DOVER KENT ARCHIVES

Sort file:- Folkestone, June, 2022.

Page Updated:- Thursday, 23 June, 2022.

PUB LIST PUBLIC HOUSES Paul Skelton

Earliest 1869

Duke of Edinburgh

Latest 1906

10 Tontine Street

Folkestone

 

I have only recently added Folkestone to this site. The information gathered so far is from "Old Folkestone Pubs" by C H Bishop M.A. Ph.D. and Kevan of http://deadpubs.co.uk/

Any further information or indeed photographs would be appreciated. Please email me at the address below.

This page is still to be updated.

 

Folkestone Observer 26 June 1869.

Saturday, June 19th: Before Captain Kennicott R.N. and James Tolputt Esq.

Charles Drew was charged with keeping his house open after 11 o'clock on the night of Sunday last.

The Bench fined the defendant 1 with costs.

 

Folkestone Observer 6 January 1870.

Transfer of License.

Wednesday, January 5th: Before R.W. Boarer, C. Doridant, C. Dashwood, J. Clark and J. Gambrill sqs.

Mr. Minter, solicitor, applied on behalf of Mr. Wm. Swain for the necessary authority to retail beer on the premises in Tontine Street, recently occupied by Mr. Charles Drew, who, Mr. Minter stated, had absconded, taking the license with him. The owners now had possession of the premises, and had let them to Mr. Swain. The application was granted.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 8 January 1870.

Wednesday, January 5th: Before C. Doridant, R.W. Boarer, J. Gambrill, C.H. dashwood and J. Clark esqs.

William Swaine applied for permission to sell beer at a house in Tontine Street, lately occupied by Charles Drew, who held a license from the Bench and who had absconded. Mr. Minter supported the application and it was granted.

 

Folkestone Express 8 January 1870.

Granting Licenses.

Wednesday, January 5th: Before The Mayor, R.W. Boarer, C. Dashwood, J. Clarke, and J. Gambrill Esqs.

William Swain applied for power to sell beer at the house of Charles Drew, in Tontine Street.

Mr. Minter supported the application, and stated that Drew had absconded, taking the license granted by the Magistrates at the last annual meeting with him.

The applicant was sworn, and deposed to serving the necessary notices.

The application was granted.

 

Southeastern Gazette 23 June 1879.

Local News.

On Tuesday evening a labouring man, named Thomas Glover, was hurt during a quarrel with two other men at the Duke of Edinburgh beerhouse. P.C. Keeler was sent for to clear the house, and found the man lying on the floor. He said his leg was broken. A fly was obtained, and he was removed to the police station, where Drs. Bateman and Mercer set the limb, which was broken just above the ankle.

 

Folkestone Express 27 August 1881.

Saturday, August 20th: Before The Mayor, Alderman Banks, and F. Boykett Esq.

George Jull was charged with being drunk and refusing to quit the Duke Of Edinburgh beershop, and also with using obscene language on the 10th inst. He pleaded Guilty, and evidence having been given as to the facts of the case he was fined 10s. for refusing to quit the house, and 8s. costs, and 5s. and 8s. costs for using obscene language.

 

Folkestone Express 2 May 1885.

Wednesday, April 29th: Before The Mayor, Aldermen Caister and Sherwood, Captain Fletcher, J. Fitness, J. Clark, W.J. Jeffreason and J. Holden Esqs.

The licence of the Duke Of Edinburgh was transferred to Mr. H.W. Bridges.

 

Folkestone News 2 May 1885.

Local News.

At the Police Court on Monday, before The Mayor, Captain Carter, J. Fitness, T. Caister, J. Clark, W.J. Jeffreason, J. Sherwood and J. Holden Esqs., the Duke Of Edinburgh was transferred to Mr. A.W. Bridges.

 

Folkestone Express 21 July 1888.

Saturday, July 14th: Before The Mayor, H.W. Poole Esq., and Surgeon General Gilbourne.

Temporary authority was granted to John Harrison to sell at the Duke Of Edinburgh, Tontine Street.

 

Folkestone Express 14 February 1891.

Advertisement.

To Let: The Duke Of Edinburgh, Tontine Street, Folkestone. Capital beerhouse, under good brewers. Apply T.J. Harrison, Auctioneer and Valuer, 20, Alexandra Gardens, Folkestone.

 

Holbein's Visitors' List 18 March 1891.

Wednesday, March 11th: Before W. Wightwick Esq., Surgeon General Gilbourne, and W.G. Herbert Esq.

The license of the Duke Of Edinburgh was transferred.

 

Folkestone Express 25 April 1891.

Transfer.

Wednesday, April 22nd: Before J. Clark, J. Fitness, J. Pledge, J. Holden and E.T. Ward Esqs.

The licence of the Duke Of Edinburgh, Tontine Street, was transferred to Mr. F. Ralph.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 18 July 1891.

Local News.

At the Folkestone police court on Tuesday, James McCarthy was charged with stealing a large quantity of house linen, valued at 5 12s., the property of Miss Campbell.

From the evidence of Henry Robus it appears that he was in charge of Miss Campbell's house – 67, Brockman Road. The stolen goods were safely locked in the house on Sunday night, but he missed them on Wednesday. Upon examination he found the storm sash at the back of the house had been broken, and also the glass in the inner window, so that anyone could get in.

The prisoner lodged at the Oddfellows Inn (sic), and it was stated by the landlady that he was absent all Tuesday night and came home on Wednesday morning. He opened a bundle and showed her the articles produced, and as she had suspicions she sent for the police. When questioned by Supt. Taylor he said he had obtained them in the ordinary way of dealing, but declined to say where.

Mrs. Edith Ralph, of the Duke Of Edinburgh, stated that the prisoner offered some towels for sale at her bar, and she and a woman named Davison bought a number, but took them to the police station afterwards.

Statements were also made by Stephen Bailey and Jane Davis, who were at the Oddfellows when McCarthy returned. He asked them what they thought of his night's work.

The Magistrates committed him for trial.

 

Folkestone Express 18 July 1891.

Thursday, July 16th: Before Alderman Dunk and J. Fitness Esq.

James McCarthy was charged with stealing a quantity of house linen, value 5 12s., the property of Miss Campbell, from a house in Brockman Road.

P.C. Walter Down said he went on Wednesday at 9.30 a.m. to the Oddfellows in Radnor Street, and there saw a bundle containing the property now produced. Prisoner afterwards came in, and he asked if the bundle belonged to him. Prisoner said it did, and he bought the goods in Folkestone, but declined to say where he got them.

Prisoner: I object to leading questions. It is against all order. It don't give me a chance. I haven't got much as it is.

Witness: He said he came by them honestly, but declined to say where he bought them, or who he bought them of. At the police station Superintendent Taylor asked prisoner where he got the clothes. Prisoner replied “In the ordinary way of dealing, but I decline to tell you where”. The bundle contained ten sheets, two tablecloths, a towel, a toilet cover, 16 pillow cases, two pairs of curtains, four valances. They were all marked “Owen”, and had lot tickets upon them.

Henry Robus said on the 17th July, 1889, he attended a sale of the effects of Mr. D. Owen, at 67, Brockman Road, and purchased through Smith, a broker, lots 215 to 225, and afterwards made them up into a bundle, and took them to a house in Brockman Road belonging to Miss Mary Campbell. There was no other furniture in the house at the time. The house was in his charge – securely locked and the windows were fastened. He was in the house on Sunday at 11.30, and the articles were then safe, just as he put them there two years ago. He went to the house on Wednesday, and the goods were then missing. He examined the house, and found the glass of the storm sash at the back of the drawing room broken, and also the glass of the inner window, so that anyone could get in.

Prisoner: Where did you get your information?

Witness declined to answer.

Prisoner: Could a man of my size get in the window? – Yes. I could get in.

Jane Davis, wife of a labourer, lodging at the Oddfellows Arms, said she saw the prisoner there on Wednesday morning. He asked her to go down into the scullery and see his night's work. She went down, and he untied the bundle of linen. He gave her 18 towels to take up to Mrs. Carter to sell to get a drink. She was to ask 2s. for them. She returned and told him Mrs. Carter refused to buy them, saying they were stolen property.

Stephen Bailey said on Wednesday he saw the prisoner in the scullery at the Oddfellows. He showed him a bundle, and asked “What do you think of my night's work?”, and asked him to feel the weight of it. He opened it and showed him the sheets and pillowcases, and offered to sell him a pair of sheets for a shilling, and also asked him to stand a drink. When Mrs. Carter came down she sent him for a constable.

Lucy Carter, landlady of the Oddfellows Inn, said the prisoner was staying at her house three weeks ago, and remained 10 days. He went away and returned on Saturday evening, and slept at her house on Saturday, Sunday and Monday. He was absent all night on Tuesday, and came in about seven o'clock on Wednesday. She went into the scullery and saw prisoner there with a large bundle of linen. She asked him to show her the things he had to sell. He opened the bundle and showed her tablecloths and shirts. She told him he had not come by them honestly, and that he was to take them away. She then sent for a policeman. Prisoner left the house with some of the articles in a handbasket.

Edith Ralph, wife of the landlord of the Duke Of Edinburgh, Tontine Street, said the prisoner went to her private bar on Wednesday with some towels, which he asked her to buy. She bought ten for 1s. 10d.. She saw they were marked “Owen”, and took them to the police station.

Jemima Davison, of 6, South Street, produced two towels which she purchased of prisoner in the Duke Of Edinburgh for 3d.

Prisoner said he wished to be remanded or committed for trial, and then he would make a statement to the police which would very likely clear him, which it would not do if he spoke it in open court. He believed he was quite justified in selling the things, and came by them in a perfectly honest manner. He expected someone would have been present when they knew he was in trouble, to say how he came by them.

Prisoner was committed for trial at the Sessions.

 

Folkestone Visitors' List 14 October 1891.

Quarter Sessions.

The Quarter Sessions on Monday occupied seven hours – an unusual time for Folkestone.

James McCarthy, 29, described as an engine fitter, pleaded Not Guilty to stealing, in a house in Brockman Road, a quantity of linen &c., the goods of Miss Campbell, on the 16th July. Mr. Glyn prosecuted.

Prisoner defended himself with considerable ability, and his defence was that he received the goods from a soldier of the 17th Lancers, and was disposing of them for him when he was apprehended. The case occupied over two hours, and a verdict was returned of Guilty on the second charge, that of receiving the goods knowing them to have been stolen.

The Recorder sentenced prisoner to three months' hard labour, taking into consideration the fact that he had already been nearly three months in prison awaiting his trial.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 17 October 1891.

Quarter Sessions.

Monday, 12th October: Before J.C. Lewis Coward Esq.

A true bill was returned against James McCarthy, who was charged with having, on the 15th of last July, stolen from the dwelling house of Mary Campbell, Brockman Road, two dimity curtains, four valances, three pairs of linen sheets, and a number of towels, of the value of 5 12s.

Mr. L. Glyn prosecuted, and the prisoner, who pleaded Not Guilty, was not defended.

P.C. Walter Down was called and stated that on Wednesday, the 15th of July, about half past nine in the morning, he went to the Oddfellows Inn (sic), Radnor Street. He there saw the bundle produced. It contained the articles which were the subject of the present charge. Shortly after his arrival at the Oddfellows, the prisoner entered. He asked him if the bundle belonged to him. He said “Yes”. Witness asked him where he got them from, and he replied “I came by them honestly. I bought them at Folkestone”. He then asked the prisoner to take him to the place where he bought them, but he refused to. He told the prisoner he should take him to the police station on suspicion of having stolen the goods.

By the prisoner: Witness was called to the Oddfellows about half past nine, and about twenty minutes elapsed after he first saw the prisoner. He went to the station quietly and seemed to take it in good humour. He did not consider it necessary to handcuff prisoner. When he (prisoner) went into the Rendezvous, witness waited outside for him. He suggested that witness should go back to the Oddfellows and wait for the man who sold them.

The Recorder: Do I understand you allowed him to go and have a drink after you arrested him?

Witness: Yes, sir; he was determined to go.

The Recorder: A very obliging policeman, but it is fortunate for you there wasn't a back door.

Supt. Taylor said he remembered prisoner being brought to the station. Witness told him he had been brought there on suspicion of having stolen the goods. He said he was a dealer and had bought them. Witness asked him of whom, and he answered that he bought them at Folkestone, and had come by them honestly.

At the request of the prisoner Supt. Taylor produced a statement which the prisoner made after he had been committed for trial and also a letter which he wrote in prison. Nothing was known against him by the London Police and he could not have obtained information easily without the prisoner's help. There were no scratches on his face to indicate scratches by broken glass. He found that he was in company with a man in uniform on the Monday and Tuesday nights. Prisoner said the man belonged to the 17th Lancers. He had seen the Sergeant Major and had had the regiment paraded.

Henry Robus proved having purchased the articles at the sale of Mr. Owen, for Miss Campbell, on the 17th July. 1889. They were all marked “Owen”. He took them to 21, Brockman Road. He visited the house on the Sunday before the robbery. The goods were all right then.

Jane Davis said she was employed at the Oddfellows Inn. On the morning in question prisoner showed her the articles and asked her what she thought of his night's work. He gave her 13 towels to take to Mrs. Carter to sell for 2s. Mrs. Carter said she would see about it when she came down. Mrs. Carter was ill and could not attend that day.

Prisoner: What's the matter with her?

Witness: She's ill.

Prisoner: Yes, with the perjury! She committed gross perjury before the Magistrates. I shall prove it presently.

Mr. Glyn put in a certificate, and the witness Davis said she was suffering from dropsy and diseased kidneys.

Stephen Bailey, labourer, said he lodged at the Oddfellows. The prisoner also asked him what he thought of his night's work. He asked him to lend him twopence for a drink, and to buy a pair of sheets for 1s. He did not buy them.

Mr. Glyn then read the depositions of Mrs. Carter, which were given before the Magistrates. She stated that the prisoner slept at her house on Saturday, Sunday and Monday nights. He was absent on the Tuesday night and came home at seven o'clock on the morning of the 15th. At quarter to eight prisoner was in the scullery, and when he asked her to buy some towels she said “You didn't come by these things honestly and take them out of my house. Where did you get them from?” He said “Mind your own business”.

Edith Ralph, wife of the landlord of the Duke Of Edinburgh, stated that the prisoner brought some towels into the bar and she gave him 1s. 10d. for ten. When she found the name “Owen” on them she took them up to Supt. Taylor.

Jemima Davidson, of 6, South Street, stated that she bought two towels from prisoner for 3d.

This was the case for the prosecution, and prisoner called Charles William Young, Master of the Elham Union Workhouse. He stated that prisoner was admitted to the Workhouse Infirmary on the 24th of June and was discharged on the 13th of July (Monday). He was in bed the whole time, and was discharged at his own request.

Prisoner said that proved the perjury on the part of the witness Carter, who stated that he slept at the Oddfellows on the Saturday, Sunday and Monday, whereas he was not discharged from the Workhouse until the Monday.

George Bean, landlord of the Perseverance, was called on the prisoner's behalf, but did not put in an appearance.

Harry Stone, alias Lucas, stated that he saw prisoner in the Perseverance at half past twelve on Monday. He remained in his company until eleven at night. The next day he went into the Perseverance about the same time and saw the prisoner. In the afternoon they went to Cheriton to get a job for the prisoner. They went back to the Perseverance, and in the evening a man came in dressed in soldier's clothes. It was the uniform of the 17th Lancers. They all went out at eleven o'clock. He went with Supt. Taylor, but was unable to identify the soldier.

Prisoner then read a long statement. He said he had work to go to at Cheriton at five o'clock on the Wednesday morning, and as he was the worse for drink on Tuesday night, and fearing that he might overlay of he went to the Oddfellows, he slept under a bathing machine on the beach. He got to the White Lion, Cheriton, at five in the morning. His employer did not turn up and whilst he was waiting a soldier came up with the bundle of goods. They talked for some time. He said he was Captain Owen's servant, and that he was going abroad and had given him everything he did not want. He asked him (prisoner) if he knew where to sell them, and he said very likely Mrs. Carter would buy them. The soldier said he had another lot and if prisoner liked to take them to the Oddfellows he could have the middle man's profits and he would follow with the other bundle. He (prisoner) did not know they had been stolen and carried the bundle through the open streets, passing a large number of people on the way. Since he was arrested he had given every assistance to the police.

The jury found prisoner Not Guilty of stealing the goods, but Guilty on the second count of receiving them knowing them to have been stolen, and he was sentenced to three calendar months' hard labour.

 

Folkestone Express 17 October 1891.

Quarter Sessions.

Monday, October 11th: Before John Charles Lewis Coward Esq.

James McCarthy, 29, described as an engine fitter, was indicted for stealing two dimity curtains, three pairs of linen sheets, and other articles, the property of Mary Campbell, and which articles were left in an unoccupied house in Brockman Road.

Mr. Glyn, instructed by Mr. Minter, prosecuted.

P.C. Down said on the 15th July he went to the Oddfellows Arms, in Radnor Street, and was there shown the bundle of things produced. He saw the prisoner come in and asked him if the bundle belonged to him. Prisoner said “Yes”, and added that he came by them honestly - he bought them in Folkestone. Witness asked him to go with him to the place where he bought them, and he said “No”. He then told prisoner he should take him to the station on a charge of stealing them.

By the prisoner: You took the matter lightly and good-humouredly, as though there was nothing in it. You went into the Rendezvous and had a drink while I stood outside.

The Recorder: Do I understand you allowed him to go into a public house and have a drink while you had him in charge? – He was determined to go, sir.

Supt. Taylor said he had a conversation with the prisoner at the police station. He asked him to account for the possession of the goods. He said “I bought them. I am a dealer”. He asked who he bought them of, and he did not say – he said he came by them honestly.

Prisoner asked for the statement he made before the Magistrates, and a letter he wrote from Canterbury to the Superintendent to be produced and read to the jury.

Supt. Taylor put in a long statement made by the prisoner after his committal, and the Recorder read it. It's purport was that he received the articles of a soldier belonging to the 17th Lancers, who, he said, was an officer's servant, and wanted to find a purchaser for them, and on his (prisoner's) suggestion he was allowed to carry the bundle to the Oddfellows. Next morning he sold some of the towels quite openly to get a drink. The Recorder also read a long letter written by the prisoner from Canterbury, in which he said he had been the landlord of a public house at Devonport. He married the landlady and they separated by mutual consent. His wife had allowed him upwards of a guinea a week. He had also received two small legacies, and had written stories for weekly journals, and had won money in newspaper prize competitions, so that he had no necessity to work.

In reply to the prisoner, Supt. Taylor said all the information he gave as to his antecedents was correct. The London police knew nothing. He found by enquiry that the prisoner was in company with a man in uniform two days previous to his arrest. There was no man in the 17th Lancers of the description given by the prisoner. There was no Capt. Owen in the 17th Lancers. Prisoner said a man named Stone or Lucas could identify the man, and he took Stone to the Hounslow Barracks, where the 17th Lancers had just arrived, but he could not identify anyone. The statement made by the prisoner about his wife was not true. She had not made him an allowance.

Henry Rebus proved purchasing the articles at a sale of Mr. Owen's goods in 1889, for Miss Mary Campbell. The articles were all marked “Owen”, and had lot tickets on them. He took them to a house belonging to Miss Campbell, 29, Brockman Road, and locked them up in a room. He saw the things safe as late at the 14th or 15th July of this year. He missed the things on the 19th. The storm sash of the window had been broken open, and the things were gone.

Jane Davis, wife of John Davis, a lodger at the Oddfellows Arms, said on Wednesday morning, the 15th July, she saw the prisoner, who asked her to go into the kitchen to see his night's work. She went, and untied the bundle. He gave her thirteen towels to take up to Mrs. Carter to sell for 2s. to get him a drink. She took them to Mrs. Carter, and brought them back. Mrs. Carter said she would see about them when she got up. She had seen Mrs. Carter that morning. She had been ill for a week and was unable to attend.

Prisoner: What is the matter with Mrs. Carter? – I don't know.

Prisoner: Perhaps she has got perjury the matter with her. I can prove she committed perjury before the Magistrates.

Witness said she had a doctor's certificate.

In answer to prisoner, witness said she lent him an open basket to take the towels out in. There were about 20 people in the house.

Prisoner caused some amusement by reading a list of the people who were in the house.

Stephen Bailey, another lodger at the Oddfellows, said the prisoner asked him to feel the weight of a bundle of linen. He then asked him to lend him 2d., or to give him 1s. for a pair of sheets. When Mrs. Carter came down she sent for a policeman.

Mr. Glyn put in the deposition of Lucy Carter, and told prisoner the doctor had been sent for, and when he arrived he would be allowed to put questions to him. The deposition stated that the prisoner lodged in her house on Saturday, Sunday and Monday, but was absent on Tuesday night. He returned early on Wednesday.

Edith Ralph, wife of the landlord of the Duke Of Edinburgh Inn, Tontine Street, said the prisoner went to her house with some towels in an open basket. He asked her to buy some, and she bought 10 for 1s. 10d. In the afternoon she examined them, and finding a name on them, she took them to the police station. Prisoner told her he got the towels honestly.

In answer to the Recorder, witness said she had not heard of the robbery before she took the towels to the Superintendent.

Jemima Davidson said she bought two towels of the prisoner in the Duke Of Edinburgh for 3d.

Prisoner called Charles William Young, Master of the Elham Union Workhouse, who stated that the prisoner was admitted to the infirmary on the 24th June and discharged on the 13th July.

Prisoner said that proved the perjury of the witness Carter, who was so ill she could not come.

Henry Stone, who said “Lucas” was his nickname, said he was a plasterer, residing at Folkestone. He saw the prisoner in the Perseverance on Monday from twelve o'clock until five or ten minutes to eleven, and on Tuesday from 12.30 until eleven. There was a man there in soldier's clothes on Tuesday night. His uniform was like that of the 17th Lancers. Prisoner said he should like to get work in the town, and they went together about eight o'clock to the Pavilion Fields to see if they could get work. When they returned the soldier was still there, and they left about eleven.

In reply to Mr. Glyn, witness said he went to Hounslow, and saw the regiment paraded, but did not recognise the soldier among them.

Prisoner made a long statement, in which he attempted to show that he was innocent in “thought, word, or deed”. Had he been guilty, it was not likely he would have stayed in the town to be arrested.

Mr. Glyn, in his closing remarks to the jury, said that on his own statement the prisoner was a thief, because he said he received goods from a soldier and agreed to find a customer for them, instead of which he sold a portion of them and spent the money on drink.

The Recorder, in summing up, said they must all regret to see a man possessing the ability the prisoner had displayed standing in such a position. He commented on the statements of the prisoner, and compared them with the evidence, pointing out that there was proof that the prisoner was dealing with the goods very shortly after they were stolen.

The jury, without leaving the box, found the prisoner Guilty of receiving the goods knowing them to be stolen.

Superintendent Taylor produced a copy of the prisoner's discharge from the army and a letter he had received relating to that part of the prisoner's statement as to his keeping a public house. Nothing was known about him by the London police. The address he gave was that of a court which had been pulled down for improvements.

The Recorder said the jury had taken a merciful view of the case. Prisoner had been in prison three months, and he would be sentenced therefore to only three months' hard labour.

 

Folkestone Herald 17 October 1891.

Quarter Sessions.

Monday, October 12th:

James McCarthy, 29, engine fitter, was sentenced to three months' imprisonment for stealing two dimity curtains, three pairs of linen sheets, and other articles, the property of Mary Campbell, from an unoccupied house in Brockman Road.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 11 October 1895.

Local News.

William Leary was summoned, on Wednesday, to appear before the Magistrates to answer the charge of assaulting Ellen Harvey.

Previous to the hearing the defendant was sitting in the lobby, making a great deal of noise and shouting. To stop this the police had to remove him to the police station, and consequently he was was brought before the Bench in semi-custody. The charge was read over to him, calling on him to find sureties to keep the peace. This roused the prisoner's indignation. “Sureties! Sureties! What do you mean?” he shouted. Some of the people in Court laughed, and he turned round and shook his fist, exclaiming “Don't you laugh at me!” The Magistrates did not consider the defendant in a fit state to plead, and Sergeant Butcher stated that in his opinion he was drunk. They therefore remanded him until Thursday.

“Take him below” said Sergeant Butcher. This was the signal for a fearful outburst of rage on the defendant's part, and he struck out right and left, nearly knocking over the witness box. Sergt. Swift and the Town Sergeant, and others, came to assist, but they had all they could do to get him to the cells, for he fought and kicked like a maniac. Ultimately he was put safely under lock and key.

It appears that the man was charged with a violent assault some two months ago, and on that occasion it took six or eight men to get him to the station. He then appeared in the dock covered with blood, and presenting a woeful appearance. His conduct at the station was so bad that the poice were compelled to handcuff him in the cells. On his liberation from prison Mr. Rowland Hill, the Police Court Missionary of the C.E.T.S., got him work and supplied him with tools, but he never went to it.

The man was brought up again on Thursday and presented a very different appearance, a night in the cells having evidently sobered him.

In reply to the Chairman, he stated he was very sorry for his conduct in Court the previous day. He had had something to drink. The Chairman said as he had shown contrition the Bench would look over his conduct this time.

Ellen Harvey, a single woman, said she lived at Castle Place. On Sunday last she was in the Duke Of Edinburgh beerhouse with an old lady. He came in and used bad language. He said that after shutting up time he was going to kill her, and the people she lived with. She asked what she had done to deserve such treatment. She then rushed out to the back of the house. He followed her, and continued to do so until she was onliged to obtain the protection of P.C. Bailey. He threatened her several times. She went in bodily fear of him. She had offered to leave the town herself if he would keep away from her. The witness here got very excited, and implored the Bench to grant her protection. Previously she had cohabited with him, but not since.

By the prisoner: I did not live with you since you came out of prison, neither did we drink together. You have never given me money.

The prisoner said he had used threats, but the witness knew he never intended to carry them out.

The prosecutrix said she had suffered greatly from the prisoner's brutality.

The prisoner said if the Bench would look over the matter he would leave the town.

The prosecutrix again implored the Magistrates to give her protection.

The Chairman said the case was clearly proved, but as he had undertaken to leave the town, if he did so at once the Bench would give him the opportunity of doing so. The prisoner said he would do so, and not return at all.

The case was adjourned until Saturday. If he had left the town the case would be at an end. If he did not it would be proceeded with.

 

Folkestone Express 12 October 1895.

Wednesday, October 9th: Before Captain Carter, J. Fitness, W.G. Herbert, T.J. Vaughan, R.J. Fynmore and G. Spurgen Esqs., and Alderman Sherwood.

William Leary was summoned for using threats towards Ellen Harvey, who asked that he should be bound over to keep the peace.

Defendant behaved in an excited manner, and Sergeant Butcher gave evidence to the effect that he had the defendant under observation during the morning, and he was drunk. The case was therefore adjourned till the next morning.

The defendant was requested to go below, when he became extremely violent, and used disgusting language. He resisted with such force that it took the united efforts of three constables and a civilian to remove him from the Court.

Sergeant Butcher said the defendant had just come out of gaol after six weeks' imprisonment.

On Thursday Leary was brought up again, and his demeanour was very different. The lady, however, was in an excited state.

Captain Carter asked prisoner: What do you have to say to the Bench in reference to your very unseemly conduct yesterday?

Prisoner: I am very sorry. I had some drink, and got very excited. It shan't occur again.

Captain carter: I am glad to hear you express contrition. I certainly never witnessed a scene of the kind in this court before. I don't know whether my brother Magistrates will look over it. You were brought here on a summons, and ought to behave yourself. We will hear the evidence.

Ellen Harvey said she lived at 8, Castle's Yard, and at half past nine on Sunday night she was in the Edinburgh Tavern. The prisoner went in an said “After shutting up time I am going to kill you and the people you live with”. She asked him what she had done to deserve such treatment from him, and rushed out at the back. Prisoner followed her about the streets until half past eleven, and she had to get protection from P.C. Bailey. Prisoner used very bad language, and threatened her so that she went in bodily fear of him. She had offered to provide him with food if he would go away from her. He had been in prison recently. Before that they lived together, but not since. (The complainant got very excited, and implored the Bench to give her protection).

Prisoner said he did use threats, but the complainant knew very well he did not intend to do such things.

Complainant replied that she had suffered enough from his brutality.

Prisoner promised to leave the town if the Bench would allow him to depart, and on the understanding that he would go away at once the case was adjourned till Saturday.

 

Folkestone Herald 8 October 1898.

Police Court Report.

On Wednesday – before Messrs. Hoad, Fitness, Pledge, and Salter – John Smith was charged with stealing two live ducks, the property of Mr. Gambrill.

Thomas Davis, a labourer, living at 20, Queen Street, deposed that he knew the defendant. The previous morning, the 4th, about half past 10 a.m., he saw him in the Edinburgh beerhouse, in Tontine Street. He had a bag containing something. He asked witness if he could “plant” two mudlarks. Witness replied in the affirmative, and took the bag to Mr. Baker. On the bag being untied, Mr. Baker took out two white ducks, for which he finally gave witness 5s. 6d., promising to give another 6d. on a subsequent occasion. Witness went back and found the defendant, who took 4s, from him. Witness did not ask him where he got the ducks from. A constable afterwards met witness.

Mr. William Baker, fishmonger, Sandgate Road, deposed that Davis, the last witness, came to him the previous day. He brought the ducks in a bag, and asked witness if he would buy them. Witness saw them in the yard. He bought them for 5s. 6d., promising another 6d.

George Higgings, labourer, deposed that he had charge of the ducks and poultry at Broadmead Manor. At 6 o'clock on Monday evening he saw them locked up in a lodge. The next morning on going there he found the wire netting pulled away. There was enough space for a man to get through. He missed two ducks and a drake. On Tuesday he went to Mr. Baker's shop with P.C. Johnson. He there saw the drake and one of the ducks. He valued them at 4s. each. He fed them daily.

P.C. George W. Johnson deposed that about 6.30 p.m. the previous evening, the 4th, from information received, he went to the Edinburgh public house, Tontine Street, and saw Davis, who afterwards pointed out the defendant. He said in the defendant's presence “This is the man who gave me the ducks”. The defendant said “That's right. I found them along the Lower Road about half past five in the morning”. Witness brought him to the police station, where he was charged. Defendant said “That's right. I shall have to explain matters”.

The defendant elected to be dealt with summarily, and pleaded Not Guilty. He said he found the two ducks in a bag, tied up, in the Lower Road. He took them, but he did not steal them.

The Bench sentenced him to one month's hard labour.

 

Folkestone Up To Date 8 October 1898.

Wednesday, October 5th: Before J. Hoad, J. Pledge, J. Fitness, and Salter Esqs.

John Smith was charged with stealing two ducks and one drake, the property of Mr. Gambrill, Broadmead Manor.

Thomas Davis said: I am a labourer. I met the prisoner in the Edinburgh beerhouse in Tontine Street. He had some ducks with him, and he asked me if I could plant two mudlarks. I said “Yes, anyone would have them if they were alive”. I untied the bag, and he took out two white ducks. I asked what he wanted for them, and he said 5s. He took 4s., and told me to keep the 1s. I did not ask him where he got the ducks from. I saw him later in the day.

Mr. Williams said: i am a fishdealer etc., on the Sandgate Road. Davis brought the ducks to me in a bag and asked if I would buy them. I bought them for 6s. I paid 5s. 6d. and promised the extra 6d.

George Higgins said: I am a labourer at Broadmead Manor, in the employ of Mr. Gambrill. On Monday evening the ducks were all safe locked up in a lodge in the yard. The next morning I found the wire netting of the woodwork cut away, and sufficient space for a man to get through. I missed two white ducks and a drake. On Tuesday evening I went to Mr. Williams's shop with P.C. Johnson, and there found a drake and one of the ducks. The ducks were of my rearing. There were only six in the lodge. I value them at 4s. each.

P.C. William Johnson said: About 6.30 p.m. last evening, the 4th, from information received, I saw the witness Davis, who pointed out the prisoner. Davis said in the prisoner's presence “This is the man who gave me the ducks”. The pruisoner said “Alright. I found them on the road this morning. I shall have to explain matters”. I took him into custody.

The prisoner pleaded not guilty, and said that he found the ducks on Tuesday morning in a bag on the Lower Road.

The prisoner was sentenced to a month' hard labour.

The Chairman remarked that the prisoner should bear in mind when he found things to deliver them up to the police.

The prisoner: That is just where I was wrong.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 31 March 1900.

Thursday, March 29th: Before Messrs. Hoad, Pledge, Vaughan, and Stainer, and Col. Westropp.

John Whittingstall, a sailor, and John Cooper, ship's cook, were charged with being concerned in stealing a cwt., value 1s. 9d., from the sailing ship Brocklesbury.

Detective Burniston said: I was on duty yesterday morning in Harbour Street. About 11.45 I was going towards the Harbour, when I saw Whittingstall leave a ship which was lying in the Harbour. He was carrying a sack, which I afterwards found contained coals. I followed him into Tontine Street, when I saw him enter the public bar of the Duke Of Edinburgh public house. I waited a few minutes and then went in myself. I looked round the bar, but did not see Whittingstall. I saw Mrs. Ralph, the landlady, who came from the back of the bar. I asked her where the man had gone with the coals, and in company with Mrs. Ralph I went down to the cellar. I there saw a daughter of Mrs. Ralph and Whittingstall. The daughter was holding a lighted candle, and Whittingstall was in the act of emptying coals out of a sack. I prevented him from emptying the sack, and asked him where he got them from. He replied “The cook on the Brocklesbury gave them to me”. I said “Are you one of the crew?” He replied “No”. I then said, in the presence of Mrs. Ralph, “How much have you paid this man for these coals?” She replied “I have not paid him anything. I am going to give him some beer for them”. She added “I hope you will not do anything to me. You can see how I am”, and she repeated that she had not paid Whittingstall anything. I then charged Whittingstall on suspicion with stealing the coals, and took him into custody. I called P.C. Allen, and together we went to the Harbour, where I saw Cooper on the quayside. In the presence of Whittingstall I said “Have you given this man any coals?” He replied “Yes”. I then brought Whittingstall to the police station, where he was detained while I made further inquiries. Afterwards, with P.C. Allen, I went to the Duke Of Edinburgh public house, took possession of the coals, and brought them to the station. I then charged Whittingstall with stealing them, and he made no reply. This morning I charged Cooper with being concerned in stealing the coal, and he replied that he did not know anything about it. When I first saw Whittingstall leaving the ship with the bag upon his back, Cooper was standing by the cabin door.

Captain Wilmott, of the Brocklesbury, said: The prisoner Cooper is cook on board the ship. On Tuesday the 27th March I left Folkestone for Whitstable, and the mate was left in charge of the ship. I returned to Folkestone yesterday, the 28th. In consequence of a message I received I called at the police station, and then saw Detective Burniston, who showed me a sack containing coal. I cannot identify the sack, nor the coals. Prisoners had no authority either to sell coals or to give them away on board the ship.

By the prisoner Whittingstall: I have had no previous complaint to make. Whittingstall I have always found honest while in my employ.

Cooper here pleaded Not Guilty, and Whittingstall Guilty.

The Chairman, addressing Cooper, said there was a doubt in his case, of which he would have the benefit, and he would be discharged. Whittingstall, however, had pleaded Guilty to a serious charge. He was an elderly man, but old enough to know better. He (the Chairman) regretted that someone else was not in the dock beside the prisoner. The sentence of the Court would be one month's hard labour, without the option of a fine.

 

Folkestone Express 31 March 1900.

Thursday, March 29th: Before J. Hoad, T.J. Vaughan, J. Stainer, and J. Pledge Esqs., and Colonel Westropp.

John Whittingstall and John Cooper, the latter a cook on the collier Brocklesbury, were charged with being concerned in stealing one cwt. of coals, value 1s. 9d., the property of W.H. Wilmott, the captain.

Det. Officer William Burniston said about 11.45 a.m. on March 28th he was in the Harbour Street and saw prisoner Whittingstall leave the ship Brocklesbury, which was in the Folkestone Harbour. He was carrying on his back a sack, which witness afterwards found to have contained coals. He followed the prisoner past Harbour Street into Tontine Street, and saw him enter the Duke Of Edinburgh public house. After waiting a few minutes witness went into the bar. He was unable to see prisoner, but presently Mrs. Marsh entered by the back room. He asked her if a man had brought any coals, and he accompanied Mrs. Ralph down into the cellar. He there saw the daughter of Mrs. Ralph holding a lighted candle whilst the prisoner was about to empty the sack produced. The Detective stopped him and asked him where he obtained them. He replied the cook on the Brocklesbury had given them to him, and when asked by witness if he was one of the crew, prisoner answered in the negative. Witness then asked Mrs. Ralph how much she was going to give in payment for the coals. She replied that she had paid him nothing, but was going to give him some beer. She then added “I hope you won't do anything to me. You can see how I am”. Witness charged Whittingstall with stealing the coal, and took him into custody. When he got outside he called P.C. Allen and together they went to the Harbour, where they saw prisoner (Cooper) on board the Brocklesbury. He called him and he came upon the quay to him, and witness asked him in Whittingstall's presence “Have you given this man any coals?”; he said “Yes”. Witness then brought Whittingstall to the police station, where he was detained while enquiries were made. Witness then went back to the Duke Of Edinburgh public house and took possession of the coal, and brought it to the police station. The weight of it was 112lbs., and the value 1s. 9d. He then charged Whittingstall, who made no reply. On Thursday morning John Cooper went up to the police station, when he was charged with being concerned in the theft, and he replied “I know nothing about it”.

In answer to Supt. Reeve, witness said he saw Cooper by the cook-house door when Whittingstall was leaving the ship. Cooper admitted he had given the coals.

Captain William Henry Wilmott, of the ship Brocklesbury, said that Cooper was cook on board the ship. On the 22nd he left Folkestone, and in consequence of a message on the 28th he returned and went to the police station, when he was shown the sack of coals produced. He was unable to identify either the sack or the coals. He gave Whittingstall a good character.

Whittingstall pleaded Guilty, whilst Cooper pleaded Not Guilty, and added that he did not see the prisoner leave the ship or take the sack away. They might have been sweepings.

The Bench gave John Cooper some benefit of the doubt and discharged him, and told John Whittingstall that it was a serious charge against him, and they sentenced him to one month's hard labour.

 

Folkestone Herald 31 March 1900.

Folkestone Police Court.

On Thursday John Whittingstall and John Cooper were charged with being concerned in stealing a cwt. of coals, value 1s. 9d.

From the evidence it appeared that Detective Burniston saw Whittingstall leave the ship Brocklesby on March 28th, carrying a sack. He followed him and saw him enter the Duke Of Edinburgh. The detective subsequently accompanied Mrs. Ralph into the cellar, and saw the defendant about to empty the sack. He said that it was given to him by the cook of the Brocklesby. Mrs. Ralph said that she had paid nothing, but was going to give some beer for the coals. The detective afterwards went to the harbour and saw Cooper, cook on the Brocklesby. He admitted giving Whittingstall some coal.

Captain Wilmott, of the ship, gave Whittingstall a good character.

Whittingstall pleaded Guilty and Cooper Not Guilty.

Cooper said that he did not see the other defendant leave the ship or take the sack away. They might have been sweepings.

Whittingstall was sent to a month's hard labour. The Bench discharged Cooper, giving him the benefit of the doubt.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 28 March 1903.

Saturday, March 21st: Before Mr. W. Wightwick, Lieut. Colonel Hamilton, and Messrs. S. Penfold, G. Peden, J. Pledge, E.T. Ward, T.J. Vaughan and G.I. Swoffer.

Thomas Woods was summoned for being drunk on licensed premises.

P.C. Thomas Sales said at 10.45 on the evening of the 16th he was called to the Cinque Ports Arms. As he arrived, defendant, who was drunk, left the premises. Soon afterwards witness saw the defendant at the bar of the Duke Of Edinburgh. He was leaning against the counter. The landlady refused to serve him.

Woods pleaded Guilty. He said he was very sorry, and had never been in a Court before. For the last six years he had been working on the harbour.

Fined 1s. and 9s. 6d. costs, or seven days', time being allowed for payment.

 

Folkestone Express 28 March 1903.

Saturday, March 21st: Before Aldermen Penfold and Vaughan, Lieut. Col. Hamilton, G. Peden, J. Pledge, W. Wightwick, E.T. Ward, and G.I. Swoffer Esqs.

Thos. Woods was summoned for being drunk on licensed premises.

P.C. Sales said about 10.45 on the night of the 16th inst. he was called to the Cinque Ports Arms, where he saw defendant in a drunken condition leaving the premises. About 10.55 he saw defendant in the bar of the Duke Of Edinburgh, leaning against the counter. The landlady said “You get outside. I shan't serve you”. Defendant refused to leave the place, and witness had to eject him.

Fined 1s. and 9s. 6d. costs.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 13 February 1904.

Licensing Sessions.

Wednesday, February 10th: Before Mr. W. Wightwick, Alderman Herbert, Lieut. Cols. Fynmore, Westropp, and Hamilton, Messrs. C.J. Pursey and E.T. Ward.

The Chief Constable (Mr. H. Reeve) read his annual report, which contained interesting figures with regard to drunkenness, etc. No person in Folkestone had yet been convicted a sufficient number of times to be placed on the “black list”. The Chief Constable objected to the renewal of the licence of the Swan Inn, Dover Road, and asked that the consideration of this licence might be deferred until the adjourned sessions.

The Chairman then read the Justices' Report, which stated that the number of licensed houses in Folkestone, and especially around the harbour, was out of all proportion to the population. The number of licences had not been reduced, owing to the fact that a Bill amending the Licensing Laws was shortly to be introduced in Parliament. Certain public houses – the Imperial Brewery Tap, the Hope, the East Cliff Tavern, the Victoria, the Lifeboat Inn, the Duke Of Edinburgh, and the Channel Inn had been inspected by the Justices, and recommendations with regard to their sanitary improvement and closing of back entries were made.

Mr. John Minter said that water had been laid on at the Channel Inn since the report on the bad state of the sanitary arrangements. Mr. Minter also suggested with regard to the Imperial Brewery Tap that a public bar should be made with an entrance from Mill Bay.

The Bench decided, however, that the orders made in the report should be adhered to.

Licences were then granted to the lessees of public houses and licensed premises.

 

Folkestone Express 13 February 1904.

Annual Licensing Meeting.

Wednesday, February 10th: Before W. Wightwick Esq., Lieut. Col. Hamilton, Lieut. Col. Fynmore, Lieut. Colonel Westropp, and W.G. Herbert, E.T. Ward, and C.J. Pursey Esqs.

The following was the report of Supt. Reeve: Chief Constable's Office, Folkestone, 10th February, 1904. To the Chairman and Members of the Licensing Committee of the Borough of Folkestone. Gentlemen, I have the honour to report for your information that there are at present within your jurisdiction 139 premises licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquors, namely: Full licences 87; Beer on 11; Beer off 6; Beer and Spirits (dealers) 16; Grocers 12; Confectioners 3; Chemists 4; Total 139 – an average of one licence to every 220 persons, or one “on” licence to every 313. This is a decrease of one full licence as compared with last year's return, the licence of the Marquis Of Lorne having been refused at the adjourned meeting in March. Twenty of the licences have been transferred during the year, namely, 14 full licences, two beer on, two beer off, and two grocers. One beer off licence was transferred twice during the year. One licence holder has been convicted since the last annual meeting of committing drunkenness on his licensed premises. He has since transferred his licence and left the house. The alterations which the Justices at the adjourned meeting last year directed to be made to the Packet Boat, Castle, Tramway, Bricklayers' Arms, Granville, and Star Inns have all been carried out in a satisfactory manner, and none of the licensed houses are now used as common lodging houses. Ten occasional licences, and extensions of hours on 21 occasions, have been granted to licence holders during the year. There are 14 places licensed for music and dancing, and two for public billiard playing. Eleven clubs where intoxicating liquors are sold are registered in accordance with the Licensing Act of 1902. For the year ending 31st December last year, 154 persons (131 males and 23 females) were proceeded against for drunkenness. 131 were convicted and 23 discharged. This is an increase of 65 persons proceeded against, and 51 convicted, as compared with 1902. The increase is chiefly due to the additional powers given to the police under the Licensing Act, 1902. Up to the present time no person within the Borough has been convicted the necessary number of times within the 12 months to be placed on the “black list” as provided by Section 6 of the Act of 1902. With very few exceptions the whole of the licensed houses have been conducted in a satisfactory manner. The only objection I have to make to the renewal of any of the present licences is that of the Swan Inn, Dover Road, and I would ask that the renewal of this licence be deferred until the adjourned meeting. I have the honour to be, gentlemen, your obedient servant, H. Reeve (Chief Constable).

The Chairman: I think, gentlemen, you will agree that the report of the Superintendent is a satisfactory one – in fact, I may say very satisfactory – for the whole year. With your permission I well read the report we now make to you. At the adjournment of the last general licensing meeting we stated that in our opinion the number of licences for the sale of intoxicating liquor then existing in the borough of Folkestone, especially in the part of the immediate neighbourhood of the Harbour, was out of all proportion to the population, and that we proposed between then and the general annual licensing meeting of this year to obtain information on various matters, to enable us to determine what reduction would be made in the number of licences. We invited the owners of licensed houses in the meantime to meet and agree among themselves for the voluntary surrender at this general meeting of a substantial number of licences in the borough, and to submit the result of their united action to the Licensing Justices for acceptance. Failing any satisfactory proposal for reduction by the owners, the Licensing Justices last year intimated that in the exercise of their discretionary powers they would at this year's meeting decide in a fair and equitable spirit what reduction should be made. But at the opening of Parliament last week it was announced in the King's speech that the Government intended to introduce in the House of Commons during the present session a Bill to amend the Licensing Laws. In view of this legislation we are of opinion we ought not, pending the passage of this Bill through Parliament, exercise the discretionary powers vested in us, and take measures for effecting a further reduction in the number of licences within the borough on the ground that certain licensed premises are not required for the public accommodation. We have recently inspected certain houses known as the Imperial Brewery Tap, the Hope, East Cliff Tavern, Victoria, Lifeboat, Duke Of Edinburgh, Railway Tavern, and Channel Inn.

As to the Duke Of Edinburgh, these premises are structurally unfit, and not adapted for licensed premises. There is no urinal, except one entered from the public bar by means of a door, the smell from which is very offensive. The bar is badly lighted. We direct that the holder of the licence shall, within fourteen days from this date, close the existing urinal and erect a new urinal outside the building, and also close the gate leading from the yard, uncoloured on the deposited plan, to Dover Street, so that the police may exercise proper supervision over the licensed premises.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 11 February 1905.

Licensing Sessions.

Wednesday, February 8th: 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. 8th, 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 February 1905.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

Wednesday, February 8th: 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 6th.

 

Folkestone Herald 11 February 1905.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

Wednesday, February 8th: 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 March 1905.

Adjourned Licensing Sessions.

The Duke of Edinburgh.

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

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

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

Cross-examined by Mr. Avery: He fixed the area, and could have made it larger or smaller. If he had made it larger it would have included more private houses and made a smaller average. He made no complaints against the house. If it did a trade of 3 barrels he should be surprised and modify his opinion.

Mr. Ralph, examined by Mr. Avery, deposed that he averaged 3 barrels of beer per week, and paid his way. He occasionally worked as a bricklayer, but relied on the trade of the house.

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

 

Folkestone Chronicle 11 March 1905.

Adjourned Licensing Sessions.

Monday, March 6th: 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 March 1905.

Adjourned Licensing Sessions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Folkestone Herald 11 March 1905.

Adjourned Licensing Sessions.

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

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

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

Chief Constable Reeve said that this house was an ante 1869 beer on-licence, and was situated in Tontine Street. The holder obtained the transfer of the licence in April, 1891. The registered owners were Messrs. Flint and Co., of Canterbury, and the rateable value was 24. The house adjoined the Clarendon Hotel, which was a fully-licensed house. Within a radius of 100 yards there were 15 licensed houses, within 150 yards there were 33 houses, and within 200 yards there were 39 houses. The public accommodation was very small, and consisted of two compartments in the front, and a small room, used sometimes, at the back of the house. In February of last year an order for structural alterations was made as to the urinals, and also to stop up a back entrance. The present licensee was a bricklayer, and very often worked at his trade. In his opinion the licence was quite unnecessary for the requirements of the neighbourhood. Very little trade was done.

Cross-examined by Mr. Avory: Witness himself had settled upon the area, and prepared the statistics submitted to the Bench. There was no opposition to the house other than it was unnecessary, nor had there been any complaint against the tenant since he had been in occupation. The class of customers served at the Clarendon Hotel, next door, was quite different to that of the Duke of Edinburgh's customers. If 3 barrels per week were sold at the house in question that would be a fair trade. There was no other beerhouse going north in the street.

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

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

Mr. Ralph, the tenant of the house, said that for 14 years he had held the licence under the same brewers, and had always paid his way. On average he did about 3 barrels of trade per week. He had brought up a family in the house, and had seven children still living. He was a bricklayer, but worked very little at his trade. He depended upon the beerhouse for a living. Thirty six residents in Tontine Street had signed a petition (produced) in favour of the licence being continued. The petition prayed for the reconsideration by the Bench of the licence of the house, and bore testimony to the good conduct of the house. One of the petitioners was a member of the Borough Council.

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

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

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

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

Mr. Avery contended that the marking of an arbitrary area on a plan as had been done by the Chief Constable produced an unfair result, for the reason that in every town one spot could be divided out where there was a cluster of licensed houses. The Bench should not be guided by any line drawn upon a map, because in that way they would not give due consideration to the wants of the people who were outside that district. The Magistrates were not dealing with theoretical questions, but questions of practical politics, namely, as to whether any of the houses should be sent to Quarter Sessions for consideration. He submitted that it was worthy of consideration whether any practical result would follow from a reference of those cases to the Quarter Sessions for the county. He believed, from inquiry, that at the present moment it would be found that there had been referred to Quarter Sessions a number of houses far exceeding any possible strain which the compensation funds could be put to. In other words the compensation funds would not be sufficient for the number of cases which would require to be met. The result would be that a total deadlock would be produced at Quarter Sessions. It could not have been intended by the Legislature that those objections should be multiplied by an enormous number of houses being referred, all of which were to have a claim upon the compensation funds, when there were no funds, or the funds were not sufficient. Quarter Sessions would be obliged to say “We must hold our hands, for we cannot deal with any of the questions, or we shall be obliged to reduce the amounts below what they should be”. Counsel further argued that in the case of Raven v Southampton Justices it was laid down that it was not sufficient to produce a map which, when viewed, showed there were too many houses in any particular neighbourhood, but that there should be some grounds distinguishing it from other licensed houses in the neighbourhood which justified the taking away of that licence rather than the licences of other houses in that street or the adjoining street. He went on to compare the Perseverance and the Welcome Inn, houses practically together, where convictions had been recorded against one and not the other, and yet the Perseverance was opposed while the other was not.

The Bench decided to refer the case to Quarter Sessions.

 

Southeastern Gazette 14 March 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 May 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 May 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 ent Area should be fixed to take place at the Sessions House, Longport, Canterbury, on the 26th 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 May 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 May 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.

 

Southeastern Gazette 30 May 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 June 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. There was no complaint against the landlord of the Duke of Edinburgh.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Duke of Edinburgh.

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

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

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

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

 

Folkestone Herald 27 May 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 sea, 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.

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.

Cross-examined by Mr. Bodkin: It was from the whole of the Licensing Justices that he received instructions. There was no complaint against the landlord of the Duke of Edinburgh.

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 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.

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

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

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

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

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

The Chairman: No, certainly not.

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

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

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

The Duke of Edinburgh.

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Southeastern Gazette 5 December 1905.

East Kent Licensing Committee.

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

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

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

 

Folkestone Herald 6 January 1906.

Local News.

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

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

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

The Committee accepted the figures and the division.

 

Southeastern Gazette 9 January 1906.

Local News.

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

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

 

Folkestone Herald 4 September 1920.

Obituary.

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

 

Folkestone Express 20 May 1933.

Obituary.

We record, with deep regret, the death of Mr. Frederick Ralph, of Beaulieu, Bouverie Road West, Folkestone, who passed away suddenly at Manor Court Nursing Home on Saturday last, in his 80th year.

Mr. Ralph had been in bad health for a long time; indeed, he had not been able to leave his house for more than eight months, yet maintained his accustomed keen interest in affairs.

Mr. Ralph was born in 1854 opposite old Newgate Prison (now demolished), and he could remember the tolling of the Great Bell of St. Paul's when the Prince Consort died in 1861, and, as a boy, witnessed the last public execution which took place at Newgate in 1868 or 1869. After occupying various posts in London (he was for a few months in the Temple), he migrated to Hastings, where he met and married his wife, who predeceased him by exactly five years. At Hastings he became a member of the Royal Naval Volunteers, and in carrying out his duties as manager to Messrs. Norton and Townsend he personally supervised, when a heavy sea was running, the loading of the wines on board Lord Brassey's yacht “The Sunbeam”. From Hastings Mr. Ralph went to Maidstone, where he became proprietor of the Queen's Head Hotel. Here he organised the first regatta to be held on the Medway.

Leaving Maidstone, Mr. Ralph came to Folkestone over 50 years ago, and bought the Rose Hotel (now no more) in Rendezvous Street. The hotel was, in those days, the recognised rendezvous of the principal citizens; the large hotels further west were not built. As time went on his business interests in Folkestone developed steadily. He was closely associated with the formation of the Pleasure Gardens Theatre Company, and, at his death, he was the senior member of the Board. He was always happy to remember that the late Lord Radnor personally invited him to join the Directorate. He took the greatest interest in theatrical affairs and knew many stage celebrities. For a short time Mr. Ralph was connected with the Victoria Pier. For many years he was Chairman of the Queen's Hotel, resigning this position only recently owing to failing health. He formed the Folkestone Billposting Company, which developed branches at Dover and Hastings, this business being afterwards amalgamated with Messrs. Partington, Kent, Limited, of which company he was Chairman at the time of his death. He was also Chairman of the Burlington, and for some years was Chairman of the Grand, afterwards remaining as Director.

About 30 years ago, Mr. Ralph formed the Leas Pavilion Company and took a continuously active interest in this business to the last. He was for some years on the Board of the Folkestone Gas Company, and likewise held Directorships in Messrs. D. Baker and Co Ltd., and the Silver Spring Mineral Water Company.

Mr. Ralph was always keenly interested in sport, and in his younger days was a natural athlete, being, in particular, a lightweight boxer of considerable merit, while many will also recall his great skill as a billiards player.

As a businessman Mr. Ralph had foresight and courage. He took endless pains to make anything he was connected with a success, and was outstanding for his high standard of commercial probity. It would not be too much to say that he was far more concerned with other people's interests, if he felt responsible for them, than he was even for his own. However, his judgement was rarely at fault, and his business ventures were almost uniformly successful.

He was a man of very considerable personality, one with a finely developed sense of humour, and he had an amazing collection of anecdotes, with great powers as a mimic.

His greatest virtues were his sense of justice and his generosity. Throughout his long life he performed kindnesses both small and great, and it is no more than his due to say his passing will be widely regretted. He felt the death of his wife very keenly, and during the last few years he was sorely tried by his inability to lead as active a life as formerly. Nevertheless, his interest in affairs remained unimpaired to the last.

He leaves a son and daughter, Mr. F.H.M. Ralph and Miss Violet Ralph, to mourn their loss.

The funeral took place on Wednesday at the Cheriton Road Cemetery.

 

Folkestone Herald 25 March 1944.

Obituary.

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

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

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

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

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

 

Folkestone Herald 25 March 1972.

Local News.

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

 

 

LICENSEE LIST

DREW Charles c1869-70 Bastions

Last pub licensee had SWAIN William 1870-85 (age 41 in 1881Census) Bastions

BRIDGES Albert 1885-88 Bastions

HARRISON John 1888-91 Bastions

RALPH Frederick 1891-06 Next pub licensee had Bastions (Also "Rose")

 

BastionsFrom More Bastions of the Bar by Easdown and Rooney

CensusCensus

 

If anyone should have any further information, or indeed any pictures or photographs of the above licensed premises, please email:-

TOP Valid CSS Valid XTHML

 

LINK to Even More Tales From The Tap Room