Folkestone Express 17 October 1885.

Saturday, October 10th: Before Alderman Sherwood and F. Boykett Esq.

William Ellen was summoned for keeping open licensed premises, the Lord Nelson, during prohibited hours. Mr. Ellen said he was merely the trustee to the landlady of the house, and had nothing to do with the management of the business. Mr. Bradley, however, told him he was responsible.

Sergeant Harman said on Sunday last, at about 7.40 in the morning, he went to Radnor Street and visited the Lord Nelson. He sent P.C. Smith to the front door, and went to the back door himself. He found two men standing outside in the yard. He knocked at the door and found it was fastened. In a few seconds he heard a rush down some steps leading from the taproom, and a confusion inside sounding like pots and glasses. Someone opened the back door. He saw a lot of men crowded on the staircase. As soon as they saw him they turned and ran up into the taproom. He ran after them through the taproom and a passage into a front room, and from there to the back of the house into a room resembling a storeroom. He noticed the servant standing in the taproom. In the storeroom he saw eight men and Mrs. Marsh, who conducted the business of the house. Mrs. Marsh was opening a window leading into the back yard, and assisting a man to jump out, which he did. In preventing a further escape that way he lost one man who got out of the door as he went in. P.C. Smith was then let in at the front door. Mr. Marsh came down and said “Hello, what's up? This is all through me laying abed”. He told them he should report them and they would be summoned. Marsh said “All right, we must make the best of it”. He then let Brewer, Fagg, Hills, Longhurst, Hall and Todd out. Two others he was not certain about. In the taproom there were from eight to twelve round wet marks on the table where glasses or mugs had stood. Defendant did not conduct the business himself. Mr. and Mrs. Marsh carried on the business.

P.C. Smith gave corroborative evidence.

Mr. Galbraith said the defendant was a trustee for Mrs. Marsh, who he understood was separated from her husband. He said the door was open for domestic purposes, and the men ran in, the constable following them. Mrs. Marsh and the servant would tell them no beer had been drawn, and therefore there was no offence on the part of the holder of the licence.

Eliza Marsh said she carried on the Lord Nelson, and Mr. Ellen was trustee for her. On Sunday morning she was frying fish in the parlour. The girl was cleaning the taproom and steps, and the back door was not open to her knowledge. She heard someone coming up the steps to the parlour, and she thought they were her lodgers, who were “Hastingers”. She then heard the men rush through, and immediately after she saw Sergeant Harman. She did not serve them with a drop of beer. The marks on the taproom table were left from the night before. The men tried to get out of the house, and she was confused.

Sarah Brand, servant to Mrs. Marsh, said she was sweeping the taproom back steps down on Sunday morning, and carried the dust to the dustbin, leaving the back door open. She went out a second time to shake the mats, but saw no-one enter the house, nor did she see a constable. She saw the men rush in, and Mrs. Marsh asked her why she let them in. The men had not been there two minutes when the police came. They had nothing to drink, and did not ask for any. The taproom table had not been scrubbed, and the marks were on it from Saturday night. The men said “Is there any chance for a glass?”, and she replied “No. Mrs. Marsh never draws any beer on a Sunday morning. You had better go out again”.

The Bench said there was no doubt the charge was proved. They were sorry for Mr. Ellen, but he must pay a fine of 50s., and 12s. costs. It appeared to them that it was not for the benefit of Mr. Ellen that the people who conducted the house should continue to do so, and they advised him to get rid of his trusteeship as soon as he could.

Mr. Ellen: You may depend upon it, gentlemen, I shall.

Mr. Bradley said he did not think it was at all likely the Magistrates would transfer the licence to Mrs. Marsh or to Mr. Marsh.

The six men whose names are given above were fined 2s. 6d. each, without costs.

Folkestone Express 28 August 1886.

Wednesday, August 25th: Before Dr. Bateman, Alderman Caister, J. Clark, F. Boykett and H.W. Poole Esqs., and Capt. Carter.

This being the Annual Licensing Day the magistrates attended at ten o'clock in order to prepare for the issue of licenses at eleven o'clock. Upwards of 100 licenses were granted.

Mr. Minter appeared for Wm. Ellen, trustee to Mrs. Marsh, of the Lord Nelson, against whom the Superintendent had raised an objection that Ellen was not the resident landlord, and also that in October last year he was convicted for keeping open the house during prohibited hours, and fined. Mr. Minter stated that the notice of objection had not been served in time for him to give notice to have the licence transferred to Mrs. Marsh, but he would take steps to have the licence transferred.

The Bench granted the licence on the understanding that a transfer be applied for at the adjourned sessions.

Folkestone Express 31 August 1889.

Wednesday, August 28th: Before Dr. Bateman, Captain Carter, J. Hoad, J. Clarke, H.W. Poole, J. Pledge and F. Boykett Esq.

The General Annual Licensing Meeting was held on Wednesday.

All the old licenses were renewed without opposition or comment except the following:-

The Lord Nelson, in which case the Supt. called attention to the fact that the house was not conducted satisfactorily. The police had, on Sunday, the 25th June, been refused admission. There was also an undertaking given on the last licensing day that the licence should be transferred to Mr. Marsh, the present applicant's husband. It was decided to let the application stand over till the adjourned licensing day.

Folkestone Express 21 September 1889.

Wednesday, September 18th: Before Aldermen Banks and Pledge, and H.W. Poole Esq.

Mr. Minter applied for a transfer of the licence of the Lord Nelson from Mr. Ellen to Mrs. Eliza Ann Marsh. Mr. Ellen, he said, was a trustee for Mrs. Marsh under a settlement, and Mrs. Marsh carried on the business. The Superintendent made some objection to Mr. Ellen holding the licence, he not being a resident. Mrs. Marsh had conducted the house, he would not say to the entire satisfaction of the Superintendent, because probably he was not entirely satisfied with the conduct of the house, but it had been satisfactorily conducted.

There was no objection, and the transfer was sanctioned.

Folkestone Express 30 August 1890.

Wednesday, August 27th: Before The Mayor, Dr. Bateman, Alderman Pledge, J. Clark, F. Boykett and H.W. Poole Esqs.

The Brewster Sessions were held on Wednesday. Most of the old licenses were renewed, but some were objected to by the Superintendent of Police.

The Lord Nelson.

Supt. Taylor said some people were found in this house at 10 minutes to 12 at night. It was the only complaint since the applicant had held the licence.

Granted.

Folkestone Express 8 May 1897.

Saturday, May 1st: Before W.G. Herbert and others.

Eliza Ann Marsh was summoned for selling intoxicating liquors during prohibited hours on Sunday the 18th April. Mr. John Minter appeared for the defendant, and pleaded Not Guilty.

Sergeant Lilley said on Sunday, the 18th April, in company with Sergeant Swift, he watched the Lord Nelson public house, in Radnor Street, from half past seven in the morning. They watched from the windows of St. Peter's Working Men's Club, which looked down into the yard. The distance was about 15ft. between them and the public house and they were perhaps 80ft. up away from it. At eight o'clock a man went to the window and was served with a pint of beer.

Mr. Minter objected to any evidence except as to the supply of beer to one Horace Roach. The Bench, however, overruled the objection.

Sergeant Lilley resumed: He could not see who served the man. He came from a covered passage from The Stade, which led to the Lord Nelson and one or two other houses. The window was only about 7ft. from the ground Immediately after three other men went up and were served in glasses.

Mr. Minter again objected. He said they were charged with selling to one Horace Roach – at a certain time.

Mr. Bradley said his advice to the Bench was to admit the evidence.

Sergeant Lilley resumed: These men were served with pints of beer, and each paid for them. At 8.10 four other men were served, one with a pint, one with half a pint, one with a small glass of apparently white spirit, and one with a bottle, apparently beer. One man paid for three, and one for what was in the bottle. At twelve minutes past eight another man was served with a pint of beer by defendant, and received change. At 8.16 two other men were served, and both paid. At 8.24 one man was served with beer in a bottle, and received change. At 8.25 a man was served with half a pint by defendant, paid, and received change. At 8.28 one man was served with beer in a bottle by defendant. At 8.30 eight men were served, six with pints of beer, and with two small glasses of apparently white liquor by defendant, and all paid. At 8.34 one man was served with two bottles, and paid. At 8.36 two men were served with a pint each, and paid. At 8.41 one man was served with a pint by defendant's daughter, and paid. At 8.44 one man was served with a bottle of beer, apparently by the daughter, and paid. At 8.47 two men were served by the daughter with a pint each, and paid. At 8.49 two men were served, one with a pint of beer, and one with a glass of liquor, by the daughter. (In reply to Mr. Minter, witness said he made the memoranda he was reading from as the men left). In all cases the man with the bottle was the same man. He was known to witness. At five minutes past nine, seven men were served by defendant with a pint each, and received change. At ten minutes past nine, seven men were served with a pint each by defendant, and paid. At 9.15 three men were served with a pint each, and one with a small glass containing liquor. At 9.20 two men were served with a pint each by defendant, and paid. The latter were Horace Roach and Thomas Hogben. The witness and Swift then went to the back of the window, and the two men, Roach and Hogben, had a pint glass each, containing beer. There were two other men there, and one was about to be served with a pint of beer by defendant's daughter, but when she saw them she took it back again. Mrs. Marsh was standing behind her daughter, and on seeing them she shut the window down. Witness asked to see her, and she went to the window, and he told her she would be charged with selling intoxicating liquors during prohibited hours. She said “All right”. There were 59 different sales to 45 men – some were served twice, and some three times – and the man with the bottle six times. They left off watching at 9.20. All the liquor was sold from the window.

By Mr. Minter: We could see clearly for about a yard into the room from where we were. All the sales up to 8.35 were made by Mrs. Marsh. I have no doubt about that. Afterwards some were served by her and some by her daughter.

Mr. Minter: Why didn't you go in after the first sale and warn her?

Witness: That is not my idea of police duty, when people know perfectly well they are breaking the law.

Sergeant Swift corroborated Sergeant Lilley's evidence.

Mr. Minter then addressed the Bench. He first referred to the admission of the evidence which he had objected to, and said it was new to him that such evidence should be admitted. The summons said that at a certain time, to wit, twenty minutes past nine in the forenoon, on the same day, she sold to Horace Roach a certain quantity of beer. All the evidence which had been given had been an utter surprise to him. It had not been disclosed by the defendant, who, on his asking her, denied a very great deal of it. However, it was ruled that it was admissible. It seemed to him to be most unfair and most unsatisfactory as an indictment (because they were really there on an indictment) for a specific offence, yet 50 other charges were brought against the defendant. He really thought it was a straining of the law.

Mr. Bradley: If you think the defendant is prejudiced you can ask for an adjournment.

Defendant's husband, who was at the back of the Court, requested Mr. Minter to ask for an adjournment so that they could call witnesses.

Mr. Minter said it was a matter of very serious moment to the defendant, and it was a matter of serious moment for the police if they were telling that which was untrue. Frankly, he might say (and he was sure it would not prejudice the defendant's case), he hesitated to disbelieve a great portion of what the police constable had stated, because if he was telling an untruth he certainly was not fit for the post he occupied. But one could not help noticing that there was a great deal of animus in the way in which he gave his evidence. It appeared to be full of hostility against the defendant, and it made the husband of the defendant (who was the man they had heard speak just now in the Court), desire to have an adjournment. The defendant was also naturally desirous, and he (Mr. Minter) was desirous, that there should be an adjournment of the case in order that they might call evidence to contradict that which the police had stated. As he had said, he could not believe the two policemen would be guilty of such atrocious conduct as to come there and tell such a tissue of lies. He therefore asked for an adjournment until the next Wednesday, and, further, he asked that Sergeant Lilley should be requested to give the names of those whom he knew were served by defendant, in order that they might be summoned to give evidence.

Sergeant Lilley said the first was known to him as Golder, and other names he gave were Ashby, Bailey, Carter, Cronk, Austin, Kosh, Stockton, Stiff, Payne, Strood, Cook, Hopkins, and Spearpoint. He said the majority of those he named were served more than once.

Mr. Minter, having consulted with his client, said he should withdraw, so far as he was concerned, his application for an adjournment. If the defendant persisted, she must get someone else to act for her. Although he could not say he could always put implicit faith in what policemen said, he could not be a party to suggesting that they were telling an untruth in giving the names of the men who were there. His advice to the defendant was to plead Guilty, and ask for the merciful consideration of the Bench, and he was sure she would not be prejudiced by that course.

The defendant then pleaded Guilty, and asked the Bench to deal leniently with her, She added that the policemen had been against her for years.

Sergeant Lilley, in answer to Mr. Bradley, said it was the first charge of the kind against the defendant.

Mr. Minter then appealed to the Bench to be merciful, and remarked that it was perfectly well understood that publicans believed that policemen had their favourites, who were favoured by them, but he was loth to believe in that. He urged that the Bench should not endorse the licence, as the house was the woman's livelihood. It would be a lesson to her in the future to obey the law, and not to open her house at hours when she was not allowed to do so.

The Bench said they considered it was a serious case, and there was not the slightest doubt in their minds as to the guilt of the defendant. They considered that Mr. Minter had used a very wise discretion in advising the defendant not to go into the witness box to contradict the evidence of the police. She would be fined £10 and 10s. costs. The licence would not be endorsed, but they cautioned her not to offend again in a similar way.

Mr. Minter appealed for mercy, and urged the Bench not to endorse the licence, as the house was the woman's livelihood. She had received a severe lesson.

The Bench said they had considered the case, and it was a most serious one. There was not the slightest doubt as to her guilt. Mr. Minter had exercised a wise discretion in advising defendant not to contradict the evidence of the police. She would be fined £10 and 10s. costs. The licence would not be endorsed, but they warned her not to offend again.

Folkestone Express 11 December 1897.

Wednesday, December 8th: Before The Mayor, J. Fitness, and W.G. Herbert Esqs.

The licence of the Lord Nelson was transferred to George Taylor.

Folkestone Express 26 April 1902.

Wednesday, April 23rd: Before Alderman G. Spurgen, Colonel W.K. Westropp, and W. Wightwick, W.C. Carpenter, G. Peden and J. Stainer Esqs.

Mr. John Miles was granted a transfer of the Lord Nelson.

Folkestone Express 11 July 1903.

Wednesday, July 8th: Before Lieut. Col. Fynmore, W. Wightwick, W.G. Herbert, and J. Stainer Esqs., and Alderman Vaughan.

The transfer of the licence of the Lord Nelson Inn was granted from John Miles to William Richard Heritage.

Folkestone Express 26 December 1903.

Friday, December 18th: Before The Mayor, Alderman Banks and Salter, and W. Wightwick Esq.

Stephen Punnett, who entered the dock in a fisherman's rig-out, was charged with being a deserter from His Majesty's ship Jupiter.

P.C. Allen's evidence was to the following effect:- At eight o'clock last evening I was on The Stade, where I saw the prisoner, who went into the Lord Nelson public house by the back entrance. Shortly afterwards I went in, and saw prisoner sitting in the back bar. I asked him to come outside, which he did. I said to him “Is your name Stephen Punnett?”, and he replied “John Punnett”. I then inquired “Have you been in the Navy?”, and he said “No, never”. At the police station he gave the name of John Punnett, and again denied that he had been in the Navy. When I told him that he would be detained while inquiries were made, he admitted that his name was Stephen Punnett, and that he was a deserter, having absconded from the Jupiter at Portland some five years ago.

Supt. Reeve said prisoner was gazetted on the 11th of October, 1898. He also asked for a remand until the following morning in order that he might make inquiries from the Admiralty.

The Bench thereupon granted a remand.

Prisoner was eventually discharged, the Admiralty refusing to take action.

Folkestone Express 10 October 1908.

Wednesday, October 7th: Before Mr. W.G. Herbert, Lieut. Colonel Fynmore, and Messrs. G.I. Swoffer, R.J. Linton, R.G. Wood, and C. Jenner.

In granting the transfer of the licence of the Lord Nelson public house, Radnor Street, from Mr. Heritage to Mr. Minter, the Chairman remarked that it was a very awkward house, and would want very careful management.

Folkestone Express 27 February 1909.

Wednesday, February 24th: Before Mr. W.G. Herbert, Lieut. Col. Fynmore, Major Leggett, Messrs. G.I. Swoffer, J. Stainer, R.J. Linton, and G. Boyd.

William Spearpoint, a fisherman, was summoned for being drunk upon licensed premises. He pleaded Not Guilty.

P.C. Allen said at 5.50 on the 15th February he was in Radnor Street, when he saw defendant, very drunk, staggering about the pavement near the Lord Nelson. Before witness could get to him, defendant went into the public bar of the Lord Nelson. Witness immediately entered the bar, where he saw defendant leaning on the counter. He heard the landlord order defendant out of the house, and as Spearpoint did not move the landlord ejected him. Witness told defendant he should report him for being drunk on licensed premises.

Defendant handed in a letter, which showed that he had taken the pledge in 1908.

The Chief Constable said there were nineteen convictions against defendant, but he had not been there for drunkenness for about four and a quarter years.

Spearpoint was fined 2s. 6d. and 9s. costs, or seven days'. He was allowed a week in which to pay.

Folkestone Express 28 August 1909.

Tuesday, August 24th: Before Messrs. W.G. Herbert and J. Stainer.

Harry Johnson was charged on remand with stealing 3½ dozen mechanical toys, the property of Jules Freeman.

The Chief Constable intimated that he had an additional witness to call to complete the case. A further charge would be preferred against Johnson.

The evidence given at the previous hearing of the case was read over.

Richard John May, a fisherman, of 34, Radnor Street, said on August 16th he was in the private bar of the Ship Inn, at half past two, when the prisoner came in. Johnson had a teddy bear top with him. It was in a box. The prisoner asked him if he would buy it for twopence, and witness bought it for that amount. As soon as he got it he tried it, but found it was broken. Later in the day he took the top to the police station and handed it to P.S. Sharpe.

The prisoner was then charged with stealing two pairs of tennis shoes.

William Henry Hammerton, a gardener, of 1, Shorncliffe Terrace, said he had charge of the tennis courts and pavilion of Bayham House School, on the Plain. In the pavilion, which was locked, there were two pairs of tennis shoes. On Friday evening, the 13th, the pavilion was secure, and on August 16th, in consequence of what he was told, he went to the pavilion. The door was swinging home, and the lock, which had been forced, was lying inside on the floor. Two pairs of tennis shoes were missing, and he gave information to the police. A day or two afterwards he went to the police station, where he was shown the two pairs of tennis shoes produced, which he identified as those left in the pavilion, and the property of Miss Irene de Tiere, of Avondale, Shorncliffe Road.

William Featherbe, a ship's carpenter, of 12, Warren Road, said on August 16th he was in the Packet Boat Inn, Radnor Street, at about half past eight, when the prisoner came in. Johnson had the two pairs of shoes with him and offered them for sale. He asked 2s. 6d. for one pair, and witness asked him if they were his property. He said that everything was fair and above board, and witness gave him 2s. 6d. for one pair. The next day he handed the shoes to the police.

Emily Minter, the wife of Albert Minter, the landlord of the Lord Nelson, Radnor Street, said on August 16th the prisoner came into the bar, and had the pair of shoes produced with him. He asked her if she would buy them, but she said she would not, as they were too large for her. She asked him if they were his property, and he said they were. She eventually bought them for 2s. 6d. The next day she gave the shoes to P.C. Watson.

P.C. Watson said at five o'clock on August 16th, from information received, he went to Radnor Street, where he saw the prisoner being detained by the witness Freeman, who said “I wish to give this man into custody for stealing three and a half dozen teddy near toys from the cellar at the rear of 13, Dover Street”. Witness took him into custody, when he became very violent. He had ten teddy bear toys in his possession. He was afterwards charged with stealing the three and a half dozen toys, and he replied “All right”. Shortly afterwards witness returned to Radnor Street, where he was handed four more of the toys by different people. On the same day he received information about the two pairs of shoes having been stolen. He made enquiries, and at 8.30 a.m. on the 17th he went to the Lord Nelson, where he saw Mrs. Minter, who handed him the shoes produced. Later in the day Featherbe handed him the other pair of shoes. That morning witness charged prisoner with stealing the shoes, valued at £1.

Prisoner pleaded Guilty to both charges, and attributed his thefts to drink. If they would give him a chance he would sign the pledge.

The Chief Constable said the prisoner had been convicted in different parts of the country. There were eight convictions altogether against him, ranging from twenty one days to twelve months.

The Magistrates sentenced the prisoner to three months' hard labour in each case, the sentences to run consecutively.

Mrs. Minter and the witness Featherbe were admonished by the Chairman for purchasing the goods, and were told that they ought to be ashamed of encouraging thefts by purchasing the articles.

Folkestone Express 4 December 1909.

Wednesday, December 1st: Before Mr. W.G. Herbert, Lieut. Colonel Fynmore, Major Leggett, and Messrs. J. Stainer, R.J. Linton, and G.I. Swoffer.

The transfer of the Lord Nelson, Radnor Street, from Albert Minter to Albert Edwards Champion was confirmed, temporary authority having been granted.

Folkestone Express 12 August 1911.

Monday August 7th: Before W.G. Herbert Esq., Lieut. Colonel Hamilton, J. Stainer, G.I. Swoffer, and G. Boyd Esqs.

Cornelius Murphy was charged with being drunk and disorderly in Radnor Street. He pleaded Guilty.

P.C. Kennett said at 10.40 on Saturday night he was in Radnor Street, where he saw the prisoner being ejected from the Lord Nelson public house. He requested him to go away, but the prisoner used bad language, offered to fight him, and said he meant to have some more beer. A large crowd assembled, so with the assistance of P.C. Butcher he brought Murphy to the police station.

Prisoner, a plant hawker, said he would own that he was drunk and disorderly, but it was six months since he last drank any beer.

Fined 5s. and 4s. 6d. costs, or seven days' hard labour.

Folkestone Express 24 February 1912.

Friday, February 16th: Before Alderman Vaughan and Lieut. Col. Fynmore.

John Harrison was charged with doing wilful damage by breaking a window at the Lord Nelson public house. He pleaded Not Guilty.

P.S. Prebble said at about 10.35 the previous evening, from information he received from the landlord of the Lord Neslon public house, he went with him to Beach Street, where he pointed out the prisoner and said “This man has broken my window”. He took the prisoner to the Lord Nelson public house, and he said “Yes, I did it. I had a grudge against the landlord”. He (witness) then asked the prisoner to have a look at his hand, and he found it was cut and bleeding. He brought him to the police station, when he was charged by the landlord, and he replied “Yes, it's all right”. The damage done amounted to 3s.

Prisoner said he did not break the window wilfully. He did not mean to do it, but he struck at a friend of his. It was more an accident than anything else.

The Chief Constable (Mr. Reeve) said the prisoner was staying at a lodging house. On Dec. 7th he was charged with assaulting a gentleman and was sent to prison for 14 days, and also for a further seven days for being drunk and disorderly at the same time.

Fined 5s., and ordered to pay 4s. 6d. costs and 3s. damage. In default of payment he went down for seven days' hard labour.

Folkestone Express 16 March 1912.

Tuesday, March 12th: Before Alderman Spurgen, Lieut. Col. Fynmore, and R.G. Wood and G. Boyd Esqs.

Dominic Podesta was brought up on remand, charged with stealing a lady's gold watch and chain from some person unknown.

The Chief Constable (Mr. Reeve) said the prisoner was before the Court a week ago that day on a charge of stealing a lady's gold watch and chain, the property of some person unknown. He was remanded until that morning to enable the police to make inquiries with a view to finding the owner. He was pleased to be able to inform the Magistrates that they had found the owner. The watch and chain belonged to a lady at Sandgate and was apparently stolen from her house at Sandgate. As another man would be charged with the prisoner with being concerned in the theft, he must ask the Magistrates to be kind enough to grant a further remand. The other man was at present serving a sentence in Canterbury prison, and would be released next Monday morning. He would make arrangements to have him arrested on his release, and he intended bringing him up next Tuesday. He would like the Magistrates to remand the prisoner on the evidence given last week until then so that the men could be brought up together.

The Clerk asked the prisoner if he had any objection to a remand.

Podesta said he had no objection to being remanded, so long as the other man had pleaded Guilty.

The Magistrates thereupon remanded the prisoner for another week.

Folkestone Express 23 March 1912.

Tuesday, March 19th: Before Aldermen Spurgen and Vaughan, Lieut. Col. Fynmore, and R.G. Wood Esq.

Dominic Podesta and William Smith were charged with being concerned together with stealing a gold watch and chain from Sandgate.

The Chief Constable said that Podesta had been remanded on two previous occasions. Smith was arrested the previous day. There were four or five additional witnesses to be called. The evidence given at the previous hearing was then read over.

Annie Francis Prescott, wife of John Prescott, 31, The Esplanade, Sandgate, said on Sunday, the 3rd of the month she placed the watch and chain either on the dressing table in her bedroom or on the dresser in the kitchen. Both rooms were in the basement of the house. The bedroom fronted the road and was approached by a flight of steps leading from the garden. On the following morning witness left the bedroom secure at 7.30. Later in the day, at three o'clock, on going to it again she found the window open and a square of glass broken. She did not then miss the watch. About seven o'clock in the evening on the 5th, witness searched the room for the watch and chain, and could not find them. She identified the watch and chain as her personal property by their general appearance. The value of the articles was about £10. Witness thought she had seen the prisoner Smith several months ago in the backway of the house.

Stephen Armitage, a tailor, said he lodged at 10, Fenchurch Street. He knew the prisoner Smith very well. On the morning of the 4th inst., he was entering the Lord Nelson by the back entrance, when the prisoner Smith, who was in the yard, asked him if he was going in the bar would he mind telling Dominic that he wanted him. Witness did not understand who he meant by Dominic. He entered the bar and saw several men, who were strangers to him. Witness said to them “Who is Dominic?” Podesta, who was present, said “I'm Dominic”. Witness said that “Compo” (meaning Smith) wanted him in the back yard. Podesta replied “Who is Compo?” Someone in the bar answered “The man with the cross-eyes”, which described the prisoner Smith. Podesta left the bar by the back entrance and returned a few minutes later accompanied by Smith. Podesta gave Smith a drink from his pint of beer, and the prisoners left the bar together, accompanied by several other men. Witness next saw them at four o'clock in the afternoon. He was in the bar of the Lord Nelson, when the two prisoners returned with others. Podesta ordered several pints of beer, tobacco and cigarettes, which were handed round to the men in the bar. Smith had some of the beer and then left the bar alone. Podesta remained in the house.

Hilda Lilian Champion, barmaid at the Lord Nelson, said on the 4th inst. she was serving in the bar about 4.30 p.m. when several men entered the bar, amongst whom were the two prisoners. Podesta called for six pints of ale, which witness supplied, and he paid for them with half a sovereign. Witness gave him nine single shilling in change, and he asked her to give him two sixpences for one of the shillings, and she did so. Smith drank some of the beer, and he then left the house. Podesta remained behind in the bar.

P.C. Smoker said on the 5th of March he was escorting the two prisoners to Canterbury, Podesta on remand on the present charge, and Smith on committal for another charge. Whilst awaiting the arrival of the train at the Central Station, Smith called witness to him. He said to him quite voluntarily “Constable, I wish to tell you that I stole the watch – not this man”, indicating Podesta. Witness asked him where, and Smith replied “The other end of Sandgate. I went to the house begging. I rang the bell and there was no answer. There was a window open. I put my arm through and took a watch off the table”. Podesta stood close by and heard the whole of the statement.

Detective Officer L. Johnson said about ten o'clock the previous morning he arrested the prisoner at Canterbury on a warrant. He read the warrant over to him and cautioned him. He replied “I am Guilty. I don't want Dominic to have all the blame. I went to the house with some laces. I rang the bell, but nobody came. The window was open, and the watch and chain laid on the table. I put my hand in and took them”.

Inspector Lawrence said he formally charged the two prisoners together that morning. He showed them the watch and chain (produced). Smith replied “I stole it”. Podesta said “I have nothing to do with the stealing of it”.

The Chief Constable then asked the Magistrates, if they were satisfied that a prima facie case had been made out, to commit the prisoner for trial at the next Quarter Sessions.

Smith said he did not wish to say anything.

Podesta then went into the witness box. He said he was a labourer, and had been living in Radnor Street. On the 4th of March he was in the Lord Nelson, when Armitage came into the bar and asked if there was a man there named Dominic. Witness replied “That's me”. Armitage said he was wanted down the back by a man of the name of Compo. Witness went into the back yard and saw Smith, who showed him the gold watch and chain and asked him if he could get rid of it for him. Witness asked him if he had come by it straight, and Smith said it was his own property. He understood him to say he had found it among some rags and bones. Witness looked at it and found it was gold. As he did not know the value of it he asked Smith how much he wanted for it. Smith replied “Ask a pound for it”. Witness said he had a pal in the bar who might tell him where to sell it, and they both went into the bar. Witness showed it to the two men in the bar and told them that Smith had given it to him to sell. He then asked Smith how much he was to have of the pound, and Smith said “Half of what you get”. Witness said he was going for a walk with the other fellow, if he (Smith) would stop there. If he could only get half a sovereign, was he to take it? Smith said “Very good”; he would leave it entirely to him. With that witness went away with the other man, promising to meet Smith when he had sold it. After trying to sell the articles to three different people in the afternoon, witness went into several public houses. About two o'clock Smith came and found him in the Standard and called him out and asked him if he had sold it. Witness said he hadn't, and he was not going to try much more. Two hours later Smith came to him at the bottom of High Street and said “Have you sold it now?” Witness said “No, and what's more you can take it back. It's a trouble”, and he gave it to him back. He went and spoke to two or three other men, and told them that he had given the watch back to Smith. One of them asked why he did not take it to the watchmaker in South Street. He went to Smith and said “Give it to me again. I will have one more try for the last”. Witness took the watch and chain to the jeweller (Mr. Harris) and sold it. He went straight from there to the Lord Nelson. The other men all followed in, and he called for six pints of beer, and put down the half sovereign that the jeweller had given him. Of the change he gave Smith 4s. 6d. and kept 4s. 6d. himself. He asked Smith if he was satisfied, and he said “Yes”. Witness stopped there and was arrested.

Prisoners were then committed for trial.

Podesta applied for legal aid, but the Clerk said he was not entitled to it, as he had not disclosed any defence.

Bail was fixed for Podesta, himself in £20 and two sureties of £10 each. Smith did not ask for bail.

Folkestone Express 20 April 1912.

Quarter Sessions.

Monday, April 15th: Before J.C. Lewis Coward Esq.

Dominic Podesta, aged 47, a labourer, and William Smith, 29, labourer, were indicted for stealing a lady's gold watch and chain, valued at £10, the property of Mrs. A.F. Prescott, at Sandgate, on March 4th. Podesta was also charged with receiving them, well-knowing them to have been stolen. He pleaded Not Guilty to both charges, and Smith pleaded Guilty. Mr. Weigall prosecuted on behalf of the Crown, and Mr. L. Fletcher, at the request of the Recorder, defended Podesta.

Mrs. Prescott, of 31, Esplanade, Sandgate, said the watch and chain were her property, and she valued them at £10. She remembered, on Saturday, March 3rd, putting the watch and chain either on the dresser in the kitchen or on a chest of drawers in the bedroom. She missed them on Tuesday evening.

Cross-examined, she said she had seen Smith once before at the bag of her house. He was a begging man and went about getting old clothes, rags and bones.

Stephen Armitage, a tailor, of 10, Fenchurch Street, said Smith was a casual acquaintance of his, and lodged in the same house for a period of a month. On the morning of March 4th he saw Smith at the back entrance of the Lord Nelson Inn about a quarter to eleven. He said to him (witness) “Will you tell Dominic I want him?” He went into the bar and said “Who is Dominic?”, and Podesta turned round and said “I am”. He then told him Compo wanted him and Podesta then inquired who Compo was, and one in the company said “The man with the cross eye”. Podesta left the bar and returned accompanied by the prisoner Smith. They eventually quitted the bar. About four in the afternoon Podesta and Smith, accompanied by several other men, came into the house again and Podesta called for drinks all round. Smith afterwards got up and said he was going to have some dinner. He never saw Smith again until he saw him arraigned before the Magisterial investigations. (Laughter)

Cross-examined: He knew Smith went about with a bag buying and selling old clothes and collecting rags and bones. He did not see Podesta, when he returned with Smith into the bar for the first time show a gold watch and chain to the other men, nor did he hear him ask the men what the value of them was.

Hilda Champion, the barmaid at the Lord Nelson, Radnor Street, said on March 4th, at about half past four in the afternoon, the two prisoner came into the house with sic or seven other men. Podesta called for six pints of beer, and laid down half a sovereign in payment for them. She gave him nine separate shillings in change, and he then asked for two single sixpences instead of one shilling.

Sidney Harris, jeweller and watchmaker, of 7, South Street, gave evidence of Podesta coming to his shop and asking for a pound for the watch and chain. He questioned him about it and the prisoner said it was his property, and eventually he gave him half a sovereign for the watch and chain, and promised him another 10s. in a week's time if that was all right. He valued the watch and chain at £2. He would not have got more than that for it as it was old gold.

Inspector Lawrence said on the evening of March 4th he went to Harris's shop and got the watch and chain. He later saw Podesta, and after cautioning him, told him he should take him to the police station on suspicion of stealing the watch and chain. He asked him where he got the watch, and Podesta replied “It was given to me. It was a present. I decline to say any more about it”. When charged with stealing the watch and chain an hour later, Podesta replied “I had nothing to do with the stealing part of it”. On March 19th he saw Smith and Podesta together at the police station and charged them with stealing the watch and chain. Smith replied “I stole it”, and Podesta said “I had nothing to do with stealing it”.

P.C. Smoker said on March 5th he was escorting the prisoners to Canterbury. While waiting at the Central Station, Smith, in Podesta's hearing, said “Constable, I wish to tell you I stole that watch, not this man” (referring to Podesta). He (witness) then asked where, and he replied “At Sandgate. I went there on purpose of begging. I rang the bell. There was no answer. I saw a window open. I put my arm through and took the watch off the table”.

Podesta gave evidence on oath. He detailed the conversation in the Lord Nelson following on Armitage's inquiry as to Dominic, and further said when he went out he saw Smith, whom he knew by sight. Smith said “I have got a gold watch and chain. Can you do something with it? Can you get rid of it for me?” He replied “Well, is it gold? Why can't you sell it yourself?” Smith said he did not know where to get rid of it. He (Podesta) then asked him how he got it, and he understood him to say he got it out of some left-off wearing apparel. He took the watch and chain, went back into the house with Smith, and showed them to the men inside. He asked Smith how much he wanted for the watch and chain, and he eventually said “Give me half of what you get for it”. He failed to sell it at first, and he went back to Smith and said he could not sell the watch and chain, as it was trouble – everyone thought he had stolen it. He, however, sold them to Harris. When he took the watch and chain from Smith he had no idea they had been stolen.

Cross-examined, Podesta said he was rather surprised when he got outside the Lord Nelson and saw Smtih with the watch. He knew nothing about Smith at that time. He knew such thing as a watch and chain were found in left-off wearing apparel; in fact, he had found things in such apparel himself. Smith did not tell him where he got the wearing apparel. He thought, however, he had come by the watch and chain honestly. He told Smith he could sell the watch and chain himself if he had come by them honestly, but Smith said he (Podesta) being a little more respectable, had a better chance of selling it. There was much more chance of a watchmaker thinking he had come by them honestly. Smith told him it was straight. Everyone seemed to think he had stolen the watch and chain when he offered it for sale. Before Smith was in custody he declined to say where he got the watch and chain from.

Both Mr. Weigall and Mr. Fletcher addressed the jury, and the Recorder summed up at some length.

The jury found Podesta Guilty of receiving the watch and chain, well-knowing them to have been stolen.

Smith then admitted a conviction for felony at Hythe Police Court on November 22nd, 1910, and Podesta admitted a conviction for felony at Hastings Quarter Sessions on June 27th, 1911.

Neither of the prisoners had anything to say why judgement should not be passed upon them.

The Chief Constable (Mr. Reeve) gave the records of the two men. Smith had seventeen previous convictions, commencing on March 15th, 1901, when he was sentenced to seven days at Greenwich for stealing. On July 20th of the same year he received two months hard labour at the same Court, and again on December 4th six weeks hard labour for stealing. His sentences included nine months at the London Sessions for shop-breaking and larceny, and three months at Lambeth for being on enclosed premises, three months at Canterbury for attempted stealing, and three months at Greenwich for being on enclosed premises. Podesta was well known all through that district as a card-sharper. There was a list of thirty convictions against him, commencing March 22nd, 1884. The sentences included six months for burglary at Lewes Assizes in 1901, various terms for stealing, and on January 22nd last year to six months hard labour for bag-snatching at Hastings.

The Recorder: Why are not these men prosecuted for being habitual criminals?

Mr. Weigall: I understand it is a regulation issued by the Home Secretary that such proceedings should not be taken unless there was a sentence of penal servitude in the list of convictions.

The Recorder said if there was a case where the prisoners ought to be put away that was one. Smith had pleaded Guilty to the charge, and Podesta had been found Guilty, after a very able defence had been put before the jury by Mr. Fletcher. He entirely agreed with the jury's verdict. The men presented a record which he had never known before presented in that Court. He was not going to waste time on them. They would be detained in penal servitude for three years.

Folkestone Express 18 May 1912.

Wednesday, May 15th: Before W.G. Herbert, J. Stainer, R.J. Linton, G.I. Swoffer, G. Boyd and E.T. Morrison Esqs., Alderman Jenner, Major Leggett, and Colonel Owen.

The transfer of the licence of the Lord Nelson from Albert Edward Champion to William James Monk was confirmed. Temporary authority had already been granted.

Folkestone Express 20 July 1912.

Monday, July 15th: Before G.I. Swoffer and G. Boyd.

Frank Broad was charged with being an absentee from the 4th Batt. Royal Warwickshire Regt. He pleaded Guilty.

Sergt. Prebble said at 9.50 on Saturday he saw the prisoner in the Lord Nelson Inn, and asked him his name. He replied “Ferguson”. He asked if he had been in the Army, and he said “Yes. I have got my discharge”. Prisoner then went outside and said his name was Broad and he was an absentee.

The Chief Constable said he had had a telegram from the commanding officer, saying he would send an escort for the prisoner.

He was ordered to be detained until the escort arrived.

Folkestone Express 15 February 1913.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

The Brewster Sessions were held on Wednesday morning. The Justices present were E.T. Ward Esq., Major Leggett, Lieut. Col. Fynmore, Lieut. Col. Hamilton, G. Boyd, G.I. Swoffer, R.J. Linton, and J. Stainer Esqs. Mr. Boyd and Mr. Stainer did not take part in the licensing business, not being on the committee.

The Chief Constable read his report as follows: Gentlemen, I have the honour to report that there are at present within your jurisdiction 119 places licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquor by retail, viz., Full Licences 73, Beer On 7, Beer Off 6, Beer and Spirit Dealers Off 15, Grocers, etc. Off 9, Confectioners' Wine On 3, Chemists Wine Off 5. This gives an average, according to the Census of 1911, of one licence to every 281 persons, or one on licence to every 418 persons. As compared with the return submitted last year this is a decrease of two licences. At the general annual licensing meeting last year a new licence was granted for the sale of beer off the premises at Morehall, and two other off licences were discontinued.

At the last adjourned general annual licensing meeting the renewal of the licence of the Rendezvous Hotel was referred to the Compensation Committee on the ground of redundancy, and at the meeting of that Committee on the 7th August, 1912, the licence was refused, and after payment of compensation the house was closed for the sale of drink on the 28th December last.

During the past year fifteen of the licences have been transferred; one licence was transferred twice.

Six occasional licences have been granted for the sale of drink on premises not ordinarily licensed for such sale, and 34 extensions of the usual time of closing have been granted to licence holders on special occasions.

During the year ended 31st December last 85 persons (62 males and 23 females) were proceeded against for drunkenness; 64 were convicted and 21 discharged.

In the preceding year 54 males and 31 females were proceeded against, of whom 66 were convicted and 19 discharged.

The number convicted of drunkenness last year, viz., 46 males and 18 females, is, I find, the smallest number convicted in any year since 1896.

Of those proceeded against, 31 were residents of the Borough, 34 were persons of no fixed abode, 13 residents of other districts and seven were soldiers.

No conviction has been recorded against any licence holder during the past year. Proceedings were taken against the holder of an off licence for a breach of the closing regulations, but the case was dismissed.

Eleven clubs where intoxicating liquor is sold are registered in accordance with the Act of 1902.

There are 17 places licensed for music and dancing, eight for music only, and two for public billiard playing.

I have no complaint to make as to the conduct of any of the licensed houses, and offer no opposition to the renewal of any of the present licences on the ground of misconduct.

The Chairman said it was a very satisfactory report indeed, but they felt that there were still too many licensed houses, particularly in certain portions of the Borough, and the Justices would direct that a certain number of the applications for renewal should be deferred till the Adjourned Sessions, so that they might have evidence as to the trade those houses were doing, and decide whether any of them ought to be referred to the Compensation Authority.

The houses to be dealt with were seven in number, namely; the Raglan Tavern, the Oddfellows, the Royal Oak, the Isle of Cyprus, the Lord Nelson, the Lifeboat, and the Wellington.

With those exceptions the existing licences were granted.

Folkestone Express 15 March 1913.

Adjourned Licensing Sessions.

At the annual licensing sessions seven licences were deferred to the adjourned sessions, which were held at the Town Hall on Monday. The Magistrates on the Bench were E.T. Ward Esq., Lieut. Col. Hamilton, Alderman Jenner, and W.G. Herbert, J. Stainer, R.J. Linton, G. Boyd, W.J. Harrison, J.J. Giles, E.T. Morrison and A. Stace Esqs.

The Lord Nelson.

The renewal of the licence of the Lord Nelson was first considered. Mr. Arrowsmith, of Canterbury, appeared for the owners and licensee.

Mr. H. Reeve, the Chief Constable, said he would first put in a plan of the congested area. The area commenced at the Harbour corner, up the steps to the Bayle, along the top of High Street, Rendezvous Street, Dover Road, to the Raglan, and then across Radnor Bridge Road to the sea. That embraced the whole of the old portion of the borough. Within that area there were 841 houses, giving a population approximately of 4,205 persons, reckoning five to a house. There were 30 “On” houses – 26 full and four beer on. There were also seven other premises licensed, making a total of 37 houses for the sale of drink by retail, giving an average of one licence to every 113 persons, and one on licence to every 140. Taking the borough alone they had 117 premises licensed for the sale of drink. The proportion was one licence to 286 persons. Of those 117 houses, 73 were full licences and 7 beer on, making a total of 80, and one on licence to every 418 persons. There were also in that area three registered clubs, with a membership of 1,904. During the last year he found that of the 85 charges of drunkenness dealt with by the justices, 46 of them arose in that small area. He put in the formal notice of objection to the renewal of the licence of the Lord Nelson, and the objection was that the licence was not needed for the requirements of the neighbourhood. The present licensee was William James Monk,, who obtained the transfer of the house in May, 1912. The registered owners were Messrs. Ash and Co., Canterbury, and the rateable value was £24. The house was situate in Radnor Street, just behind the Fish Market. Radnor Street was about 180 yards long. There were 51 houses in the street, five of them being fully licensed houses. The house was next door to the Radnor common lodging house. There were two doors entering from the street into a bar, which was divided by a partition 6ft. 3in. in height. Behind there was a bar parlour, with a window overlooking the backyard. From the bar parlour there were six steps leading to the backyard, where there were two stores for fish boxes, and which were let to two tenants, and there was also a door leading from the back of the cottage, No. 8, Radnor Street. The windows of the lodging house opened in the yard from the ground floor, and there was also a door leading from the house in the yard. The door had not apparently been opened for some time. The Jubilee was the next public house, 45 yards further down, on the same side of the street, and the rateable value was £32. The Wonder Tavern, in Beach Street, opposite the end of Radnor Street, was 50 yards, and of the rateable value of £36. The other licensed houses in the street were the Oddfellows, the rateable value of which was £32; the Ship, £32; and the Packet Boat, £30. That house was, as they would see, the lowest rated public house in the area. Within a radius of 15o yards there were 18 other on licensed premises – 15 fully licensed and three beer on. The trade of that house appeared to have been small, and he considered the premises to be the least suitable for licensed premises of any house in Radnor Street. The backway, which opened to the Fish Market through a narrow archway, made it very difficult to give it proper and efficient police supervision for the conduct of the premises. He considered the licence to be unnecessary for the needs and requirements of the neighbourhood. If the licence was taken away there would be ample accommodation to supply the customers who used the house. Since 1902 the present licensee was the fifth.

Cross-examined, Mr. Reeve said there had been three other licensed houses taken away during the last few years.

Inspector Swift said he had known the house for 30 years. His experience was that the premises were very difficult to supervise efficiently. In 1897 he kept observation on the premises between seven and eight until 1.30, and he saw 70 persons served from the window in the back yard.

Mr. Monk said he had been in the house for 12 months. He was making a trade. At the present time trade was about the same, keeping the same average. His business was chiefly with fishermen and men from lodging houses. In the summer they got visitors from the Warren, and he let rooms and served lunches.

Cross-examined by the Chief Constable, he said he used his own living room, which was licensed, as the place where he served lunches.

Mr. C. Moxon, Manager to Messrs. Ash and Co., said the house was acquired in 1849, and it had been licensed since 1828. The rent of the house was £20. The trade of the house in beer in seven years averaged 235 barrels, and in the last three years it had averaged 234. The spirit trade averaged just over 50 gallons during each of the last three years. He thought the house was in very good condition for old property. They had other houses in the street, two of which had gone. Three others on the other side of the arch had gone. Those five houses had gone for compensation. Their last tenant, Champion, left owing to bad health and domestic troubles. Their previous change was in 1908. They had had no complaint for the last 15 years against the house. The backyard was a public yard.

Cross-examined, witness said that house was their last one left in the street. The True Briton was a good step from Radnor Street. That was their property. He did not consider there were too many houses in the congested area. He thought the Justices should stay their hand, as he considered they had closed sufficient. All the houses were getting a living.

Mr. J. Jones said he had known the house since 1862, and had used it. He considered the Lord Nelson was required more than any house by the fishermen because they could get so easily to the backyard. The fishing trade had increased while the houses in that neighbourhood had decreased by seven. They wanted the hoses to discuss the fishing business.

Mr. Arrowsmith, in his address to the Justices, said with regard to the Lord Nelson, the great argument for the licence being renewed was the Fish Market. There were five houses along the Fish Market; some time ago there were ten, but five had gone. The accommodation was half what it was, whereas the fishing trade had increased, and was likely to increase. Messrs. Ash and Co. had lost six out of eight licences, and both the remaining houses were threatened.

The Magistrates retired, and on their return the Chairman announced that the licences of the Lord Nelson and the Isle of Cyprus would be referred to the Quarter Sessions. For those there would be provisional licences. The five other licences would be renewed, but they thought that the owners of the Wellington and the Raglan should consider the question of the urinals.

Folkestone Express 14 February 1914.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

Wednesday, February 11th: Before E.T. Ward, W.G. Herbert, T.J. Vaughan, J.J. Giles, G.I. Swoffer, R.G. Wood, and G. Boyd Esqs., Colonel Owen and Colonel Fynmore.

The Chief Constable presented his report as follows: Gentlemen, I have the honour to report that there are at present within your jurisdiction 116 places licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquor by retail, viz., Full licences 72, beer on 7, beer off 6, beer and spirit dealers off 15, grocers, etc. off 7, confectioners' wine on 3, chemists wine off 6, total 116. This gives an average according to the Census of 1911 of one licence to every 288 persons, or one on licence to every 423 persons.

This is a reduction of three licences as compared with the return submitted to you last year.

At the last general annual licensing meeting the renewal of two grocers' off licences were not applied for, as the sale of intoxicating liquor had been discontinued.

At the adjourned general annual meeting held on the 10th March last the licences of the Isle of Cyprus Inn, The Bayle, and the Lord Nelson Inn, Radnor Street, were referred to the Compensation Committee on the ground of redundancy. The licence of the Lord Nelson Inn was renewed at the preliminary meeting of the Compensation Committee, and the licence of the Isle of Cyprus Inn was refused at the principal meeting of the Committee held on the 9th July, and after payment of compensation the house was closed for the sale of drink on 31st December last.

During the year ended 31st December 71 persons (48 males and 23 females) were proceeded against for drunkenness of whom 49 were convicted and 22 discharged.

In the preceding year 85 persons (62 males and 23 females) were proceeded against, of whom 64 were convicted and 21 discharged.

It is very gratifying to again have to report a decrease in the cases of drunkenness, the number of persons proceeded against last year being the smallest for the last 17 years.

The decrease in the number of persons proceeded against for drunkenness in this borough is in no way due to any relaxation in the methods of the police in dealing with drunken persons, but is undoubtedly due to the improved habits of the people, which must be apparent to all by the fewer drunken persons to be seen in the streets, also the provision of cheap and popular forms of amusement, as well as the gradual decrease of facilities for obtaining drink by closing the less desirable of the public houses, together with the greater care of the licence holders in the conduct of their houses.

Of those proceeded against last year, 23 were residents of the borough, 25 persons of no fixed abode, 12 soldiers, and 11 residents of other districts.

No conviction has been recorded during the year against any licence holder for a breach of the Licensing Laws. Proceeding were taken against one hotel keeper for a breach of the closing regulations, but the case was dismissed; the licence of the house in question has since been transferred to a new tenant.

Twelve clubs where intoxicating liquor is sold are registered in accordance with the Act.

There are 17 places licensed for music and dancing, 8 for music only, and two for public billiard playing.

I offer no objection to the renewal of any of the present licences on the ground of misconduct, the houses generally being conducted in a satisfactory manner.

There are no applications for new licences to be made at these Sessions.

The Chairman said the report was extremely satisfactory, especially that portion of it which referred to the decrease of drunkenness. The Magistrates were also glad to find that the houses generally had been well conducted. With regard to the licences that day, they would all be renewed, with the exception of the Lord Nelson, the granting of which would be deferred until the adjourned meeting.

Folkestone Express 14 March 1914.

Adjourned Licensing Sessions.

Monday, March 9th: Before E.T. Ward Esq., Alderman Vaughan, Lieut. Col. Fynmore, W.G. Herbert, J. Stainer, G.I. Swoffer, R.J. Linton, G. Boyd, R.G. Wood and J.J. Giles Esqs., and Colonel Owen.

The question of whether the licence of the Lord Nelson public house should be referred to the Compensation Authority was the only business.

Mr. Arrowsmith (Canterbury) appeared on behalf of the owners (Messrs. Ash & Co.) and the tenant (Mr. Frank May), and applied for the renewal of the licence.

Mr. Reeve, the Chief Constable, put in a copy of the notice of objection, which was on the ground that the licence was not needed for the requirements of the neighbourhood. He also handed in a plan showing the district in which the public house was situate. He said the Lord Nelson was a fully licensed “on” public house, and was situate in Radnor Street. Mr. Frank May, the licensee, obtained a transfer on October 8th last. The rateable value of the house was £24. The present tenant was the sixth who had been in the house in 11½ years. Radnor Street, North Street, and East Street practically comprised the fishing quarter of the town. In that quarter there were 143 houses, including seven on licensed houses. Allowing five persons to a house there was one licence to every 102 persons in the district. For the borough at large there were 79 on licensed houses, being an average of one on licence for 423 persons. Radnor Street was about 180 yards long, and there were 51 houses in the street, five of them being fully licensed public houses. The Lord Nelson was on the right hand side of the street entering from Beach Street, and was next door to the Radnor common lodging house. There were two doors entering from the street to a front bar, which was divided into three compartments. Behind was another tap room or bar parlour, with a window overlooking the back yard. From that room there were six steps leading down to the back door of the house, which opened into the back yard. The yard was approached from the fish market by four steps, under an archway which was three feet two inches wide. In the yard there were two stores let to different tenants. There was also a back door opening into the yard from the cottage, No. 8, Radnor Street. The windows of the kitchen of the Radnor lodging house opened into the yard, and there was also a door from the lodging house opening into the yard. That door, however, appeared to be very rarely used. There was no light in the approach or in the back yard. The nearest house was the Jubilee, 45 yards down the road, and the rateable value of that was £36. The Wonder Tavern was 50 yards away, and the rateable value was also £36. The other licensed houses in Radnor Street were the Oddfellows, rateable value £32, the Ship, £32, and the Packet Boat, £30. Within a radius of 150 yards there were 18 other on licensed premises. The trade for the house appeared to him to be small, and of rather low class. He considered the premises were the least suitable of any of the houses in the street, and owing to the back entrance through that narrow archway, it was rather difficult for proper police supervision. He had no complaint as to the manner in which the house was conducted. The Jubilee, the Ship, and the Oddfellows all fronted on to the fishmarket, and their principal business was from the fishmarket.

Cross-examined, Mr. Reeve said what he meant by a low class trade was that the house was frequented by the people using the Radnor lodging house and the other lodging houses. He should not say that the people were all perfectly respectable, and that it was respectable. His objection was on the ground that the house was not required. He would still say it was not required even if Mr. Arrowsmith brought 100 or 200 people to give evidence that it was required, for that would not alter his opinion that they had more houses than they required in Folkestone. His opinion was that they had too many houses in Folkestone for the legitimate requirements of the population. During the past year they had 71 proceeded against for drunkenness.

Mr. Arrowsmith: Do you know what the proportion of on licences to the population in Canterbury is?

Mr. Reeve: I believe Canterbury is worse than any town in England. Proceeding, he said he had the statistics there for all England per 10,000 persons. The figures for Canterbury were 54.90 against Folkestone 24.47. They had in Canterbury one on licence to every 200 of the population.

Mr. Arrowsmith: That is to say double the number of houses per population that you have?

Mr. Reeve: Yes, but I do not think it is to the credit of Canterbury.

In answer to further questions, Mr. Reeve said the number for Dover and its liberties worked out more than at Folkestone. He would not like to say that Dover was the soberest town in England. The proportion of proceedings for drunkenness worked out at Dover at 1.58, while at Folkestone it was nearly 2½.

Det. Sergt. Johnson said he frequently visited the licensed premises in the borough, and amongst them he went to the Lord Nelson. With regard to the trade of the house, he would describe it more of a casual trade chiefly from the lodging houses. It was not a house used to any great extent by the fishing people, for he very rarely saw fishermen use it. He had not seen any of the employees of the Railway Company in it. During the past few months he had made notes of the number of customers in the house when he had visited there. The witness then detailed the visits, which took place at various times of the day, and according to his figures the most persons he had seen in the house at one time was 12, while on two other occasions there were none. Proceeding, he said the general character of the customers was that they were chiefly of the casual class, labourers, and rag and bone collectors. He had never seen a fisherman in the house on any of his visits, except on one occasion when there were two. The bulk of the trade at the Oddfellows, Ship and Jubilee was done on the fishmarket side of the premises. He considered if that licence was taken away there would be ample accommodation elsewhere to supply the customers who at present used that house.

Cross-examined, witness said in spite of evidence that was brought to the contrary, he would still say it was not required for the needs of the neighbourhood.

Inspector Swift said he had known the house for 31 years. It was not now a fisherman's house, but was now generally used by the casual class and people who used the Radnor lodging house. He was familiar with the back entrance, which made it difficult of proper police supervision. He had had an experience of that, and he had reported one licensee of the house for supplying drink during prohibited hours. On Sunday morning, April 18th, 1897, from eight o'clock to twenty minutes past nine, no less than 67 men were served through the back window opening from the tap room overlooking and back yard. That window and back entrance was still the same as it was then. He agreed with Det. Sergt. Johnson that the bulk of the trade of the three adjoining public houses was with the fish market.

This concluded the evidence on behalf of the police.

Mr. Richard Moxon, the senior member of Messrs. Ash & Company, said in 1909 the trade done in beer was 232 barrels; in 1910, 268; in 1911, 257; in 1912, 178; in 1913, 146. With regard to spirits, in 1910, 47 gallons were sold; in 1911, 59; in 1912 45; in 1913, 41½. Since the present tenant had been in the house the trade had nearly doubled. From October 8th to February 28th, 1913, the former did 54½ barrels, while the present tenant that year had done 93 barrels in the corresponding period. That roughly represents 4½ barrels a week, and that time had been the worst of the whole year. The previous tenant (Mr. Monk) was totally unsuited for the trade, although he was a very respectable man, but he never really troubled about the trade. That house was scheduled last year. Some years ago they had 19 houses in Folkestone, but they had lost six of them. If that house was taken away from them they would not have one in that particular district, unless they went up North Street, and that house was only a beerhouse. The Marquis of Lorne and the Welcome were not closed under the compensation clause.

Mr. Frank May, the licensee, said since he had been in the house he had gradually increased the trade, and he now averaged about 4½ barrels a week. He was satisfied with the trade of the house, and would like to stay. The class of the customer using the house was mostly fishermen and casuals from the lodging house. He handed in a petition asking for the licence to be renewed, and the signatures were thos of Rye fishermen, Flushing fishermen, and Folkestone fishermen. The signatures numbered about 250.

The Chairman pointed out that the addresses given included all parts of the town.

The Clerk said the addresses given included Manor Road, Ingles Mews, Cheriton Road, Coolinge Road, and Castle Hill Avenue.

Mr. May said Mr. Hart obtained some of the signatures. He (witness) got about half of them, and they were the signatures of people using his house.

The Chairman, reading from the petition: Bouverie Road, Bouverie Square, Manor Road, Broadmead Road. Those are not customers of your house, surely?

The Clerk said that they had got it in evidence that the signatories were mostly fishermen and harbour men, but it was obvious to anyone who knew, a considerable number of them were nothing of the kind.

Mr. John Jones said he had known the Lord Nelson since 1862. He had recently been frequently in the house, and he did not agree with the Chief Constable that the class of person who used the house were low class. He knew one man named Sturgess, who had used the house for 50 years. He considered the house was the most convenient for fishermen. When the fishermen came ashore they would find at times it was impossible to get in any of the houses on the Stade. There were times, however, when all the houses were empty. On July 30th last, he was conducting an election for Mr. King-Turner, and he went in a taxi-cab to all the licensed houses on the Stade, but he could not find a single voter in any of them. He should say with the increased business done at the fishmarket that the present houses did not find sufficient accommodation. In recent years the number of houses had been reduced by one half. They had held meetings at the Lord Nelson in past years, and they would begin holding them again in the house if the tenant would have them. The East Cliff district was an increasing one, and at present he should say there were 5,000 or 6,000 people residing in it. To meet that population they had only seven houses. That made one licensed house to 1,000 inhabitants, which was not sufficient. He thought they wanted two or three more houses on the East Cliff.

Cross-examined, witness said he certainly considered the house was most convenient. He believed the house was doing a better trade than it did. He agreed that a year ago in the Folkestone Daily News there was an article published, for which he took full responsibility, that the licensed victuallers were not doing so well.

Thomas Edward Saunders, a fisherman, boat proprietor, and Fishery Officer appointed by the local committee, said he had known the house for 35 years. He did not altogether agree with the Chief Constable that the trade was a low class one. The people who went into the house were not the class with whom the fishermen would not associate. He considered it was the most convenient house for the fish market. He did not think there were sufficient houses now for the use of the fishermen. The trade at the market had increased quite 50 percent since he had been collecting statistics during the past six years. He complained that there was no night house for the fishermen when they came in at night.

Mr. Reeve (to witness): You think you ought to have more houses?

Witness: I think we ought to have one at least open all night, and when I have been coming home in the boat at half past two in the morning I have run into Dover to get a drink.

Mr. Reeve: You have been thirsty.

Mr. A.J. Hart said he had lived in Folkestone all his life, and he knew the Radnor Street district very well. He had known the house since the late Councillor Saunders kept it. The class of people who used it were fishermen and the people who lived in that neighbourhood. It might also be used by casual labourers, but he would not call it low class. He had constantly seen fishermen writing their letters in the house, at which letters were also received for them.

The Chief Constable referred to four men who had been arrested in the house at different times and sentenced, two of them to three years' penal servitude, and asked Mr. Hart if he considered they were low class.

Mr. Hart admitted that he should think such men were low class.

The Town Clerk asked witness how many signatures he obtained to the petition.

Mr. Hart, in explanation, said he had got about half of them. A large number of the signatures were those of people who frequently went down to the fishmarket, and they occasionally used the house. That was the reason they signed the petition. He admitted that those people could go into some of the other places there. He did not represent any of the brewers in that locality, with the exception that he was a tenant of one of their houses. He was, however, secretary of the Licensed Victuallers' Association.

Mr. Arrowsmith addressed the Magistrates, and in the course of his remarks he said the evidence of the police was somewhat perfunctory, while the evidence he had called proved, he contended, that the house was required. He pointed out that where the number of licences had been considerably reduced there had been an increase in drunkenness, as was foreshadowed in the minority report of the Licensing Commission. He also referred to the fact that his clients had been hardly hit under the compensation clause, for if that licence went they had lost practically all the licences they held in that particular district before then. It seemed to him that an undue proportion of the burden of reduction had fallen on his clients.

The Magistrates retired, and on their return the Chairman said that they were unanimously of opinion that they should not grant the renewal of the licence, and the case would be referred to Canterbury on the grounds that it was not required for the needs of the neighbourhood. They, however, provisionally renewed the licence.

Folkestone Express 11 July 1914.

East Kent Licensing.

On Wednesday the East Kent Licensing Justices had before them at Canterbury a number of licences which had been referred to them for consideration by the Magistrates in various boroughs and petty sessional divisions. One licence had been referred by the Folkestone Bench, that of the Lord Nelson, Radnor Street, the tenant of which was Mr. F. May, and the owners Messrs. Ash and Co.

Mr. Wardley appeared on behalf of the Folkestone Magistrates and police, and Mr. Morris represented the owners and tenant of the house.

Evidence was given by Chief Constable Reeve, Inspt. Swift, and Det. Sergt. Johnson to the effect that the house was not needed for the requirements of the neighbourhood.

Mr. C. Moxon, sen., Councillor Jones, Mr. May (the tenant) and Mr. Saunders gave evidence in support of the application that the licence should be renewed.

The Magistrates retired to consider their decision, and on their return Mr. Plumptre (the Chairman) said they had decided that the house should go for compensation, and the licence would be temporarily granted for the period until the compensation was paid.