Dover Express 27 April 1866

Police Court, Friday, April 20th: Before R.W. Boarer and J. Tolputt Esqs.

John Bromley was summoned to show cause why he should not be bound over to keep the peace towards James William Newman.

James William Newman said on Tuesday evening he was standing just below the "Raglan Tavern," in Dover Street, talking to Mr. Lepper, when the defendant came across and started abusing him. He said complainant had taken a false oath against his brother in court, and that he would smash his ---- head. That was the only threat he made, and he was afraid he would carry it into execution.

Cross-examined: Did not laugh at him. Did not ask him to lend him 5s. on Tuesday morning. Did not insult his father in court. Did not say he would smash his pumpkin. Did not say he would fetch his brother back and give them both twenty years.

Godfrey Lepper, builder, Folkestone: On Tuesday evening he was talking to Mr. Newman opposite the Raglan Tavern, in Dover Street. Saw Mr. Newman come from the Raglan Tavern. Heard defendant say Mr. Newman had taken a false oath, and when his brother was released he should never drive another nail for him. Heard him say he would smash Mr. Newman's ---- head.

The defendant said if complainant spoke the truth he was no more afraid of him than he was of complainant, and he only did it to aggravate him.

The Bench ordered defendant to be bound on his own recognisance of £20, and one surety in £10, to keep the peace for two months, and remarked that if he advised his brother when he came out of prison not to return to Mr. Newman's employ, it would be the worst advice he ever received, for he would be brought before them again and receive a much longer term of imprisonment.

Mr. Clark, landlord of the Railway Tavern, pleaded guilty of having his house open on Sunday morning at 5.30.

The evidence of police constable Smith showed that he found a man and two women in the house kept by the defendant.

The defendant said the people told him they had walked from Dover that morning, or he should not have served them.

Supt. Martin said one of the men was afterwards found by the police in a beastly state of intoxication, from the effects of which he was still in Elham Union.

The Bench said this altered the matter materially, for they had cause to suspect one of the parties in the house (the man taken by the police) had been committing a felony.

Supt. Martin said that he had no fault to find with the house, and that up to this time the defendant had conducted it in a quiet and respectable manner, but as a large quantity of rum had evidently been served to the man, he thought it was his duty to bring the case before them.

The magistrates said they hoped the publicans of Folkestone would not make a mistake in the light sentence they were about to pass upon him, but taking into consideration the manner in which he had conducted his house, they should fine him 5s. and 8s. costs.

Kentish Express 28 April 1866

Police Court, Friday, April 20th: Before R.W. Boarer and J. Tolputt Esqs.

John Bromley was summoned to show cause why he should not be bound over to keep the peace towards James William Newman.

James William Newman said on Tuesday evening he was standing just below the "Raglan Tavern," in Dover Street, talking to Mr. Lepper, when the defendant came across and began abusing him. He said complainant had taken a false oath against his brother in court, and that he would smash his ---- head. That was the only threat he made, and he was afraid he would carry it into execution.

Cross-examined: Did not laugh at him. Did not ask him to lend him 5s. on Tuesday morning. Did not insult his father in court. Did not say he would smash his pumpkin. Did not say he would fetch his brother back and give them both twenty years.

Godfrey Lepper, builder, Folkestone: On Tuesday evening he was talking to Mr. Newman opposite the "Raglan Tavern," in Dover Street. Saw Mr. Newman come from the "Raglan Tavern." Heard defendant say Mr. Newman had taken a false oath, and when his brother was released he should never drive another nail for him. Heard him say he would smash Mr. Newman's ---- head.

The defendant said if complainant spoke the truth he was no more afraid of him than he (defendant) was of complainant, and only did it to aggravate him.

The Bench ordered defendant to be bound on his own recognisance of £20, and one surety in £10, to keep the peace for two months, and remarked that if he advised his brother when he came out of prison not to return to Mr. Newman's employ, it would be the worst advice he ever received, for he would be brought before them again and receive a much longer term of imprisonment.

Kentish Express 22 December 1866

Re. Godfrey Lepper: The first sitting for the proof of debts and choice of trade assignees, under this bankruptcy took place before Mr. Registrar Roche, on Wednesday. The bankrupt, who was described as of the "Raglan Tavern," 1, Dover Street, Folkestone, builder, contractor, and licensed victualler, attributed his bankruptcy to his inability to sell or let the property built by himself. The total amount of the bankrupt's debt is £1,300, unsecured due to creditors residing at Folkestone, Faversham, Canterbury, and Dover, and to creditors holding security about £2,500. Mr. James Homer Bushell (of the firm of Nightingale and Co.), Dover, brick merchant, was chosen assignee, and a majority of the creditors having resolved to take the proceedings out of Court under the 110th Section of the Bankruptcy Act, 1861, the sitting was adjourned, in order that an application might be made to Mr. Commissioner Wimslow to stay further proceedings. It was stated that the bankrupt's assets are sufficient to pay 20s. in the £. Enlarged protection from arrest was granted the bankrupt until the next sitting.

Police Court, Monday: Before R.W. Boarer Esq.

William Barker was charged with being on the premises of Messrs. Dickenson, brewers, for an unlawful purpose.

P.C. Swaine deposed that he was on duty in Tontine Street that morning about one o'clock, and saw a man loitering near the brewery. Directly afterwards the man scaled the gates, which were locked, and got over. Witness waited a few minutes, and Sergt. Newman came along. They then got over and found prisoner pretending to be asleep in one of the outhouses. Witness left Sergt. Newman in charge of the prisoner, who had been in Messrs. Dickenson's employ, and went to the private house to alarm the inmates. One of the assistants came back with him and gave prisoner into custody. On searching him 2s. was found on him.

Watson Martin deposed that he accompanied the last witness at half past one o'clock that morning to the brewhouse, where prisoner was asleep in one of the outhouses where straw is kept. On rousing him, without getting any answer from him as to why he was there, he gave him into custody. Prisoner had been in their service as engineer till about a month since, when he was discharged for drunkenness. He was afterwards taken on as a labourer, and discharged on Saturday. Witness stated that Messrs. Dickenson had no desire to be harsh, and that if the case were reduced to one of vagrancy and prisoner sent for a week or two with hard labour as a warning to others they would be satisfied.

Prisoner was discharged.

Kentish Express 22 December 1866

Police Court, Wednesday: Before The Mayor (J. Gambill Esq.), R.W. Boarer and J. Kelcey Esqs..

Thomas Sandford and Edward Stone, alias Bayley, were charged with stealing two boxes of cigars, value 25s., the property of Godfrey Lepper, of the Raglan Tavern, on Sunday, the 16th inst.

Godfrey Lepper deposed that the prisoners were at his house on Sunday afternoon just after five o'clock. They were in the bar, Bayley sitting down, Sandford standing up by the counter. They remained there the greater part of the evening. Before they left he missed two boxes of cigars from a shelf by the clock in the bar, which were there when he closed the house at five minutes past three that afternoon. The shelf is eight feet from the ground, and cannot be reached except by standing on the counter. He did not accuse prisoners of taking the cigars, but asked his wife if she had taken them down. She said she had not; neither of the prisoners answered. Supt. Martin brought the loose cigars produced tied up in a handkerchief to him at half past eight o'clock the evening before. They were the same which had been stolen; he identified them by the ribbon that tied them. He accompanied the Supt. To the prisoner Stone's house, in Charlotte Place, and found two bundles of cigars buried in the garden at the back. He saw Sandford in custody at the police station, and heard him say “Stone took the cigars and gave them to me.” Saw Stone arrested: at first he said he was innocent, but when shown the cigars taken from Sandford's garden admitted that he had taken them, and that the others were concealed in a heap of shavings.

By Sandford: There are other cigars in the town like those, but I know that these are the ones that were stolen.

Robert Fisher, landlord of the Black Bull, said he knew both prisoners well. Sandford lived about fourteen yards from him. About four o'clock on the previous afternoon, as he was out in his meadow, looking at the sheep, he saw in the dyke between his meadow and that of Sandford, a bundle, which on opening he found to be the loose cigars produced. There were ninety six cigars, which he handed over to P.C. Sharpe.

Henry Newman, bricklayer, said he was in Stone's company on Sunday afternoon at the Raglan Tavern. Prosecutor on Monday told him the cigars were stolen, and afterwards he met Stone, and told him that Lepper said if he would return them he would forgive him. Stone said he “hadn't had them.” He then said Lepper was going to send a policeman after Sandford and Stone asked what had Sandford done with his box of cigars?

P.C. Reynolds said he went to Sandford's house, charged him with stealing the cigars, and took him into custody. Sandford said “I don't know anything about it.” On the way to the police station witness told him some cigars had been found at the back of his premises. At the police station Supt. Martin charged him and he said “Stone took them and gave them to me.” Afterwards apprehended Stone who said he was innocent, and that the house might be searched, and no cigars could be found. He brought him to the police station, where Stanford repeated before him his statement that Stone had taken the cigars and given them to him. Stone afterwards said “I took 'em, and you'll find mine buried in the garden at the back of my house, in a handkerchief under some shavings.” Witness went and found the cigars as he said.

Supt. Marin gave corroborative evidence.

Stone pleaded guilty: Sandford refused to plead, and both prisoners were committed for trial at the Quarter Sessions. Prisoners applied to be released on bail, which was refused to Stone, but offered to Sandford if he could find sureties, himself in £60 and two householders at £30 each.

Kentish Express 5 January 1867

Quarter Sessions, Thursday: Before J.J. Lonsdale Esq.

Edward Stone pleaded guilty, and Thomas Sandford pleaded not guilty to an indictment charging them with stealing, on the 16th Dec. last, two boxes of cigars, value 25s., the property of Godfrey Lepper; and the latter prisoner also pleaded not guilty to a second count, charging him with receiving the same, knowing them to have been stolen. Mr. Minter appeared for the prisoner Sandford.

Just as the trial commenced, the Grand Jury, who had been discharged on their bringing in true bills against these prisoners, as there were no other cases, said they only meant to return a true bill on the second count against Sandford; but on examination the whole bill was found to be endorsed as a true bill, and the Recorder said, as they had been discharged, he could not take notice of the mistake.

As the evidence was fully given but a fortnight since we will no recapitulate it here. The facts of the case were that both prisoners were in the prosecutor’s house, the Raglan Tavern, on Sunday, the 16th Dec., nearly all the afternoon and evening. During that time prosecutor missed two boxes of cigars from a high shelf in the bar. On Tuesday evening the contents of one box were found in a ditch by the side of Sandford’s garden, and given to the police, and the contents of the other box found in Stone’s garden in some shavings. After the prisoners were taken into custody, and when they were at the police station, Sandford said before Stone and three of the witnesses “Stone took them and gave them to me,” although previously he had denied all knowledge of the cigars.

After an ingenious defence by Mr. Minter, the learned recorder summed up, and the jury retired to consider their verdict. After some interval they returned into court with a verdict of “not guilty” to the surprise of everyone in court.

Stone, who had a previous conviction recorded against him, was then sentenced to twelve months imprisonment, with hard labour.

Dover Express 8 February 1867

Advertisement Extract:

Valuable Freehold and Leasehold Property

........ A Public House, known as the Lord Raglan in a most commanding situation in Dover Street, and near to the South Eastern Railway Station.

Messrs. Worsfold and Hayward have received instruction from the Assignees, under a Deed Of Assignment for the benefit of the creditors of Mr. Godfrey Lepper, to offer for sale by public competition, at the Lord Raglan Tavern, Dover Street, Folkestone, on Thursday February 28th, 1867, at two for three o’clock precisely, the above property.

Lot 1: The Lord Raglan Tavern, a free Public House, in a most commanding situation, near the Junction Station of the South Eastern Railway, having a double frontage to Dover Street and Mill Lane, recently erected, and from its undeniable position certain to command a large trade. The house contains on the Basement, large cellar, kitchen, scullery, W.C., coal and wine cellars; on the Ground Floor, bar, bar parlour, counting house, and tap room. On the First Floor, club room, bagatelle room, and bedroom, with seven bedrooms and W.C. above; and is now in the occupation of Mr. G. Lepper. Possession could be had immediately on completion of the purchase.

Dover Express 15 February 1867

Advertisement

Notice of sale of the carcases of two 8 roomed houses in Mill Lane, which under instructions received from the Assignees under the Deed of Assignment for the benefit of the creditors of Mr. Godfrey Lepper, will be sold by auction by Messrs. Worsfold and Hayward:

At the "Lord Raglan Tavern," Dover Street, on Thursday, Feb. 28th, 1867, at 2 for 3 o’clock precisely, unless previously disposed of privately. The carcases, which adjoin the Lord Raglan Tavern, are substantially built and roofed in, and the flooring is partly laid down. The land is held under lease from the Earl of Radnor for a term of 99 years, from the 29th September, 1864, at an annual ground rent for each house of £4.

The carcases can be viewed by applying at the "Lord Raglan," and further particulars obtained of Messrs. Worsfold and Hayward, Surveyors, and Estate Agents, New Bridge, Dover; of J.F. Holmes Esq., Solicitor, 6, Milk Street, Cheapside; or of George Milman Esq., Solicitor, 9, Southampton Buildings, Chancery Lane, London.

Dover Express 22 November 1867, Kentish Express 23 November 1867

County Court, Monday: Before W.C. Scott Esq.

Jacobs v John Davis: This was a claim for £4 16s., for money lent, and for wine and spirits supplied. Mr. Minter appeared for the plaintiff.

Defendant made a counter-claim for lodgings, and pleaded that at the time he had the spirits from Jacobs, who is proprietor of the Albion Hotel, he (plaintiff) had no license to sell spirits, and that they were presents made to him, and never intended to be charged for.

After going into the amounts, His Honour gave judgement for £3 12s. 7d., to be paid in three monthly instalments, and characterised the defence of the spirits being presents as being frivolous in the extreme.

Jacobs v Frederick Graves: Claim for 8s. 6d. Defendant did not appear, and an order made for payment forthwith.

English v Jacobs: Claims 25s. for an advertisement inserted in English’s Time Tables, which defendant denied having ordered. Eventually judgement was given for the plaintiff.

Godfrey Lepper v Joseph Memphis: Claim for £1 3s. 8d., goods supplied. Defendant said he owed some; he did not know how much. The fact was he used to go into the Raglan (plaintiff’s house) and sit there playing cards from morning till night. This was for bread and cheese and beer. He never kept an account. Order for 5s, per month, His Honour remarking that such a case could not be brought after this year.

From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday 29 September, 1871.

PUBLIC-HOUSE TO LET

The "Carpenter's Arms," Peter Street, Charlton, Dover; also the "Lord Raglan," near the South-Eastern Railway Station, Folkestone. Apply to Alfred Kingsford, Buckland Brewery, Dover.

From The Dover Express, Friday, November 10, 1871.

PUBLIC-HOUSE TO LET.

THE "Lord Raglan," near the South-Eastern Railway Station, Folkestone.

Apply to Alfred Kingsford, Buckland Brewery, Dover.

Dover Express 21 December 1866

Police Court, Monday: Before R.W. Boarer Esq.

Re. Godfrey Lepper: The first sitting for the proof of debts and choice of trade assignees, under this bankruptcy took place before Mr. Registrar Roche, on Wednesday. The bankrupt, who was described as of the Raglan Tavern, 1, Dover Street, Folkestone, builder, contractor, and licensed victualler, attributed his bankruptcy to his inability to sell or let the property built by himself. The total amount of the bankrupt's debt is £1,300, unsecured due to creditors residing at Folkestone, Faversham, Canterbury, and Dover, and to creditors holding security about £2,500. Mr. James Homer Bushell (of the firm of Nightingale and Co.), Dover, brick merchant, was chosen assignee, and a majority of the creditors having resolved to take the proceedings out of Court under the 110th Section of the Bankruptcy Act, 1861, the sitting was adjourned, in order that an application might be made to Mr. Commissioner Wimslow to stay further proceedings. It was stated that the bankrupt's assets are sufficient to pay 20s. in the £. Enlarged protection from arrest was granted the bankrupt until the next sitting.

Folkestone Express 15 August 1868.

County Court.

Monday, August 10th: Before W.C. Scott Esq.

A. Kingsford v G. Lepper: Plaintiff is a brewer at Dover, and the defendant the landlord of the Raglan Tavern in Dover Street. This was an action to recover possession of the said premises.

Mr. Claris appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Minter for the defendant.

Mr. Claris said plaintiff is a brewer near Dover, and the action was brought to recover possession of the Raglan Tavern, in Dover Street, which was let to defendant for £25 per annum, the tenancy being a yearly one. An agreement had been drawn up between the plaintiff and defendant, in which there was a clause that said three months notice to quit should be sufficient, and that the tenancy was to terminate at the end of three calendar months “notwithstanding any rule or law to the contrary”. On the 6th April last plaintiff's clerk served a notice to quit on the defendant. His tenancy therefore expired, according to the agreement, on the 6th July, but he would not give up possession unless plaintiff paid for some fixtures.

He called Mr. Kingsford, the plaintiff, who deposed he had received some letters from Mr. Lepper, one of which said that he should be prepared at any time to deliver up possession on a fair valuation being made. On that taking place he would give up possession and transfer the license. Witness the put in a letter he had received from Mr. Minter, which objected to the notice because it was not a sufficient one, although he would leave if a proper valuation was made and the fixtures paid for.

Mr. Charles Brownrigg, clerk to plaintiff, proved serving the notice on Mrs. Lepper on the 6th of April.

Cross-examined by Mr. Minter: He came by the two o'clock train, and the notice was served at half past two in the afternoon.

Mr. Minter said the defendant had not received a proper notice to quit. It was shown by the agreement which was made on the 29th September last that the tenancy was a yearly one, and that the rent became due at the end of one of the usual quarters. The meaning of the tenancy clause is that three months' notice is sufficient, and the notice is to expire at the expiration of one of the quarters for which rent was payable. If the tenancy was to determine at any moment, there would have been a provision in the agreement how that portion of the rent should become payable. No claim could be made on the defendant for a portion of a quarter, and he could therefore occupy the tenancy for six weeks without paying any rent at all. He contended that the tenancy ought to end on one of the quarters mentioned in the agreement. He would next show that he had not received a proper notice. The agreement provides that the tenant is to give up possession after three months notice has been given, therefore it ought to be dated and served on April 5th, when actually it is delivered on April 6th, and the notice says they must deliver up possession on July 6th. Strictly speaking the time ought to be exclusive of the first and last days, and it is quite plain that the agreement must mean three clear calendar months.

His Honour stated that the clause relating to the notice was a special one and is intended for special occasions; the second objection is too technical. He should decide the case on it's merits, although he would make note of the two objections. Possession to be given up in ten days.

Kingsford v Lepper: This was a claim for £17 15s. 6d., being a balance due to plaintiff for beer, &c., supplied. The same counsels as in the previous case.

Verdict for the plaintiff, the amount to be paid in seven days.

Kingsford v Lepper: The plaintiff claimed £31 5s., being five quarters' rent. Same counsels both for plaintiff and defendant.

Mr. Minter objected to the case proceeding, as it was specified in the County Courts Act that actions could not be multiplied, and this claim ought to have been combined with the previous one.

Mr Claris: One is a claim for rent, and the other was a debt incurred, and therefore could not be included in one action.

His Honour overruled the objection and allowed the case to proceed.

Mr. Kingsford said defendant had possession by verbal agreement up to the 29th September.

Mr. Minter took objection to the case proceeding unless the conveyance was produced.

His Honour did not consider this necessary.

Mr. Kingsford (in answer to Mr. Minter): The property was not conveyed before the 25th March.

His Honour thought there was something in the fact that defendant was his own landlord previously, and that the assignees had left him in possession.

Mr. Minter: Defendant could not have been a tenant without he made an agreement, and the agreement was not made till September 29th.

Mr. Claris: But plaintiff made a verbal agreement with the defendant.

Mr. Minter said that under the County Courts Act the plaintiff could not recover, as there was a clause which specially stated that no multiplication of suits should be allowed, to prevent the increasing of costs. He quoted some cases which had been decided in support of the view taken by him of the question. According to this the two claims ought to have been combined; if they had the plaintiff would have no right to bring the action in this Court, as it would be a bar to the claim, the total amount exceeding £50. The splitting up one action into two was not lawful, and they could not sue for the whole amount as it would have been out of the jurisdiction of this Court.

Mr. Claris said they had distrained for the rent, but they found none worth distraining.

Mr. Minter: There is £50 worth of property on the premises.

His Honour gave a judgement for £25 for four quarters' rent, as there was no proof that the property was conveyed on March 25th.

Folkestone Express 17 October 1868.

County Court.

Monday, October 12th: Before W.C. Scott Esq.

G. Lepper v Charles Hughes: Claim for 7s. 6d. Plaintiff stated this claim was for beer supplied last year.

Defendant alleged Mr. Lepper owed him 8s. 11d. for seeds and labour.

His Honour said whatever set-off defendant had against plaintiff was a separate claim. He must give judgement for plaintiff with costs.

A. Kingsford v G. Lepper: Mr. Claris, who appeared for the plaintiff, said at the last sitting of the Court, a judgement in the case of Kingsford v Lepper gave plaintiff possession of the property of the defendant in 10 days. On the 20th of August notice of appeal was given, but no case had been submitted for His Honour's notice.

His Honour said there was no necessity for this application, as the previous order stands good.

Folkestone Express 21 November 1868.

County Court.

Monday, November 16th: Before W.C. Scott Esq.

Alfred Kingsford v Godfrey Lepper: This was a claim for £25 for rent, but on account of the absence of defendant's counsel the case was ordered to be adjourned, on defendant paying the costs of the day.

Folkestone Express 19 December 1868.

County Court.

Monday, December 14th: Before W.C. Scott Esq.

A. Kingsford v Godfrey Lepper: Mr. Claris appeared for the plaintiff, a brewer at Dover, and Mr. Minter for the defendant.

Mr. Claris said this action was brought forward at the last court, but was adjourned at the defendant's request. The plaintiff wanted to recover possession of the Radnor Tavern (sic), Dover Street, and the circumstances were rather peculiar. At the court held last August, His Honour made an order that possession was to be given up in ten days, and against that order the defendant's counsel, Mr. Minter, made an appeal, as a demand for rent had been sent in to the defendant; perhaps this revived the tenure. In consequence of this he was obliged to adopt some other proceeding. Mr. Claris then produced the agreement under which the house was let, and the Act bearing on the question. He would prove that the yearly value of the premises was under £50 if there was an objection that the case did not come within the jurisdiction of that court. In the August court they had recovered a whole year's rent in August last, of which there was not one farthing paid. He could prove power to re-enter, and he thought the case was a particularly hard one for his client, and the opposition appeared only to extort money. Mr. Kingsford, when he bought the house, bought the fixtures with it, which was certainly rather an unusual circumstance for the landlord to do. The house was sold in consequence of Mr. Lepper becoming a bankrupt, and then when the plaintiff bought the house he let it to the defendant, as he had lost a considerable sum of money, and told him if he could get more than what he gave for the fixtures he had no objection to his having the surplus. Now the defendant wants the plaintiff to buy the fixtures over again.

He called Mr. Kingsford, who said there was more than a half year's rent due on the 3rd of November last.

By Mr. Minter: He refused to supply the defendant with more beer. The demand for rent produced was in the handwriting of his clerk or son.

By Mr. Claris: Did not instruct his clerk to send in any demand.

By His Honour: The demand was sent in after the judgement of the court was given.

Mr. Fowle was then called. He said that he was a clerk to Messrs. Brockman and Harrison; was experienced in valuing. He knew the Raglan Tavern. To the best of his judgement it was not worth £50 a year.

By Mr. Minter: Did not know how many rooms it contained; had never been in the house.

Mr. Minter said he should contain his observations to the point before them. He did not know whether His Honour had the power to make the order because there may be a half year's rent in arrears. On no other ground can the plaintiff succeed in his right to re-enter, as the condition mentioned must continue in force at the time, but Mr. Kingsford can't prove that there was a half year's rent in arrears, but only one quarter. His Honour made an order for the rent and possession in August. Then a demand for rent was made, which made it a fresh tenancy. He contended that there is a half year's rent due; the defendant contends there is only a quarter. The demand was a waiver of the right to re-enter. His Honour has already given judgement in this case, and if the plaintiff does not choose to enforce that judgement, he has no right to come here and ask His Honour to pronounce another judgement on the same case. The first action was for the possession of the premises, and now the action is for the same object. Unless there is some fresh reason or new set of circumstances to recover, they could not come there and try to get His Honour to deliver another similar judgement. So far as this is concerned, the argument is null and void, and now a new tenancy has commenced, and the landlord can't take any course. There is nothing at the present moment to prevent him going to the registrar's office and executing His Honour's judgement in this case, only he may fear the consequences.

Mr. Claris was almost ready to accept the proposition that there was a fresh agreement.

His Honour thought it would be the best way for the plaintiff, to act on Mr. Minter's suggestion. He must non-suit the plaintiff. Defendant's costs allowed.

Kingsford v Margaret Court: This was proceedings taken under the Court Garnishee.

In August last the plaintiff recovered an action for £17 15s. 6d. with Mr. Lepper, which had not been paid, and Mrs. Court was indebted to Mr. Lepper under an indenture of apprenticeship to the amount of £10, which was half the amount of premium to be paid.

Mr. Minter, who appeared for the defendant, contended that the court ought not to have known of the existence of these indentures. Mr. Claris was Mr. Lepper's solicitor, and he has betrayed confidence by producing them.

Mr. Claris denied that he had been Mr. Lepper's solicitor.

Mr. Minter: The indenture of apprenticeship produced was one by which the defendant's son was to learn the business of a carpenter and builder, and Mr. Lepper was bound by that indenture to pay the apprentice certain sums of money. He is still an apprentice, and has half his time to serve. Mr. Lepper has had to sue Mr. Kingsford for £30 or £40 by action in a superior court.

Mr. Claris replied.

His Honour said he would give judgement in favour of the defendant on the first point, as the money was given for the apprentice to learn his trade. If it had been a clear debt he would have given in favour of the plaintiff.

Folkestone Express 30 January 1869.

County Court.

Monday, January 25th: Before W.G.S. Harrison Esq.

Godfrey Lepper v Thomas Newman: The order was made in November, 1867. Defendant had paid 17s., and there was 9s. 2d. due. His Honour committed him for 14 days; order suspended for 14 days.

Folkestone Express 27 February 1869.

Wednesday, February 24th: Before Captain Kennicott R.N. and S. Eastes Esq.

Transfer of License.

The Raglan Tavern – James Morford applied for a transfer, and the application was supported by Mr. Claris.

Mr. Claris, in making the application, said the license was in Mr. Lepper's name, and he refused to transfer it. His object in doing so was to extort money from Mr. Kingsford, the brewer, to whom the house belonged. He hoped the Bench would exercise the power they had, and grant the application of his client notwithstanding this.

Mr. James Morford, sworn, said: I am the present occupier of the Raglan Tavern. I know Mr. Lepper, and I took possession after he left. That was on the 20th of January. The house was shut up. I have asked Mr. Lepper to transfer the license, but he said he could not let me have it, as Mr. Minter held it. I have also asked him to transfer; he said he could not do so.

Mr. G. Lepper said this case has been pending since August last. Mr. Minter could not attend as he is engaged in very important business. Five men came to the house and turned him, Mr. Lepper, out, and at present a case concerning that was in a superior Court. The landlord broke his agreement with me by not supplying me with any beer.

Mr. Claris: So the real facts of the case are these: that the August County Court gave Mr. Kingford power to eject Mr. Lepper in ten days; then Mr. Minter gave notice of appealing to a superior Court, consequently nothing could be done till October, when Mr. Minter said he could not appeal as Mr. Kingsford had admitted Mr. Lepper as tenant. At the next Court the time had expired for the appeal to be made, and consequently he, the speaker, sent some men there to turn out Mr. Lepper, leaving him to take such steps as he thought proper. Mr. Kingsford has not received one farthing of rent during the time Mr. Lepper has been his tenant, and he has been put to expenses amounting to £60 18s. 6d., besides the cost of an ex parte injunction, and it will be impossible to get any of this back.

Mr. Lepper: There is £30 2s. 8d. due to me for work done in the house.

Mr. Claris: We were compelled to carry out these extraordinary measures, and although Mr. Lepper was not ejected under the process of the Court, there is no doubt he was simply an intruder. We had a judgement from the County Court, but the time had just expired. His conduct during the time he had been connected with Mr. Kingsford would not bear investigation.

Mr. Lepper said Mr. Kingsford acknowledged him as his tenant. He was sorry his solicitor was not there.

The Bench could see nothing to deter them from granting the license.

Folkestone Express 13 January 1872.

Wednesday, January 10th: Before The Mayor and R.W. Boarer Esq.

Transfer of License.

The license of the Raglan Tavern was transferred from James Morford to George Pearson.

Folkestone Express 20 December 1873.

Wednesday, December 17th: Before The Mayor, R.W. Boarer and J. Kelcey Esqs.

Mr. William Summers, who was formerly manager of the Naval Club in London, and who came to Folkestone to manage the County Club, applied for a temporary license to the Raglan Hotel, Dover Road, which was granted, excellent testimonials as to character being produced. Mr. Summers has also taken the Brewery Tap, Tontine Street.

Note: Date for Summers taking the Brewery Tap is at variance with information in More Bastions.

Folkestone Express 6 June 1874.

Wednesday, June 3rd: Before J. Kelcey, J. Hoad, and R.W. Boarer Esqs.

George Godden surrendered on bail to a charge of being drunk and disorderly and using obscene language.

The evidence of P.C. Hogben showed that prisoner was creating a disturbance in the bar of the Raglan Tavern, Dover Road, about six o'clock on Tuesday evening, and witness removed him at the request of Mr. Summers, the landlord. When prisoner got into the street he used most abominable language in a tone loud enough to be heard by ladies passing by in carriages, and some forty of fifty persons who had assembled. He had also stripped, and wanted to fight the landlord.

Ordered to pay 18s., or 14 days' hard labour.

Folkestone Express 13 November 1875.

Monday, November 8th: Before The Mayor, R.W. Boarer, J. Tolputt and T. Caister Esqs.

Jane Filmer was charged with stealing a quantity of pork and a cotton pocket handkerchief, together of the value of 4s. 3d., the property of Alfred Grimstead.

Prosecutor said he was a plasterer, living in Ship Street. On Saturday evening he was in the Raglan Tavern, Dover Road, when prisoner came in, accompanied by a sailor. Prosecutor had laid his handkerchief, containing the pork, upon the settle, and, after finishing his ale, he missed it. Prisoner and the sailor were also gone. He then gave information to the police.

P.C. Keeler said that from information he received he went in search of the prisoner, and found her at the Raglan Tavern at 9.30 on Saturday evening. She had the handkerchief and pork produced under her arm. Witness charged her with the robbery, when she said a friend of hers named “Katie” had dropped it in the bar. Witness then took her into custody.

In reply to the Bench, prisoner said she had no statement to make, and she was then committed for trial.

Folkestone Express 29 January 1876.

Quarter Sessions.

Monday, January 24th: Before J.J. Lonsdale Esq.

Jane Filmer was charged with stealing a quantity of pork, value 4s. 3d., the property of Alfred Grinstead, at the Raglan Tavern, Dover Road, on the 6th November.

Mr. Croft appeared for the prosecution and said that the case was of so simple a nature that it would not be necessary for him to go into details. He would therefore at once proceed to call the evidence.

Alfred Grinstead said: I am a plasterer, living in Ship Street. On the 6th November I went into the Raglan Tavern, Dover Road. I had two friends with me. I had also a parcel. The one produced is the same that I had with me. I know it by the handkerchief with which it is wrapped up. It was just after nine o'clock when I went into the Raglan, and I saw the prisoner and a soldier there. I laid my bundle down on a chair near to which the prisoner was standing. I laid it down whilst I paid for three glasses of ale which I had called for. Whilst I was paying for the ale, the prisoner left, and also the soldier, but I did not see them go. I then missed the bundle and gave information to P.C. Keeler.

P.C. Keler said: On the 6th November from information received I went in search of the prisoner, and found her in the Raglan Tavern. There was a soldier with her. She had the parcel produced under her arm, and I asked to look at it. She then let the parcel drop on to the floor. I examined it, and found it had got meat in it. The meat was afterwards identified by the prosecutor. I charged the prisoner with stealing it, when she said that a friend of hers had left it for her to take care of. I then took her into custody.

Prisoner in answer to the Court said that she took up the parcel thinking it belonged to her friend. She had no idea that it belonged to the prosecutor.

The Recorder having summed up the evidence, the jury, after retiring for a short time, returned a verdict of Guilty, and the learned Recorder sentenced the prisoner to six months' imprisonment with hard labour.

Wednesday, January 26th: Before The Mayor, Col. De Crespigny, R.W. Boarer and T. Caister Esqs.

Mr. Summers, landlord of the Raglan Tavern, applied for a special license on the occasion of the annual dinner of the Manchester Unity of Oddfellows on the 8th February.

Mr. Bradley (assistant Clerk to the Magistrates) said that it would be necessary to make the application at the Petty Sessions immediately preceding the date of the dinner.

Folkestone Express 11 March 1876.

Wednesday, March 8th: Before J. Kelcey and R.W. Boarer Esqs., and General Armstrong.

William Seabrooke and Robert Elliott were charged with being deserters from the Royal Artillery, stationed at Dover.

Both pleaded Guilty.

Superintendent Wilshere said from information he received he went in search of the prisoners on Tuesday night, and found them at the Raglan Tavern. He charged them with being deserters, when they said they were engineers. Assistance was procured and they were conveyed to the police station.

The Bench ordered them to be handed over to the military authorities.

Folkestone Express 21 April 1877.

Saturday, April 14th: Before The Mayor, General Armstrong, Colonel De Crespigny, W.J. Jeffreason Esq., and Alderman Caister.

Philip Cox, a mariner, was summoned for being drunk and disorderly and using obscene language in Dover Street. The prisoner pleaded Guilty.

P.C. Ovenden deposed on Saturday evening he was called to the Raglan Tavern, where he found the prisoner, who then walked out in company with some other men. He had got but a short distance down Dover Road when he fell to the ground. His friends got him up but he immediately fell down again. On both occasions he used offensive and indecent expressions. The prisoner then went into the Crown And Anchor, to which witness was shortly after called to eject him. This he did, and the prisoner was taken home by some friends. Witness said that there had been frequent complaints about the prisoner's conduct and bad language in Dover Street.

The Bench fined the prisoner 5s. and costs for being drunk and disorderly, and 5s. and 8s. costs for using obscene language, the alternative in each case being seven days' hard labour.

Folkestone Express 21 July 1877.

Saturday, July 14th: Before J. Clarke Esq., Alderman Caister, and General Armstrong.

George Hall was summoned for being drunk in the Dover Road on the 6th March last. Defendant pleaded Not Guilty.

P.C. Keeler stated that he was on duty in the High Street on the 6th March last, and was sent for to the Raglan Tavern. He went, and in the bar found the defendant lying on a form, speechless drunk. He obtained a conveyance and took him to the station. Upon searching defendant he found a bottle of whisky (produced) in his pocket. Dr. Mercer was sent for and defendant was taken to the Union next day.

Superintendent Wilshere stated that he was at the station on the 6th March when the defendant was brought to the station insensible. He immediately sent for Dr. Mercer, who said “The man is gorged with drink. Nature might recover itself, but he is so far gone as to be dead”. Dr. Mercer and Dr. Bateman called all that night and the next day, and defendant was removed to the Union.

The Bench fined defendant 5s. and 10s. costs, or in default seven days' imprisonment.

Folkestone Express 27 April 1878.

Wednesday, April 24th: Before The Mayor, General Armstrong, Captain Crowe, W.J. Jeffreason, J. Kelcey and R.W. Boarer Esqs., and Aldermen Caister and Sherwood.

Temporary authority was granted to Mr. William Harrison Marsh to carry on the Raglan Tavern, Dover Road.

Folkestone Express 20 September 1879.

Wednesday, September 17th: Before The Mayor, Alderman Hoad, J. Fitness, M. Bell, and R.W. Boarer Esqs.

The license of the Raglan Tavern was transferred from William Marsh to William Cheeseman.

Folkestone Express 23 June 1883.

Wednesday, June 20th: Before R.W. Boarer Esq., Alderman Hoad, and General Armstrong.

The transfer of the license for the Raglan was confirmed.

Folkestone Express 1 November 1884.

Wednesday, October 29th: Before Captain Crowe, F. Boykett and A.M. Watkin Esqs.

Transfer Of Licence.

Temporary authority was granted to Joseph Muller with respect to the Raglan Tavern.

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 Raglan was transferred to Mr. Quinton.

Folkestone Express 15 May 1886.

Saturday, May 8th: Before The Mayor, Captain Carter, and Alderman Caister.

Alfred Swinborne, described as a flower seller, was charged with stealing a watch, value £1, the property of William Watts.

Prosecutor said he lived at Canterbury. On Friday he saw the prisoner at the Raglan Tavern, Dover Road, and entrusted him with a pawn ticket and the money to go to Mr. Joseph's and redeem a watch and take it to him. Prisoner did not return, and prosecutor gave information to the police. The watch produced was his.

By the prisoner: You were not drunk, nor was I.

Joseph Whiting, of the Bricklayers' Arms, Fenchurch Street, said the prisoner went to his house on Friday evening. He had been drinking, but was not drunk. He offered the watch produced for sale for half a sovereign. Witness told him he did not want it, and the prisoner went away. Prisoner said he had found the watch.

Sergeant Pay said he went in search of the prisoner and found him in Harbour Street. He told him the charge and took him into custody. Prisoner said he didn't steal the watch. He took it out of pawn for a gentleman, and afterwards could not find him.

Prisoner pleaded Guilty and was sentenced to one month's hard labour.

Folkestone Express 22 December 1888.

Friday, December 13th: Before Colonel De Crespigny, Surgeon General Gilbourne, and Alderman Banks.

John Davidson was charged with stealing a woollen shawl, and a silver mounted walking stick, the property of some person unknown.

Sergeant Harman said he was in Dover Street about half past seven on Thursday evening, in plain clothes, and from a communication he received from Boat Inspector Brice, he watched the prisoner, who he saw come out of the Perseverance beerhouse with the shawl over his shoulders and the stick in his hand. He saw prisoner go into several shops and public houses, and at half past eight followed him into the Raglan at the top of Dover Street. He cautioned him and asked him where he got the shawl and stick from. He replied “The shawl belongs to me. It was my mother's. I didn't steal the stick. It belongs to some gentleman”. He took him to the police station and charged him on suspicion of stealing the articles, and detained him for enquiries to be made. Prisoner said he did not steal the stick; he only took it. There was a lot of flymen in the house at the time. He asked prisoner what house, and he said he would go back and show him, but witness declined to go. Prisoner was under the influence of drink, and made no reply at the station to the charge.

Superintendent Taylor asked for a remand in order that he might trace the owner of the stick, which had on the silver knob the initials “F.C.S.”

On Saturday the accused was again brought up, and there being no further evidence adduced, he was discharged.

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 Raglan Tavern: In this case the Superintendent said the house had not been conducted in a satisfactory manner during the twelve months, but he had been unable to get a case strong enough to prosecute.

Mr. Mowll, on behalf of Messrs. Beer, the owners, said they were very anxious their houses should be conducted in a proper manner.

Applicant said he had not been cautioned by the police during the four years and nine months he had been there.

Supt. Taylor said the house was the resort of loose women. He had brought the matter to the notice of the owners. The licence was granted.

Folkestone Express 9 December 1893.

Wednesday, December 6th: Before H.W. Poole, W. Wightwick and W.G. Herbert Esqs., and Surgeon General Gilbourne.

Temporary authority was granted to Frederick William Cullen to sell at the Raglan Tavern.

Note: Date for this is at variance with More Bastions.

Folkestone Express 8 June 1895.

Wednesday, June 5th: Before C.J. Pursey and W. Wightwick Esqs.

The licence of the Raglan Tavern was transferred to W.T. Robson.

Folkestone Express 24 October 1896.

Local News.

On Saturday last Sidney Thomas Robson, of the Raglan Tavern, was summoned for selling liquor at prohibited hours. Sergt. Swift deposed to finding the house open at 11.30 on the night of the 5th inst., and several people were playing at “nap”. The defence was that the defendant had entertained his friends at supper, and the Magistrates dismissed the summons. On a second summons, for permitting gambling with cards, the defendant was convicted, and fined 10s. and 14s. costs.

Folkestone Express 7 August 1897.

Friday, July 30th: Before C.J. Pursey Esq., and Alderman Salter.

John Bowden, an outporter, was charged with being drunk and disorderly in Dover Road on Thursday evening. Prisoner pleaded Guilty.

P.C. Watson said on Thursday evening he saw prisoner ejected from the Raglan Hotel. He used most filthy language and he had to be taken into custody.

Prisoner, who had been previously convicted for a similar offence, was fined 10s. and 4s. 6d. costs, or in default seven days'. Defendant was refused time for payment, and went to prison.

Folkestone Express 18 February 1905.

Inquest.

An inquest was held on Wednesday afternoon at the Town Hall, Folkestone, on the body of Frederick Mitchell, a house and estate agent, og Grosvenor Mansions, Victoria, S.W. The body was found the previous morning on the beach by a coastguardsman. The Borough Coroner (Mr. G.W. Haines) conducted the enquiry.

Charles Edward Stewart, a builder and decorator, of 6, Upper Park Street, Islington, said he identified the body as that of Frederick Mitchell, of Grosvenor Mansions, Victoria, a house and estate agent, in business for himself. He was woth three or four other gentlemen developing a building estate. Deceased's age was about 30, an was the brother-in-law of witness. His wife was in Folkestone, but was ill. On Saturday evening the deceased left Grosvenor Mansions. He said he was going to transact some business for the gentleman for whom he carried on an estate. The gentleman's name was Patrick Rafferty. Witness last saw the deceased about six months back. He did not know, nor did the deceased's wife know much about his affairs.

William Adams, a coastguard, attached to the Sandgate Station, said the previous morning at 7.30 he was returning from Folkestone to Sandgate, and when opposite the new lift he saw the body lying about a yard from the water, which had just left him. High water was at ten minutes past five. Deceased was fully dressed, with the exception of the hat, with a heavy greatcoat on. The body was lying flat on the face with the right arm extended, the fingers of the hand also lying out flat. Witness could not see any hat near. The body was bleeding from the face, which appeared to be bruised through coming into contact with the rocks.

Henry King, licensee of the Raglan Hotel, Dover Road, said he had seen the body lying at the mortuary, and he identified it as that of a man who he was with on Monday night for about an hour. He met the deceased in the Alexandra Hotel about ten o'clock in the evening. Witness asked him if he was staying in Folkestone, and he replied he was not. He also said he had come from Paris that night by the boat at nine o'clock. At eleven o'clock they came out of the hotel, and the deceased left them at the door going round at the George. He appeared very rational and quite cheerful. He said, however, that he dreaded the sea because he was always sick when he went on it. He had been drinking hot whisky but was quite sober. From the bottom of his coat for about a foot up there was a lot of mud, and it looked as though the deceased had been sitting down in it. Deceased did not say where he was going. He paid for the drinks with half a crown. He did not appear to witness as though he was suffering from mental depression. Deceased was wearing a hard hat. Witness did not notice whether he was wearing a ring.

Dr. Gilbert said he went to the mortuary that morning and saw the body. On examining it he found no marks of violence, or contusions except on the face and scalp. The marks, he considered, were caused by the action of stones and pebbles. There was a lot of sand about. The wounds were quite superficial, and would not account for death. There was a lot of sand in the mouth and nostrils; in fact the latter were choked up. He should say deceased died from drowning. He was told that when the body was stripped it was warm, so deceased could not have been in the water many hours. Looking at his upper lip he should say the deceased had been shaved within three hours of getting into the water. Deceased had a double row of front teeth – a peculiar physical condition. On the left hand there were marks as though he had worn a ring on the little finger. Witness could not smell any evidence of drink, which, however, would be neutralised by the water he swallowed.

Adams, re-called, said there was a lot of sand where he found the deceased.

Edwin J. Chadwick, the Coroner's Officer, said he went to the mortuary the previous morning and undressed the body. In the pockets of deceased he found a pair of compasses, two stones, a leather case with card case attached, containing an envelope which bore the name F. Mitchell. There was also a 14 carat gold watch, a gold chain, a pair of gold links, and 1s. 3d. on him. He had no ring upon him.

The Coroner, in summing up, said there was no suggestion that Mitchell had been robbed, and no marks about him of any violence.

Mr. Stewart, who had been in search of the deceased's wife, returned and said he could not find her. He further stated that deceased always made a deal more of things than what he ought to. Mrs. Mitchell had the impression that there was no need for her to attend. She had received a letter from her husband posted at Paris in which he said he had come to the conclusion his journey was a failure and he did not think there was any prospect in future life.

The Coroner's Officer stated that deceased's watch stopped at 2.20.

The jury returned a verdict of “Found Drowned”, but how deceased got into the water, there was no evidence to show.

Folkestone Express 15 April 1905.

Wednesday, April 12th: Before Lieut. Col. Fynmore, and W.C. Carpenter Esq.

The Bench approved of plans for alterations at the Raglan Tavern.

Folkestone Express 23 February 1907.

Wednesday, February 20th: Before E.T. Ward Esq., Aldermen Vaughan and Spurgen, Lieut. Colonel Fynmore, and T. Ames and C. Jenner Esqs.

The licence of the Raglan Hotel, Dover Road, was temporarily transferred from Mr. H. King to Mr. C.H. Barker.

Folkestone Express 2 March 1907.

Wednesday, February 27th: Before W.G. Herbert Esq., Major Leggatt, R.J. Linton and G. Boyd Esqs.

The following licence was transferred: The Raglan Tavern, from Mr. H. King to Mr. C.H. Barker.

Folkestone Express 9 March 1907.

Adjourned Licensing Sessions.

The adjourned licensing sessions were held on Monday at the Police Court, when the principal business to be considered was whether or not the five licences should be referred to the East Kent Licensing Committee for compensation. The Licensing Justices on the Bench were E.T. Ward Esq., Lieut. Col. Fynmore, Lieut. Col. Hamilton, W.G. Herbert, C.J. Pursey, R.J. Linton and W.C. Carpenter Esqs., while other justices present were Major Leggett, Mr. G. Boyd, and Mr. J. Stainer.

The licences of the Raglan and the Bricklayers Arms, which had been temporarily transferred since the annual licensing meeting, were confirmed by the Justices.

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 Raglan Tavern.

Mr. R. Mowll asked for a renewal of the licence of the Raglan Tavern.

Mr. Reeve said the tenant was Mr. Charles Henry Baker, who obtained a transfer on February 27th, 1907. The registered owners were Messrs. G. Beer and Co. The rateable value was £36. The accommodation consisted of a front bar, which was divided into two compartments by a partition six feet high. Each compartment had a separate entrance from the street, one in Dover Street, and the other at the corner. There was also an entrance in Dover Road, which opened into a lobby, which was very dark, the only light being obtained from a fanlight in the lobby. There was no yard or back way. The landlord's living room was at the back. There was no urinal provided for the customers. The nearest licensed house was the Martello, 22 yards away, the rateable value of which was £44. The bars were clean, and the premises were generally suitable, with the exception that there was no urinal. He had no complaint to make as regarded the conduct of the house. The trade, he should say, was small, and he did not think there would be any difficulty in accommodating the customers elsewhere.

Mr. Oliver, a member of the owning firm, said in 1910, 176 barrels of beer and 123 gallons of spirits were sold, in 1911, 205 and 111, and in 1912, 211 barrels and 137 gallons of spirits.

The Chairman: Then the Budget does not seem to have decreased your spirit trade. (Laughter)

Mr. Baker said he paid £261 1s. 5d. to go into the house, £244 being for furniture and fittings. He did nothing else for a living, and did not want to leave the house.

Mr. Mowll, in addressing the Justices, mentioned that the house formerly belonged to Mr. Kingsford, who was his grandfather, and he chose that excellent site for the premises. In a sense, therefore, it was a personal matter, and he appealed to the Bench not to take away the licence, so that when he came to Folkestone, as he often did, and passed the house, he would not have to think that what his grandfather obtained with a rake, he, his grandson, lost with a shovel. (Laughter)

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 7 March 1914.

Local News.

On Tuesday a most important point with regard to the sale of tobacco by licensed victuallers on the weekly half holiday occupied the attention of the Folkestone Magistrates for close upon two hours and a half. The Magistrates consisted of Colonel Fynmore, G. Boyd and J.J. Giles Esqs., and Col. Owen, and three licensed victuallers had been summoned.

The first case held was that of John William Summerfield, the licensee of the Royal Standard, and he had been summoned for contravening Section 4 of the Shops Act by selling tobacco on Wednesday, February 18th, at 6.37 p.m., that being the weekly half holiday fixed by the Town Council. Defendant pleaded Not uilty. Mr. A.F. Kidson (the Town Clerk) prosecuted, and Mr. Randle F. Holme, of London, defended.

Mr. Kidson, in opening the case, said that was the first summons to come before the Bench under that particular Act. He, therefore, thought he ought to refer the Magistrates to the various Sections bearing on the question. He then read Section 4 of the Act, which dealt with the closing of shops on one half day of the week. He then pointed out that the schedule exempted various trades, amongst which were the tobacconists. He explained that sub-section 6 provided that the local authority might by Order extend the provisions of the Act to the shops of any class exempted if they were satisfied that at least two thirds of the occupiers of the class of shop approved of the Order. The Council did make an Order under that provision with regard to tobacconists, and it was confirmed by the Home Secretary. By sub-section 7 of Section 4 it was provided that in case of any contravention or failure to comply with any of the provisions, the occupier of the shop would be guilty of an offence, and would be liable to a fine, for the first offence, not exceeding £1. That was the first case which had come before the Bench. By Section 6, sub-section 3, as soon as the Secretary of State had confirmed any Order that Order became final, and had the effect of an Act of Parliament. Complaint was received that licensed victuallers were infringing that Order, therefore it became necessary for the Inspector to make inquiry. They would hear what occurred from the evidence. To assist the Bench he would like to read a circular letter sent out by him, as follows: Shops Act, 1912. I enclose copy of an Order which has been made extending the provisions of Section 4 of the Shops Act, 1912, to certain shops. This Order is now in force, and must be complied with by the occupiers of the classes of shops therein referred to. With respect to the sale of tobacco, etc., at places licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquors and other refreshment places, the Home Secretary has made the following statement, and it is the intention of the Town Council to act in accordance with such statement.

Copy statement: “I am to add, for the Council's information, that the Secretary of State is advised that licensed houses in which a retail trade in tobacco is regularly carried on are subject to the provisions of the Order, but that the Order would not apply to the occasional sale of tobacco in hotels and inns in connection with meals, e.g. the supply of customers with cigars and cigarettes after dinner.” A copy of that letter was sent to the defendant.

Mr. Kidson then gave evidence of the appointment of Mr. J. Pearson, the Sanitory Inspector, as Inspector under the Shops Act, 1912, for the purpose of enforcing the provisions of the Act.

Harold Summerfield, assistant to the Sanitory Inspector, said he visited the Royal Standard public house at 6.37 on the 18th February, which was a Wednesday, and the half holiday. He entered the bottle and jug department, and asked the assistant behind the bar for an ounce of shag tobacco. The man replied “It is Wednesday afternoon. I cannot serve you”. He (witness) replied “Thank you”, and walked towards the door. The man then called him back again, and said he would oblige him that time, and that he must not tell anyone, or he would get him into trouble. The man served him with an ounce of shag tobacco, and he (witness) paid 4d. for it. He did not see any notice whatever in the bar with reference to the Shops Act.

Cross-examined by Mr. Holme, witness said the Royal Standard was an ordinary public house. He did not think they pushed the sale of tobacco more than any ordinary public house did. There was no separate counter for the sale of tobacco, So far as he knew it was a casual sale of tobacco carried on at the house.

Mr. Holme, at this stage, asked for the register which had to be kept under the Shops Act, and when it was produced, he requested him to say whether the Royal Standard was to be found in the register.

Mr. Kidson said he admitted the Royal Standard was not entered in it. He believed there were a few public houses mentioned in it, but only some of the large ones.

Mr. Holme asked the witness if he knew whether the notice calling upon the defendant to say which was his principal trade had been served upon him.

Mr. Kidson argued that that was not a proper question to put. The point was, it seemed to him, had that Order and the Act authorising the Order been contravened?

Mr. Holme agreed to leave the matter until later. He then addressed the Magistrates on behalf of the defence, and in the course of his remarks he said that was a very important case. The matter was fairly simple. They had before them the words of the Act and the Order, which they had to construe. There were two possible ways of construing the words. Conceivably, they might say they meant they forbade in the district at the time in question the sale of tobacco without any exception whatever. If they were construed in that way, it would have a far reaching effect, not only on the public houses, but all the fine hotels in the district, including the Grand, the Pavilion, and the Metropole. They would not be able to call for a cigar or cigarette after dinner in that case. If the Order was really carried out, they would not be able to have any game or vegetable for dinner at the Metropole or any other hotel. That would be absurd, and the prosecution would agree that would be absurd. The circular of the Home Secretary was, he contended, an admission that some exception was to be allowed to that general rule. By that circular a breach was made in the walls of the Act. They could not apply those words without some exception. The only exception the Home Secretary had allowed was if a cigar or cigarette was sold in connection with a meal. Not once in the regulations was the word “meal” used, and, therefore, that was a pure invention of the Home Secretary. It would be a difficult problem to say what a meal was. He suggested that the word “meal” could not be read into the Act. He agreed the circular was founded on common sense. They had to look deeper than that for a principle.

At this stage Mr. Holmes read several answers to questions put to the Home Secretary in the House of Commons, and arguing on those answers he said the Magistrates really had to consider in that case whether that was a casual sale or was a regular trade or business carried on at the Royal Standard. The true principle they had to apply was whether that sale was casual and ancillary to what was going on in the establishment, or was it a sale in connection with the trade that was going on in the house. The Royal Standard had not developed into a miniature shop for the sale of tobacco. He was going to prove by the defendant that he had never sold any tobacco or cigarettes to a person except that it was a casual sale, and, therefore, it did not come within the words of the Act. It was an abuse of language to call the Royal Standard a shop for the sale of tobacco. That was his submission on the main point.

Mr. Kidson had mentioned Section 4 of the Act, which provided for the half holiday closing. Then Section 6 exempted licensed victuallers unless they were brought in by a special Order. Before an exempted trade could be included, certain formalities had to be gone through. By a sub-section and the regulations there had to be a two thirds majority of the shops before the trade could be brought in. A register was also to be prepared.

Mr. Kidson said it was not the Magistrates' duty to go into anything prior to the making of the Order.

Mr. Holme said he was not going to say the order was bad, but he wanted to try to find out whether the prosecution meant to bring in his client. Did the Order include his client? If he could show that the prosecution, when they made the Order, had no intention of brining in his client, surely that was relevant to the matter.

A good deal of argument ensued on this point, and Mr. Holmes said he could not imagine anything more unfair than that an Order should be made without consulting all the people whom it could affect.

The Magistrates' Clerk eventually said that Mr. Holme might raise the point should the question of inflicting a penalty arise.

Mr. Holme said he admitted for the sake of argument the Order was good, nevertheless he did ask the Bench to take into consideration the circumstances under which it was made. Proceeding, he said no voting paper was sent to his client. He admitted that a notice was published asking tradesmen to go to the Town Clerk's office to see if they were on the register. He wished to point out there was a provision in the Act by which they might have got out of that dilemma. It was that sub-section which dealt with the case of a mixed trade. He submitted, however, that that was not a mixed trade, but that a publican's business was one trade, catering for the public. In the case of a mixed trade the Council had to inquire from the occupier which he considered to be his principal trade.

Defendant, giving evidence, said he had not a separate counter for the sale of tobacco, and he made no special effort to push tobacco. If tobacco was sold to the Inspector in that case, it was the one solitary exception that he had sold tobacco to a man who had not purchased something else. His tobacco trade was about 5 percent of his trade. He had had no notice served on him requiring him to say what he considered to be his principal trade, and no voting paper was sent to him.

The Magistrates' Clerk held Mr. Holme was not entitled to put questions on that point.

Mr. Summerfield said he did not sign any application for the Order to be made.

Cross-examined, he said he would not call his tobacco trade his principal trade.

Mr. Kidson: Therefore you would not be entitled to have your name entered on the register.

Mr. A. Hart gave evidence as to going to the Town Clerk's office and examining the register. He could not find the name of the Royal Standard entered in it, nor any other licensed house.

The case of Charles Henry Barker, the licensee of the Raglan, was next dealt with. Mr. Rutley Mowll defended, and pleaded Not Guilty.

Mr. Kidson put in the Order made by the Home Secretary, and produced the appointment of the Inspector of Nuisances as the Inspector. In reply to Mr. Mowll, he said Mr. Barker's name was not entered in the register. The Council did not ascertain by vote whether the defendant or other licensed victuallers wished to come under the Act. The petition asking for the Order was received from the tobacconists.

Harry Summerfield said he visited the defendant's premises at 6.30 p.m. on Wednesday, February 18th, and asked for a 2d. cigar. He was served with it, and paid 2d. for it.

Cross-examined, witness said he did not ask for any refreshment at the same time.

Mr. Mowll addressed the Magistrates at length on the matter. He urged that his client had committed no offence, as it was an occasional, casual sale. He pointed out also that bread and cheese, or even a biscuit, would be regarded as a meal, and he held that a man would be able to purchase a cigar or cigarette. According to the Home Secretary, that was a casual and occasional sale, and not within the meaning of the Act. It would be very hard indeed to apply the Order to such a case as that. In his opinion it was a condition precedent to the making of that Order that the Town Council should first have been satisfied that the occupiers of at least two thirds of the shops of that class should approve of the Order. If his client was one of that class to be prosecuted, then he was also one of the class who had the right to vote for the Order. In other words, the Corporation could not fasten them with the responsibility and at the same time deny to them the privileges of the section. He contended that there was no provision in the Act which said that the Order for the weekly half holiday should have the operation of the Act of Parliament. It was only by closing order that might have the effect of an Act; the weekly half holiday Order did not have that effect, for they had to be made, and could be revoked. In conclusion, he suggested that instead of coming to a decision that day, they should postpone that matter for a short time, and give the licensed victuallers the opportunity of approaching the Corporation and putting before them their views, and requesting that they might be pleased to revoke the Order. He thought the Council would agree to the revocation of the Order, for it would be saving the trouble of deciding a point of law. They must not forget that a conviction was a serious objection to a licensee. It seemed to him the best course would be to let the licensed victuallers approach the Corporation.

Mr. Kidson said if there was an adjournment there ought to be an undertaking given that there would be no sales in the meantime. There was no desire on the part of the Council to be unfair with the licensed victuallers. If the latter did approach them, he was certain they would consider the matter.

Mr. Holme said for his client he would prefer to have a definite decision.

The Bench retired, and on their return the Chairman said the Bench were unanimously satisfied that the case had been proved, but inasmuch as the parties had suggested a re-consideration by the Council of the position of licensed victuallers under the Act, they refrained from imposing a penalty, and they dismissed the cases against Mr. Summerfield and Mr. Barker, on payment of the costs, 8/6.

Mr. Holme asked the Clerk if he would state a case.

The Clerk said there was no conviction.

Mr. Holme said that was very unfortunate. Nothing could be more inconvenient for his client, for they were no nearer getting an authoritative decision from the High Court.

The Clerk said if there had been a conviction he would not have stated a case. He would have left it to the defendants to apply for a mandamus.

Summonses against Mr. E.W. James, another licensed victualler, and Mrs. Julia Wilson, a shopkeeper, were withdrawn.

Folkestone Express 27 May 1933.

Local News.

At a special licensing sessions on Wednesday at the Folkestone Police Court, a protection order in respect to the Raglan Tavern was granted to Mrs. Twigg, the licence being previously held by her late husband.

Folkestone Express 15 July 1933.

Local News.

On Wednesday, at a transfer sessions at the Folkestone Police Court, the licence of the Raglan Hotel, Dover Road, was transferred to Mrs. Twigg, her late husband having previously held it.

Folkestone Express 5 May 1934.

Folkestone Express 22 May 1937.

Local News.

The Folkestone Magistrates on Tuesday granted a protection order in respect of the transfer of the licence of the Raglan Tavern from the present licensee, Mr. Richard Stanley, to Mr. Lewis Arthur Stanley Hall, of 16, Wanborough Road, Oxford.

Folkestone Express 29 May 1937.

Local News.

The Folkestone Transfer Sessions were held at the Police Court, on Wednesday, when Mr. R.G. Wood, Dr. W.W. Nuttall, Alderman Mrs. E. Gore, Eng. Rear Admiral L.J. Stephens, Mr. R.J. Stokes and Alderman G.A. Gurr were the Justices on the Bench.

The licences of the Martello Hotel and the Raglan Hotel were transferred to Mr. Chapman and Mr. L. A. Stanley respectively, to whom protection orders were granted recently.

Folkestone Express 27 August 1938.

Local News.

The Folkestone magistrates on Tuesday granted a protection order in respect of the transfer of the licence of the Raglan Hotel in Dover Road from Mr. Hall, the present licensee, to Mr. H. J. Wraite, a former manager of the White Lion Hotel, Cheriton.