Folkestone Express 28 January 1899.

Saturday, January 21st: Before J. Holden, J. Pledge, T.J. Vaughan, and S. Penfold Esqs.

Mr. Haines applied for a temporary authority for Mrs. Ann Quested, widow of the late proprietor, to sell at the Shorncliffe Inn. Granted.

Folkestone Express 11 March 1899.

Wednesday, March 8th: Before J. Fitness and C.J. Pursey Esqs.

The licence of the Shorncliffe Inn was, on the application of Mr. G.W. Haines, transferred to Mrs. Quested, widow of the late proprietor.

Folkestone Express 20 May 1899.

Saturday, May 13th: Before Colonel Hamilton and J. Stainer Esq.

The licence of the Shorncliffe Inn was provisionally transferred to Mr. Charles Bull.

Folkestone Express 17 June 1899.

Wednesday, June 14th: Before J. Hoad, W. Wightwick, J. Stainer, T.J. Vaughan, J. Pledge, and W.G. Herbert Esqs.,

The licence of the Railway Hotel, Coolinge, was transferred from Ann Quested to Charles Bull.

Folkestone Express 29 June 1901.

Tuesday, June 25th: Before Alderman J. Banks, Col. Hamilton, and W.G. Herbert Esqs.

John Thomas, a carpenter, who has lately been employed on Shorncliffe Camp, admitted that he was drunk and disorderly on Monday evening.

P.C. Watson said about 10.55 p.m. on Monday he was on duty in Shorncliffe Road when he saw the prisoner being ejected from the Railway Hotel. He was drunk and used most disgusting language, and continued to do so until he was in the “lock-up” at the police station.

The prisoner said he had been set upon by some soldiers and they kicked him.

Witness said there were no soldiers in sight, and the prisoner was too drunk to stand.

Fined 10s. and 4s. 6d. costs, or in default 14 days.

Folkestone Express 26 January 1907.

Local News.

At the Borough Police Court on Wednesday a case which created a great amount of interest, especially amongst the licence holders in the town, came before E.T. Ward Esq., and seven other Magistrates. The summons for hearing was of an uncommon nature, and was against George Barker, the landlord of the Railway Inn, Shorncliffe, for supplying intoxicating liquor to a constable on duty without the permission of a superior officer on January 12th. The defendant, who was defended by Mr. De Wet, pleaded Not Guilty.

P.S. Osborne said on Saturday, the 12th inst., about 12.45 p.m., he visited the Railway Inn, kept by the defendant. In the private bar he found P.C. Taylor, a constable of the borough, in uniform, on duty and wearing his armlet. On the constable seeing him he picked up a pint glass from the counter. It was half full of beer, which he drank. He immediately left the house. The defendant was behind the bar at the time serving some other customers.

The Chief Constable: There was one other thing the constable was doing, according to your report, and which you have not mentioned.

Witness: He was smoking a cigarette.

The Magistrates’ Clerk: Did you speak to the defendant about it at the time?

Witness: No, sir. He was busy.

In the course of cross-examination, witness said there might have been a number of soldiers in the other bar. He was not in uniform, neither was he on duty at the time. He did not visit that house a great deal. He had not got a market garden near the house. He was not in the habit of staying at the house for hours at a time.

The Chief Constable at this point objected to the cross-examination, as he did not see what it had to do with the case before the Court.

Mr. De Wet: It is testing the witness’s credibility.

Further cross-examined, the sergeant said he had a small allotment garden out there. After he entered the house he had a drink. There might have been a man named Sidney Barton in the bar at the time, but he did not stand him (witness) a pint of “fives”. He made no remark at all to P.C. Taylor. He did not ever tell the defendant that he was going to report him. It was not his duty to warn the publican.

P.S. Dawson said he was on duty on January 12th, and paraded the second relief day duty men at ten o’clock. P.C. Taylor was one of the men paraded, and he remained on duty until two o’clock. He was told off for the Morehall and Sandgate beat. Owing to the absence of the Inspector on leave there was no officer on patrol that morning. He did not give Taylor authority to enter any licensed houses for refreshment that morning.

P.C. Taylor said he had been in the force 12 years next month. On January 12th he was on the second relief day duty. His hours were from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m., and his beat was Sandgate and Broadmead. He did not obtain that morning any authority from a superior officer to enter any licensed house for refreshment. During his tour of duty he entered the Railway Hotel, Shorncliffe, kept by the defendant, at about twenty minutes to one. He was supplied with a pint of beer by the landlord. He did not pay for it, but Mr. Barton, a greengrocer, did so. He did not have more than one. He drank the beer on the premises, on which he remained nearly five minutes. He was wearing his uniform with the armlet on.

Cross-examined, he said he saw P.S. Osborne come in, and he made a remark about the weather being cold. He did not say anything to him about the fact that he had no right to be there.

By the Chairman: He said the reason he went into the house was because he had a bad cold on him, and he went and had a drink to revive him a little. Mr. Barton saw him and asked what he would have.

The Chief Constable: Are you sure Mr. Barton paid for it?

Witness: Yes, sir.

The Chief Constable: You did not tell me that when you saw me in my office. Did you not tell me something else?

Witness: No, sir. You asked me if I paid for it, and I said “No”.

The Chief Constable: Did you not say Mr. Barker served you with it?

Witness: Yes, sir, but Mr. Barton paid for it.

Mr. De Wet then said he was charged with supplying the drink to the constable when on duty. The Act said that the drink should be supplied by way of gift or sale. There was no evidence that Mr. Barker sold or gave the constable a drink. The evidence was that the sale was to Mr. Barton. He considered he had no case at all to answer, but if the Magistrates thought he had he would call his evidence.

The defendant went into the box, and said he had held the licence of the Railway Inn for eight years. On the morning in question Mr. Barton was in his bar. He did not see Taylor enter the house, as he was busy. He was then called to the private bar by Mr. Barton, who asked for a pinto of beer and a ginger beer, for which he paid threepence. The constable had the beer. A little later P.S. Osborne came in, and Barton paid for a pint of fives for the sergeant. He knew the sergeant’s usual drink. P.S. Osborne was frequently in his house, three or four hours at a time, and could drink nine or ten pints. Of course, that was when he was off duty. Mr. Barton certainly paid for the drinks. He did not see any armlet on P.C. Taylor’s arm at the time. When P.S. Osborne came in he said he had been gardening and as it was cold he came to have a drink. The first he heard of the matter was when he received a summons.

Cross-examined, he said he knew he had no right to supply a man on duty without permission.

Re-examined, he said he did not supply the constable with beer, but served Mr. Barton with it.

Sidney Barton, a greengrocer, residing at Cheriton, said on Saturday, January 12th, he called at the defendant’s house as he usually did between twelve and one. When he went into the private bar he called for a glass of ginger beer. Mr. Barker was serving at the public bar at the time. In the meantime P.C. Taylor came in and he asked him to have a drink. He said he would, and in reply to his question what he would have, he said “A pint”. He called for the pint and the ginger beer at the same time. Mr. Barker served him with it after he had called for it two or three times. He laid down sixpence for it and got threepence change. After that witness’s man came in, and P.S. Osborne came in shortly afterwards. After making some remark about the weather, he called for a pint. Witness said to him “I will pay for that”, and he did so. The sergeant made no remark to him about P.C. Taylor being in the house. He did not notice any armlet on the constable’s arm. The defendant handed him the drinks. P.C. Taylor stood behind him, and nearer to the door.

The Magistrates retired, and on their return into court the Chairman said they were of opinion that there was a sale or gift to the constable. They had decided that case on that of “Lord Satterworth v Johnson”, in which it was held that where a drunken man accompanied a sober man into a public house, and liquor was sold to the sober man, but was consumed by the drunken man, it was evidence of sale to a drunken man. Therefore they convicted the defendant, and he would be fined £3 and 13s. costs, or one month’s imprisonment.

Mr. De Wet said he should ask permission to make application for the Magistrates to state a case. If that decision was decided on that case a publican was open in innumerable cases. It would be possible for a person to enter a public house, call for a drink, take it outside for a drunken man to drink it, and then the publican would be liable.

The Chairman told Mr. De Wet he could take his own course in the matter.

Folkestone Express 9 February 1907.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

Wednesday, February 6th: Before E.T. Ward Esq., W.G. Herbert, R.J. Linton, C.J. Pursey and W.C. Carpenter Esqs., Lieut. Col. Fynmore, and Lieut. Col. Hamilton.

The Chief Constable read his report as follows:

Chief Constable’s Office, Folkestone, 6th February, 1907.

Gentlemen, I have the honour to report that there are at present within your jurisdiction 128 places licensed for the sale by retail of intoxicating liquors, viz.:- Full licences, 80; beer “on”, 9; beer “off”, 6; beer and spirit dealers, 14; grocers, 12; chemists, 4; confectioners, 3; total 128. This gives an average, according to the census of 1901, of one licence to every 239 persons, or one “on” licence to every 344 persons. This is a reduction of 8 licences as compared with the return presented to you last year, as the renewal of 3 “off” licences was not applied for at the last annual licensing meeting, and at the adjourned licensing meeting the renewal of one full licence was refused on the ground that the premises had been ill-conducted, and four other full licences were referred to the Compensation Committee for East Kent on the ground of redundancy. These four licences were subsequently refused by the Compensation Committee, and after payment of compensation, the premises were closed on 31st December last. Since the last annual licensing meeting 22 of the licences have been transferred, viz:- Full licences, 15; beer “on”, 5; off licences, 2; total 22. During the year three occasional licences have been granted by the justices for the sale of intoxicating liquors on premises not ordinarily licensed for such sale, and thirty extensions of the ordinary time of closing have been granted to licence holders when balls, dinners, etc., were being held on their premises. During the year ended 31st December last, 131 persons (106 males and 25 females) were proceeded against for drunkenness. 114 were convicted and 17 discharged. This, it is most satisfactory to find, is a decrease of no less than 52 persons proceeded against as compared with the preceding year, when 164 were convicted and 19 discharged. Six of the licence holders have been proceeded against, and five of them convicted, for the following offences: Selling adulterated whiskey, 1; permitting drunkenness, 1; delivering beer to a child in unsealed vessels, 2; supplying drink to a constable when on duty, 1; total, 5. In the latter case notice of appeal against the conviction has been given by the licensee. Eleven clubs where intoxicating liquor is sold are registered in accordance with the Act of 1902. There are 16 places licensed for music and dancing, 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 having been conducted during the past year in a satisfactory manner, but on one occasion one of the licence holders was cautioned (as the evidence was insufficient to justify a prosecution) for receiving slips and money relating to betting, which practice he immediately discontinued, bit I desire to intimate to all the licence holders that if in future any such practice is allowed, or any illegal gaming whatever is permitted on their premises, I shall take such steps as may be necessary to detect and prosecute the offenders. I beg to submit a plan showing the situation of all “on” licensed premises within the congested area, which I have marked on the plan, and would respectfully suggest that the Committee again avail themselves of the powers given by the Licensing Act, 1904, and refer the renewal of some of the licences within this area to the Compensation Committee to deal with under the Act. Within this area there are 920 houses, with a population approximately of 4,600, with 37 “on” licensed houses and 8 other licences, giving a proportion of one licence to every 20 houses or every 102 persons, and one “on” licence to every 24 houses or every 124 persons. This number of licences I consider excessive for the requirements of the neighbourhood. I have received notices from eight persons of their intention to apply at these sessions for the following new licences, viz.,:- Full licence 1; beer off 1; cider and sweets off 1; wine off 3; music, etc., 2; total 8.

I am, Gentlemen, your obedient servant, H. Reeve, Chief Constable.

The Chairman said the report seemed to be highly satisfactory. The Magistrates were very pleased to see the diminution in the number of cases of drunkenness brought before the Bench. One point about the report he wanted to make a remark upon, and that was the prevalence of gaming in public houses. In several houses the Committee visited they saw automatic machines, in which customers placed pennies and pulled a trigger. Occasionally they got something out for their pennies. That was gaming. It had been decided to be illegal, and they warned all licence holders that they would be watched, and that the machines would not be allowed, and proceedings would be taken against the offending publicans, whose licences would be jeopardised next year. There was one other point of a similar nature with regard to musical instruments, which were reported to be a great nuisance. They warned all licence holders to be careful not to create a nuisance with those pianos and other instruments, which were now very common indeed in public houses.

The following houses were ordered to be opposed as not required: The Channel Inn, High Street; the Queen’s Head, Beach Street; the Railway Tavern (sic), Beach Street; the Chequers, Seagate Street; and the Perseverance, Dover Street.

Adjourned: The Black Bull Hotel, the Alexandra Tavern, the Imperial Hotel, Black Bull Road, and the Railway Hotel, Coollinge.

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 Railway Hotel, Coolinge.

Mr. De Wet said he was instructed to apply for the renewal of the Railway Hotel licence, which had been deferred until that day.

The Chief Constable said in that case a conviction had been recorded against the house, but as an appeal was to be heard with respect to it he would not offer any objection to the renewal that day.

The Magistrates granted the application.

Folkestone Express 13 April 1907.

Quarter Sessions.

Friday, April 5th: Before J.C. Lewis Coward Esq.

At the Quarter Sessions on Friday, in the hearing of an appeal by Mr. George Barker, the landlord of the Railway Hotel, near Shorncliffe Station, against a conviction of the Borough Magistrates for supplying a constable with intoxicants whilst on duty took a considerable time.

Mr. Clarke Hall (instructed by Mr. De Wet) appeared for the appellant, and Mr. T. Matthew (instructed by Mr. Kidson) represented the Magistrates.

Mr. Matthew, in opening the case, said the conviction was obtained under Section 16, Subsection 2, of the Licensing Act, 1872, which prohibited the supplying of liquor to a constable while on duty, unless by the authority of a superior officer. He also explained that the Magistrates gave their decision on the case Scatchard and Johnson, in which the landlord of a house served a sober man with drink, and he gave it to a drunken man. He submitted that the justices were right in holding that there had been a sale to the constable, notwithstanding that the drink was paid for by a man named Barton.

P.C. Taylor said on January 12th he was on duty about one o’clock. His beat was between Sandgate and Broadmead. He had not had the authority of his superior officer to have refreshment while on duty. He went into the Railway Hotel about twenty minutes to one, because he had a bit of a cold on him, and he wanted a drink. He had his armlet on at the time, and Mr. Barton and a friend were in the bar at the time. Barton asked him what he would have, and he told him he would have a pint of beer. The landlord was in the public bar at the time Barton called for drinks, and he brought the beer for witness and the ginger beer for Barton, putting them in front of Barton, who paid for them. The landlord said “Good morning” to him. Witness drank some of the beer, and when P.S. Osborne came in he drank the remainder. He was also smoking a cigarette at the time.

Cross-examined, he said he stood behind the door when he went into the bar. He was barely five minutes in the house. Barton called out his order several times before he was served by the landlord. He did not go at any time to the bar. Barton took up the glass of beer and handed it to him. He, however, could reach his glass on the bar from where he stood. After Osborne came into the bar he saw Barker again. It was then that Barker said “Good morning” to him. Osborne saw him with the glass in his hand and he simply said it was cold weather. Barton called for a pint of “fives” for Osborne. During the time he was there Osborne did not complain about his having a drink. He never asked him what he was doing there. On the following night (Sunday) he was told that he was reported for it, but he had not seen P.S. Osborne during that time.

Re-examined, he said Barker wished him “Good morning” when he served Barton with the beer and ginger beer. He smoked a portion of a cigarette, which he had upon him, in the house.

The Recorder: Not a very high conception of your duties as a member of the Folkestone Constabulary, it seems to me.

P.S. Osborne said on Saturday, January 12th, he went into the Railway Hotel and saw Taylor in the private bar. He was in uniform, with his armlet on, leaning against the wall near the door and smoking a cigarette. He said “Good morning; it is cold”. Taylor went to the bar, picked up a glass of beer, drank the contents, threw down his cigarette, and went out immediately. Barker was standing in front of Taylor pulling beer when he drank the contents from his glass.

Cross-examined, he said he had a pint of ale and beer, which was called “fives”. He paid for that. He knew Barton said he paid for it, but it was not true. He remained in the bar about a quarter of an hour or twenty minutes. He was not there an hour. He did not say anything to Barker about serving the constable, because he had not had an opportunity, as he had left the bar. He never spoke to Barker about serving the constable, but he did not speak to him about it because it was not compulsory for him to do so. The landlord knew as well as he that he was doing wrong in serving a constable.

The witness, in answer to the Recorder, said he reported the matter to the Chief Constable on Saturday night, between seven and eight, which was the first opportunity he had. It was his duty to report Taylor, although he (witness) was not on duty. When he was in the public house he had made up his mind to report him. The reason he did not tell the publican was before he left the bar a few minutes after he went into the house. He remained in the house about twenty minutes.

P.S. Dawson said he paraded the second day relief duty men on January 12th and Taylor was one of them. He did not give Taylor any permission to go into any public house while on duty.

Mr. Clarke Hall, in opening his case, submitted that his friend was not right in his contention that it did not matter to whom the sale took place. He contended the sale must be to the person in respect of whom the charge was brought.

George Barker, the landlord of the Railway Hotel, under a tenancy of Messrs. Nalder and Collyer, said he did trade to the extent of eight to ten barrels a week. He paid £500 to go into the house. Up to that time, for eight years no complaint had been made against him. He had known P.S. Osborne for some years, and he was the best customer he had got. On January 12th he was serving a lot of soldiers in the public bar when Barton called for drinks. He drew them and put them on the counter of the private bar. There were several artillerymen in the bar at the time, and he did not see Taylor there then. He did not see Taylor there until Osborne came in. Barton paid for Osborne’s drink, and afterwards he (witness) sat chatting to Osborne for some time. He also stood him a drink. Osborne did not make any complaint to him about having served Taylor. He had no idea that the beer purchased by Barton was for Taylor. When he went out of the bar at half past two, Osborne was still there. Members of the County Police frequently came into his house while waiting for their train, and he knew they would not be on duty.

Cross-examined, he said he did not see Taylor drink his beer.

Sidney Barton, a greengrocer, of Cheriton, said at the time there were nine or ten people in the bar, including three artillerymen and two Hussars. P.C. Taylor came in, and he (witness) called for drink, which was put in front of him by Barker. He was standing on a brass rail near the counter, and the constable was behind him. He handed the beer to Taylor, who, after having a drink, put it back on the counter. Mr. Barker was then in the public bar. Witness’s young brother came in, and when calling for some drink for him, Osborne came in and asked for a pint of fives. He (witness) said “All right, I will pay for it”, and he was positive he paid for Osborne’s drink. He remained in the house for an hour, and when he went out Osborne was still there. He and Osborne had a go at one of the automatic machines in the bar.

Cross-examined, he said he agreed with Mr. Barker’s statement about the number of people in the bar. He thought the landlord said “Good morning” to Taylor when Osborne came in. The constable was drinking his beer at that time.

William Wingate, a potman in Barker’s employ, said when he went into the bar at half past two Osborne was there.

Mr. Clarke Hall contended that the sergeant should have given notice to the publican that he was going to report him.

The Recorder informed Mr. Matthew he need not address him. Continuing, he said that the appeal must be dismissed with costs. He was of opinion it had been brought home to Mr. Barker that he had supplied liquor, whether by way of gift or sale, to the constable. He must say he agreed a good deal with Mr. Clarke Hall’s observations with reference to the conduct of Osborne in having refrained from giving to the publican any intimation that he was about to report him for having supplied the constable with drink. The information that had been laid before him on the part of the Chief Constable was certainly not conclusive to some extent, but the landlord and the evidence called on his behalf was not of the best description. If the evidence for the police had been rebutted by clear and positive evidence, then matters might have been different. What were they to say of a landlord who went into the witness box and gave evidence in the way Barker had? He even told them he was not in the habit of looking to see whether the constable had any armlet on. It seemed impossible for him to say that the Justices were wrong in their decision.

The Recorder then called P.C. Taylor and censured him rather severely, saying he hoped he would not have to speak again to a constable of that borough in the way he had done that morning. His (Taylor’s) conduct was disgraceful.

Folkestone Express 8 February 1908.

Annual Licensing Meeting.

Wednesday, February 5th: Before E.T. Ward, W.G. Herbert, W.C. Carpenter, and R.J. Linton Esqs., and Lieut. Col. Hamilton.

Superintendent’s Report.

This report was read by Mr. Harry Reeve, as follows: Gentlemen, I have the honour to report that there are at present within your jurisdiction 129 premises licensed for the sale by retail of intoxicating liquors, viz.; Full licences, 78; beer “on”, 9; beer “off”, 6; beer and spirit dealers, 15; grocers &c., 11; chemists, 7; confectioners, 3; total 129. This gives an average, according to the census of 1901, of one licence to every 237 persons, or one “on” licence to every 352 persons. At the last annual meeting, one “off” licence for the sale of wines and spirits was not renewed as the business had been discontinued by the licence holder. One new licence for the sale of cider and sweets was granted, and three new licences for the sale of wines were granted to chemists. At the adjourned annual licensing meeting, held in March, five “on” licences (four full and one beer) were referred to the Compensation Committee on the ground of redundancy. One full licence was renewed at the preliminary meeting of the Committee, and at the principal meeting three of the licences were refused and one renewed. The licences which were refused were the Queen’s Head, Beach Street, Channel Inn, High Street, and the Perseverance beerhouse, Dover Street. Compensation was paid in the cases of the Queen’s Head and Channel Inn, and the premises were closed on the 28th of December last. In the case of the Perseverance Inn, the amount of compensation has not yet been settled; a provisional renewal of the licence will, therefore, be required until the amount of compensation has been determined. There are two houses licensed by the Inland Revenue authorities for the sale of beer in quantities not less than 4½ gallons, also to sell wines and spirits in single bottles. These licences can be granted by the Inland Revenue authorities without a Magistrates’ certificate, but only for premises used exclusively for the sale of intoxicating liquors. Since the last annual licensing meeting 13 of the licences have been transferred; one licence was transferred twice. Eleven occasion licences were granted for the sale of intoxicating liquors on premises not ordinarily licensed for such sale, and 31 extensions of the usual time of closing have been granted to licence holders when balls, dinners, etc., were being held on their premises. During the year ended 31st December last, 125 persons (110 males and 15 females) were proceeded against for drunkenness; 113 were convicted and 12 discharged. This is a decrease of six persons proceeded against, as compared with 1906, and a decrease of 58 persons when compared with 1905. Three licence holders have been proceeded against for permitting drunkenness on their licensed premises; only one conviction was recorded by the Magistrates, but this was afterwards quashed on appeal by the Recorder at Quarter Sessions. One licence holder, who was convicted just previous to the last annual licensing meeting for an offence under Section 16 of the Licensing Act, 1872, appealed to Quarter Sessions, but the conviction was affirmed at the Borough Sessions held on the 5th April last. I beg to suggest that the consideration of the renewal of this licence, the Railway Hotel, Coolinge Lane, be deferred till the adjourned meeting. I have no objection to offer to the renewal of any of the other licences on the ground of misconduct, the houses generally being conducted in a satisfactory manner. The order made by the Bench at the last annual licensing meeting, that all automatic gaming machines were to be removed from licensed houses, was at once complied with by the licensees. Eleven clubs, where intoxicating liquor is sold, are registered in accordance with the Act of 1902. There are 16 places licensed for music and dancing, and two for public billiard playing. I would respectfully suggest that the Committee again refer the renewal of some of the licences in the congested area to the Compensation Committee to be dealt with under the provisions of the 1904 Act. I have received notices of four applications to be made at these Sessions for new licences, viz.; one full licence and three beer “off””.

The consideration of granting licences to the following licensed houses was referred to the adjourned licensing sessions; Railway Inn, Beach Street; Bricklayers Arms, Fenchurch Street, and Eagle Tavern, High Street, which are to be opposed. The licences of the Railway Hotel, Coolinge Lane, and the Packet Boat, Radnor Street, were adjourned.

Folkestone Express 7 March 1908.

Adjourned Licensing Sessions.

The adjourned Licensing Sessions for the Borough took place on Monday, when the licensing Justices on the Bench were E.T. Ward Esq., Lieut. Cols. Fynmore and Hamilton, and J. Stainer, W.G. Herbert, W.C. Carpenter, R.J. Linton and G. Boyd. At the annual sessions the granting of five licences was adjourned; The Railway Tavern, the Eagle Tavern and the Bricklayers Arms on the ground of redundancy, the Railway Hotel, Coolinge, because a conviction had been recorded against it, and the Packet Boat, so that plans for alterations could be submitted to the Justices.

The Railway Hotel.

Mr. Barker applied for the renewal of the licence of the Railway Hotel, Coolinge.

The Chief Constable said steps were being taken to transfer the licence to a new tenant, so he proposed to withdraw his objection.

The licence was therefore granted.

Folkestone Express 9 May 1908.

Local News.

At the Police Court on Wednesday, the licence of the Railway Hotel, Coolinge Road, was transferred from Mr. Barker to Mr. Lord.

Folkestone Express 30 May 1908.

Wednesday, May 27th: Before W.G. Herbert Esq., Lieut. Col. Fynmore, Major Leggett. G. Boyd and C. Jenner Esqs.

The transfer of the licence of the Railway Hotel, Coolinge Lane, from Mr. Marker to Mr. P. Lord was confirmed.

Folkestone Express 18 January 1913.

Local News.

At the Police Court on Wednesday the following licence was transferred: The Railway Hotel, Coolinge, from Mr. Lord to Mr. F.E. Kent.

Folkestone Express 12 February 1916.

Friday, February 4th: Before J.J. Giles Esq., Colonel Owen, H. Kirke Esq., and Alderman Pepper.

Frederick Edward Kent, landlord of the Railway Inn, Coolinge, was summoned for suffering gaming to be carried on on his licensed premises on January 26th. There was a second offence against him for a breach of the regulations under the Defence of the Realm Act for supplying drink to a person named Shoobridge at 5.45 in the morning of the same day.

Mr. Rutley Mowll, of Dover, appeared for Mr. Kent, and said he pleaded Guilty to the summons for supplying drink, but certainly not to the other summons relating to the card playing for money. He suggested to the Chief Constable that, having regard to the very good character held by the landlord, that charged might be withdrawn.

The Chief Constable (Mr. Reeve) replied that in these circumstances he would ask the Bench for permission to withdraw the summons for gaming, and the Bench agreed.

P.S. Sales said at 4.45 a.m. on January 28th he saw a light in a room at the Railway Inn and heard voices and the chink of money.

Mr. Mowll said he did not know whether the officer realised what was the charge before the Court.

The Chief Constable submitted that he was entitled to give evidence as to what led up to entering the premises.

The Clerk: In consequence of what he heard, did he keep observation on the premises? Put it in that form.

The witness, under examination by the Chief Constable, said he kept observation, and looked through a window, between the blind and the sash. He could see the left arm of one man and the right arm of another man. He also saw a man whom he knew as Shoobridge drink from a glass. Shoobridge lived at 3, Coolinge Lane. At 5.45 a.m. he knocked at the door, which was opened by defendant. He said “Who have you got inside?”, and defendant replied that he had a few friends. Witness then said “Well, I will have to have a look at them”. He went into the room and saw three men, two being soldiers in uniform, and the other, Shoobridge. On the table he saw three glasses, one a pint ale glass, and two spirit glasses. The ale glass appeared to have recently contained liquor. On the stove there was another glass, two thirds full of ale. The room was the kitchen. He asked the men what they were doing in the place, and defendant said they were his friends. One gave the name of Sergt. Major Milligan and the other Sergt. Major Laughton, of the C.E.F. He told them he would report them for being on licensed premises during prohibited hours, and Milligan said “You can do what the ---- you like. We know what we are doing”. He told defendant he would also report him for keeping his premises open during prohibited hours. Mr. Kent replied “No, not licensed premises, sergeant, but still I suppose it is up to me. I always keep a decanter in the kitchen”. Milligan said he was sorry they had visited defendant. Witness smelt the glasses; one smelt of ale, and the other two whisky.

Mr. Mowll said in that case the sole charge before the Court was one of supplying liquor to a certain individual named in the summons. The case had nothing to do with the warrant officers named. He wished to point out to them that the summons did not charge his client with selling to those persons, nor with opening his house for sale. The only charge before the Court was that that licensed victualler supplied one man with liquor contrary to the Control Board Regulations. Might he also point out to them that that was in the kitchen part of the house, not in the licensed part of the premises. It therefore followed from the course that had been taken by the authorities that there was no suggestion that Mr. Kent was breaking any of the licensing laws. If the other summons had been gone on with he would have most strenuously opposed it. It was a curious thing that to what Mr. Kent had pleaded Guilty that day would have been no offence at all in the kitchen of any other house but a public house or a club. Mr. Kent was entertaining his own guests in his own kitchen. The law was very stringent and quite rightly so, now, and he had to advise Mr. Kent that he had made a mistake. He thought they would take the view that it was a very technical mistake. If he was charged with opening his premises during prohibited hours that would be a serious offence. Before the regulations came into operation it would have been no offence at all. Mr. Kent had conducted that house for nearly four years, and it was a house which required a good tenant. He thought the Magistrates would find from the Chief Constable that he had been admirable in the conduct of his premises, and had been all that could be desired.

The Chief Constable said Mr. Kent had been the tenant for three years, and there had been no complaint during that time.

The Chairman, after the Magistrates had returned from consultation in private, said the Bench looked upon that as a very serious offence. They took into consideration the good character of the house previously. They had decided to fine him £10.

Folkestone Express 12 February 1916.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

Wednesday, February 9th: Before E.T. Ward Esq., Lieut. Col. R.J. Fynmore, G.I. Swoffer, R.J. Linton and G. Boyd Esqs., and Colonel Owen.

The Chief Constable read his report as follows: I have the honour to report that there are at present 115 places licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquor by retail, viz., Full licences, 71, beer on, 7, beer off, 6, beer and spirit dealers, 15, grocers etc. off, 7, confectioners wine on 3, chemists wine off, 6. This gives an average, according to the census of 1911, of one licence to every 291 persons, or one on licence to every 429 persons.

During the past year 13 of the licences have been transferred. For the year ended 31st December last, 174 persons (109 males and 65 females) were proceeded against for drunkenness, of whom 129 were convicted and 49 discharged. Of the persons proceeded against, 57 were residents of the borough, 30 members of the naval and military forces, 66 persons of no abode, and 21 residents of other districts. In the preceding year 96 persons (64 males and 32 females) were proceeded against, of whom 64 were convicted and 21 discharged.

During the past year two convictions have been recorded against the licensee of the Clarence Inn, Dover Road, viz.: 5th April, fined £1 for allowing a child under 14 years of age to be in the bar of his licensed premises; 16th September, fined £10 for allowing intoxicating liquor to be consumed on his licensed premises during prohibited hours. A conviction has also been recorded against the licensee of the Mechanics Arms, St. John Street, who was fined £5 on the 6th January for selling a bottle of whisky to a person acting as an agent to a soldier contrary to an Order made by the competent military authority for this district on the 11th December last. The licensee of the Railway Hotel, Coolinge Lane, was also convicted on the 4th inst., and fined £10 for supplying intoxicating liquor during prohibited hours, contrary to the Order made by the Liquor Control Board. Three other licence holders were proceeded against, but the cases were dismissed. One unlicensed person was proceeded against, and fined £25 for selling intoxicating liquor without a licence.

Nine clubs where intoxicating liquor is sold are registered under the Act. There are 16 places licensed for music and dancing, 7 for music only, and 1 for public billiard playing.

At a special meeting of the Borough Justices held on 17th July last, the Order made by them on the 8th September, 1914, closing the licensed premises and registered clubs at 9 p.m. was revoked, and a new Order closing the premises at 8 p.m. every day, and from 2 p.m. to 6 p.m. every Saturday was made, and approved by the Secretary of State on 30th July. An Order made by the Liquor Control Board closing licensed premises and clubs, except between 12 and 2.30 p.m. and 6 and 8 p.m. every weekday, and between 12.30 and 2.30 p.m. and 6 and 8 p.m. on Sunday, came into operation on the 10th January.

I ask that the renewal of the Clarence Inn, Dover Road; the Mechanics Arms, St. John Street; and the Railway Hotel, Coolinge Lane be withheld until the adjourned licensing meeting. With few exceptions, the houses generally have been well conducted.

The chairman said they were sorry that the report was not so satisfactory as usual. Drunkenness had increased. There had been 129 convictions last year as against 65 in the corresponding period of 1914. There had also been four convictions against licensees. They were glad to see, however, that with a few exceptions the houses had been well conducted. The Bench looked to the licensees to continue that state of affairs, and to do all that they could to prevent drunkenness. With regard to the three houses that had had convictions against them, they would be adjourned to the adjourned licensing sessions. With regard to the Clarence Hotel, the Chief Constable had mentioned he would oppose the renewal of the licence on the grounds of misconduct, and they would instruct him also to oppose it on the grounds of redundancy. All the other licences would be renewed.

The Justices fixed March 6th as the date of the adjourned licensing sessions.

Folkestone Express 11 March 1916.

Adjourned Licensing Sessions.

Monday, March 6th: Before E.T. Ward Esq., Lieut. Col. Fynmore, J. Stainer, G.I. Swoffer, R.J. Linton, G. Boyd and H.C. Kirke Esqs., Alderman Jenner and Colonel Owen.

The Chief Constable (Mr. Reeve) said the question of the granting of the licences of the Mechanics Arms (Mr. J. Lawrence), and the Railway Hotel, Coolinge Lane (Mr. Kent) was adjourned from the annual licensing sessions until that day owing to the fact that the licensees had been convicted. He had carefully considered both matters, but he did not see the necessity of serving a notice of opposition on the ground of misconduct, as in other respects the houses had been satisfactorily conducted.

The Chairman said the licences would be renewed. With regard to Mr. Lawrence, who had been the licensee of the Mechanics Arms for a number of years, the Magistrates were sorry that there had been that conviction. There were very stringent regulations in operation now, and that should be borne in mind. Mr. Lawrence apparently knew nothing about the particular matter at the time, as he left his barman in charge. He did not think that was sufficient for him to do, especially when they took into consideration the short period the licensed houses were now open. He thought the licensee should look after the house himself. With regard to Mr. Kent they advised him to be very careful.

Folkestone Express 1 March 1919.

Local News.

The following licence was transferred at the Police Court on Wednesday: The Railway Hotel, Coolinge Lane, from Mrs. Kent to Mr. F.E. Kent, who had been demobilised.