|
From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 6
March, 1936.
LICENSING SESSIONS
THE OLD "EMPIRE" LICENCE.
The adjourned general annual licensing meeting for Dover and the
Liberties was held at the Town Hall on Monday, before the Mayor (Alderman G.
M. Norman), Messrs. W. J. Barnes, T. Francis, W. B. Brett, S. Lewis, W. L.
Law, J. W. Bussey, W. Bradley, W. J. Palmer, H. E. Russell, Dr. C. Wood,
Lt-Col. J. A. Purefoy-Robinson, Miss Elnor and Mrs. Binge.
Townsend Ferry Application.
Thomas Charles Webb, 37, Kenley Road, Kingston Hill, Surry, Secretary of
Townsend Bros., Ferries Ltd., 78 Leadenhall St., E.C.3 applied for an order
sanctioning the provisional ordinary removal of the justices' licence held
by James William Hover in respect of the "Empire," Market Square, Dover, to
a building to be erected as an addition to existing premises situated in the
Eastern Dockyard, used by Townsend Ferries Ltd., in connection with their
cross-Channel motor car ferry service.
Mr. Rutley Mowll appeared for the applicants. There were objections by
Messrs. George Beer and Rigden, owners of the "Prince
Alfred," East Cliff, who were represented by Mr. C. J. Doughty, and by
Messrs. Gardiner and Co., owners of the "Albion,"
East Cliff, who were represented by Mr. C. Gardiner. Mr. Wright, of the
Inland Revenue, said he had been instructed not to take any action.
Mr. Mowll said the application was for the same facility that had been
granted all the other passenger berths in Dover, at the Marine Station, at
the Admiralty Pier and at the Prince of Wales' Pier and the case for
Townsend was really stronger, because in that case there was no Pullman car
train that the passengers could enter upon leaving the boat. It was a
service that was conducted irrespective of the railway. With regard to the
objections he would like to assure those who opposing the application that
the applicants did not want anything to do with any one of their customers,
and they wanted the Bench to impose a condition in the licence that would
prevent the persons who now use either the "Albion" or the "Prince Alfred"
from coming to Messrs. Townsend's refreshment room. It would be necessary
for him to apply for the same hours as they had got at the Marine Station,
because the hours of the boat did not fit in with the licensing hours. For
instance, the "Forde" left at 11 o'clock; there was no difficulty about that
because the hours begun at 10.30, and when the boat went it was proposed to
close the refreshment room down. But in the afternoon the boat arrived any
time between 3.30 and 5, and in respect of that it would be necessary to
have altered hours. That was what happened at the Marine Station; passengers
producing their vouchers were entitled to the concession the Bench allowed
them. He wished to say that they did not wish the place to be open at any
other time. They desired to close it when the boat left at 11 o'clock in the
morning, until the arrival of the boat at 3.30 in the afternoon, and then
from 5 o'clock to close for the rest of the day. Moreover as the Townsend
service only operated from April to October, they wanted to be enabled to
close the restaurant for the rest of the year. Captain Townsend was empathic
on the point that he did not want to be under any obligation to keep the
place open, except in connection with his boats. If the Bench thought fit,
it would be a convenience in the working of the licence that they should be
able to supply not only the passengers but also the persons who were down
there in connection with the service, such as A.A. and R.A.C. men, Customs,
etc.
Stewart Morse Townsend said he was the Chairman of Townsend Bros. Ferries
Ltd., which had been running motor car services from Dover to Calais since
1928. Last year they carried 6688 cars and 16,965 passengers. They had
received many complaints in regard to the absence at their berth of the
facilities possessed by all the other passenger berths in Dover. He agreed
with all that Mr. Mowll had said in his opening. An hour before the
departure of the ship, and an hour after its arrival was all they really
wanted.
Mr. Doughty referred to the plan, and asked the witness what it was
proposed to do with the room. 8ft. by 8ft. shown on it.
Witness: I understand the room is provided to conform with the
regulations that provide that you must have two rooms.
I put it to you that it is simply a subterfuge to evade the Act? It is
not a room at all? - I do not agree at all. It is conforming with the Act.
Is it going to be used at all? - Certainly.
What for? - That will remain to be seen. I have not got this worked out
yet.
If it is not worked out yet you can hardly ask the Magistrates to licence
it? - If it were necessary in order to conform with the letter and spirit of
the Act in every way we can make this room larger. It is not built yet.
Mr. Doughty: You are asking for the removal of the licence to
premises not built yet?
Mr. Mowll: It is by way of a provisional
grant.
Mr. Doughty: This is not a new application. You are applying to
remove from the Empire Music Hall. That has not been open for ten years?
- That I do not know.
To say the licence was of no value on closed
premises is obvious? - Well, I don't much about licensing. This is the
first experience I have had in connection with licensing.
Where it is
going to be moved it will be of some value? - As an amenity, but so far
as money is concerned I do not know that it will be of much value.
You
know that if it was a new application you would have to pay a monopoly
value? - I have heard that.
Is that why you brought up a derelict
licence? - I was advised that.
To avoid the monopoly value? - I
naturally do what my advisers tell me.
All those passengers of yours
who want any refreshment, it is perfectly easy for them to go to the "Albion."
At this remark by Mr. Doughty, Mr. Brett, one of the Magistrates laughed
loudly.
Mr. Doughty: I do treat the Bench with respect. I hope
and ask that the same facilities be granted to me.
Mr. Brett: It is a
ridiculous question to ask.
Mr. Doughty: Those passengers who desire
refreshment on landing have the facilities of an enormous number of
licensed premises in Dover?
Witness: That is in licensed hours, not
the time we come in.
They have not got to wait very long, or else they
can go across to the other side of the harbour? - Three miles.
And
they have all got cars? - And a considerable walk when they get to the
other side.
What is the rateable value of these licensed premises? - I
am afraid I cannot answer that. I simply don't know.
Mr. Gardiner: Are
you running in connection with the Railway Company at all?
Witness:
No.
A private show?: Yes.
Is there any reason why the Railway
Company has not made this application? - I cannot speak for the Railway
Company.
There is nothing to prevent your failing and the licence
failing with it? - We hope that will not happen.
But supposing it did.
The Railway Company, if they had a licence of that sort, would have some
financial backing? - I do not really follow you.
What I am getting at
is that you are not paying for the monopoly value? - I understand not.
I suggest the reason is that you have not the financial backing which
other people might have? - I think we could find the necessary money.
Thank you, that is what I am getting at. Now we have something we do
know. Do you know where the "Empire"
is? - I don't know. I understand it is in the Market Square.
And you
have got the sauce to come here and ask for the removal of a place when
you don't actually know what it is like? - I am not interested in where
it is coming from; I am interested in where it is going to.
Henry
Arthur James Ryeland, a member of the firm of George Hammond and Co.,
agents for Dover for Messrs. Townsend, said that according to the last
demand note he had received, the rates on the premises were £68 gross
and £54 nett. The premises included a shed, R.A.C. office, A.A. office
etc.
Mr. Mowll: You are not able to say how much the rates will be
increased by the addition? - No, I'm afraid not.
Mr. Doughty: We are
only concerned with the licensed premises, not what the whole building
will be.
Mr. Mowll: It is the whole premises that are to be licensed.
In reply to further questions, witness said he thought Messrs. Townsend
in the summer time carried one car for every one carried by the Railway
Company, probably a little more than that.
Mr. Doughty said he had
three objections to the proposed transfer. The justices have to be
satisfied that the premises were structurally adapted to the class of
licence required, and where a spirits licence was asked for, there had
to be two rooms for the accommodation of the public. They had seen the
plans before them. The second point was that the premises had to be of
the annual value set out in the schedule, which was £30 a year. In his
submission the premises did not comply with either of those sections in
the Act, and in law, the Bench could not grant the licence, because to
say that a cubby-hole, 8ft. by 8 ft., was a room within the meaning of
the Act, particularly when it was marked "private" on the plan, was not
two rooms within the meaning of the Act. It was simply a subterfuge to
get round the Act without complying with its provisions. The Bench could
not grant the licence when there was no evidence at all of the annual
value of the premises was £30 a year. Such evidence as they had related
to all the premises. He said that the "cubby-hole" was a dodge to evade
the Act and the transfer was a dodge to evade payment of monopoly value.
The "Empire," which
everyone seemed to have forgotten about, was a licence of no value,
because the premises were closed. It was proposed to transfer that to a
place where thee was a demand, so that it would become of pecuniary
value, and by the transfer the revenue was done out of the monopoly
value. The Court of appeal had upheld the decision of a Bench in
refusing a removal from a house which was doing a certain trade, when
the brewers built better premises, which it was held increased the value
of the licence. The present application was an even weaker one, because
the house from which the licence was to be removed had no trade at all.
It clearly should have been an application for a new licence. There was
no relation whatever between a licence in a music hall and a licence to
provide convenience for passengers on boats. It was simply a dodge to
get out of paying a monopoly value which the Act said should be paid,
and it was hard on those who already held licenses in the neighbourhood
and had to pay monopoly value. Finally, the number of passengers on one
boat, with an occasional relief boat, hardly constituted a demand for
such a rather out-of-the-way application. He submitted that the Bench
could not grant the application, and even if they could, it should come
in the form of an application for a new licence, and then they would be
granting something in the Marine Station had not got, and something
there was no serious demand for, and penalising other licensees in
Dover, many of whom had had to pay monopoly value.
Mr. Gardiner
associated himself with Mr. Doughty's arguments and asked that they
should be settled.
Mr. Mowll said that in answer to the legal points
Mr. Doughty had put forward, first of al, nothing whatever was said as
to the size of the second room had got to be where spirits were sold.
Second, with regard to the annual value, the building was not yet
complete and could only give them the annual value which had been given
to the addition would make it more. The third point, the monopoly value,
he could answer in a sentence. They had heard the revenue
representative, whose duty it was to protect the Government on that
point, say they had no objection to the application.
After the Bench
had retired the Magistrates' Clerk said they had decided to adjourn the
application until the 20th. The Bench wanted further information. The
plan wanted elaborating a bit more.
Mr. Doughty said surely the
application had been made closed. He must formally object to that. The
plans had been deposited, and you could not alter plans once they were
deposited.
The Magistrates' Clerk: They can ask for more information.
Mr. Doughty said that when he said they could not have it he did not
mean anything disrespectful. If it were adjourned he asked that a note
should be taken of his objection.
The Magistrates' Clerk: The bench
say the licensed premises are those coloured pink on the plan.
Mr.
Doughty said that was his submission. He said that there was no power in
law to adjourn it when the case of the applicant was closed.
Mr.
Gardiner asked for his objection to be noted too. They could not make
any further alteration to the plans until next year.
The Magistrates'
Clerk: That remains to be seen.
Mr. Doughty: I ask you to take a note
of my objection. Could I have an undertaking that the plan will not be
altered, because it has been put in.
The Magistrates' Clerk said the
plan would not be altered. The applicants could put in an amended one.
Mr. Doughty said they had closed their case. One could not alter plans
once deposited. That was an elementary rule rule of licensing law. He
hoped his objection was perfectly clear, because if that procedure were
to go on he would at once try to quash it in the High Court. He wanted a
note made of his objection, which was that the case for the applicant
had been closed and no further evidence could be called for or more
documentary evidence put in. That the plans having been deposited, they
were the only plans that could be considered. No amended plans could be
put in and those plans could not be altered or amended in any way.
The
Magistrates' Clerk: Till the adjournment?
Mr. Doughty: Or any time
till the next annual general licensing meeting.
|
