here said that the retail price of a barrel of beer was 33s., and a publican made 15s. on a barrel, which was about £150 a year in this case.

Witness, continuing, said that his house was the only public house in South Street. The others were all hotels.

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 Victoria

Mr. G.L. Mackeson gave evidence with respect to the Victoria, which was the freehold property of Messrs. Mackeson, of Hythe. He said the house was assessed at £30. Skinner had been the landlord for nine years. The price of beer was 33s. per barrel. During the last three years the trade had been well maintained. During the past year the trade done was 199 barrels, and about 380 dozen bottles of beer, which, converted into barrels, would amount to about 218 barrels. The trade, therefore, would be over four barrels a week. The spirit trade was about a gallon a week.

Cross-examined, he said the trade in 1902 was 200 barrels, and the bottled beer trade corresponded. In 1903 it was rather less. He considered four barrels a week was very good. He had suggested that the licence was not necessary when they applied for a removal two or three years ago.

Alfred Skinner, the landlord, said during the time he had been landlord he had never had any complaint against him. He paid £25 rent, and £17 5s. 3d. for the excise licence. He did not do anything else but look after the house. He maintained himself, wife, and two children out of the house, which was his sole support. The trade was well maintained and increasing.

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.

The first claim was that of the Victoria Inn, Folkestone.  Mr. G.C. Drake appeared for the owners, and asked for £1,728. The Committee granted this amount, apportioned as follows: For the owners, £1,445; tenant, £120; and fixtures, £63.

Hythe Reporter 20-1-1906

Auction Advertisement

Folkestone (Near the Harbour)

Cobay Bros. Limited will sell by auction, by the direction of Messrs. Mackeson and Co. Ltd., at the Queen`s Hotel, Folkestone, on Monday, January 29<sup>th</sup>, 1906, at 3 o`clock, the valuable Freehold property, No. 26, South Street, until recently licensed as a Public House and known as the Victoria Inn.

Having a frontage of almost 25 feet in South Street, with a back entrance from the passage leading to the Bayle Steps.

Particularly suitable from its position for conversion into a Shop, Coffee House, Dining Rooms, or for any similar purposes.

Particulars and conditions of sale may be obtained at the Queen`s Hotel, Folkestone; of the Auctioneers at their offices, Hythe; and of Messrs. Mowll and Mowll, Solicitors, Dover.

Folkestone Herald 30-11-1946

Local News

The funeral took place at Holy Trinity Church, recently of Mr. Frederick Skinner, 77, of 8, Martello Road, Folkestone, who died after a long and painful illness. Mr. Skinner, who was born in Canterbury, came to Folke­stone as a young man. He entered the licensed victuallers’ trade and held the licences in succession of several premises.

A staunch member of the Borough of Hythe Conserva­tive Association, he was an arduous worker in the East Ward. An active Freemason, his Mother Lodge was at Canter­bury; he was also a member of Temple Lodge, Folkestone, and Castle Lodge, Sandgate. He is mourned by his widow.

The inter­ment was at Canterbury.