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 2nd 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.
