DOVER KENT ARCHIVES

Sort file:- Folkestone, August, 2022.

Page Updated:- Tuesday, 09 August, 2022.

PUB LIST PUBLIC HOUSES Paul Skelton and Jan Pedersen

Earliest 1734

(Name from)

Royal George

Open 2017+

18a Beach Street

Bridge Street Pigot's Directory 1828-29 Stade Pigot's Directory 1832-34

16 Beach Street Post Office Directory 1874

Folkestone

Royal George

Above photo, date unknown, kindly sent by Graham Butterworth.

Swing Bridge 1925

Above postcard 1925, kindly sent by Graham Butterworth, showing the "True Briton" above the right half of the swing bridge and the "Royal George" on the right.

Royal George and London and Paris

Above postcard, postmarked 1933, kindly sent by Graham Butterworth. "Royal George," central. Also showing the "London and Paris" shown behind the signal box to the left.

Royal George

Above photograph circa 1960, kindly supplied by Terry Wheeler of the Ramsgate Historical Society.

Royal George 1978

Above photograph kindly supplied by Jan Pedersen, 1978.

Royal George, Folkestone 2009 Royal George, Folkestone 2009 Royal George, Folkestone 2009

Above photos by Paul Skelton, 27 June 2009.

Royal George 2012

Above photo kindly sent by Phil Nicholson, 29 November, 2012.

 

From South Eastern Gazette 11 November 1834.

THE COURT FOR RELIEF OF INSOLVENT DEBTORS.

The Matters of the Petitions and Schedules of the Prisoners hereinafter named, (the same having filed in the Court) are appointed to be heard as follows:-

At the Court-House at Maidstone, in the County of Kent, on the third day of December, 1834, at nine o'clock in the morning precisely.

William Hopper, formerly (Manager) of the "Royal George" public house, Folkestone, Kent, Publican, and part of the time a Dealer in Fish, since of Alkham, Kent, out of Business, and late of Hougham, near Folkestone, Kent, Labourer.

 

South Eastern Gazette 12 August 1845.

The "Royal George Hotel" is at last completed and was opened for business on Thursday last. It is handsomely appointed, and is precisely the description of house required, being close to the place of embarkation for the continent, and conveyances continually passing to and from the railway station. Travellers will now have no occasion to hunt half over the town for accommodation, which has frequently been the case of late, the "Pavilion" and the other inns not being found sufficient to accommodate all corners.

 

From South Eastern Gazette 31 July 1849.

HEGINBOTHAM v SOUTH-EASTERN STEAM PACKET COMPANY.

An action against the company by the Landlord of the "Royal George Hotel," Folkestone, for a nuisance in establishing a manufactory for steam boilers within 60ft. of the hotel.

Mr. Sergeant Channell stated the case for the plaintiff. Charles Heginbotham, son of the plaintiff, conducted the business of his father at the "Royal George Hotel," Folkestone. The rent he believes is £300 a year. Knows the workshop belonging to the South-Eastern Steam-Packet Company. It is a wooden shed about sixty feet from the hotel. It is used for manufacturing and repairing boilers for the steamboats, which occasions a very loud noise and almost incessant hammering, in riveting the boilers, so loud that it is hardly possible to hear one another speak from six o'clock in the morning till six in the evening. Their customers have frequently complained that they could not sleep or rest in consequence of it. The noise renders the premises uncomfortable and in a sensible degree inconvenient.

Gotliff Graf, waiter at the hotel, gave similar evidence.

His Lordship - Do you think it would do any good to persons coming there for the benefit of their health.

Witness - No.

His Lordship - Except to get them up in the morning [a laugh]

Witness - They cannot hear one another speak.

His Lordship - Well, that would only compel them to go out into the fields to converse.

Mr. Drury, who lived next door to the hotel, gave similar evidence, and stated that he considered the value of the hotel greatly diminished in consequence of the noise.

There being no defence, a verdict was given for plaintiff.

Damages £15 - being at the rate of £3 a week.

 

From the Folkestone Chronicle 24 May 1856. Transcribed by Jan Pedersen.

Wednesday May 21st :- Before James Tolputt esq., Mayor, W. Major esq., and J. Kelcey esq.

Ellen Ovendon appeared on summons charged with committing an assault on Ann Davis.

It appeared that on Saturday night last, the 17th inst., about 11 o'clock, the complainant, in company with another woman, went into the "Royal George" spirit stores. At the bar stood the defendant, and immediately upon the complainant's entrance, (to use her own words), she “flew at me, boxed my ears, and tore my bonnet”. The barman however interposed to prevent further hostilities.

The barman proved that the bonnet was torn by the defendant, but that no blows were struck, as he prevented it. Bad language was bandied from one to the other; and in his opinion there was hardly any choice as to which was the worst.

The defendant admitted the charge, but pleaded the provocation she had received by the complainant calling her names. Convicted in the penalty of 1s. fine and 13s. costs. The money was paid.

 

From the Folkestone Chronicle 29 August 1857. Transcribed by Jan Pedersen.

Wednesday August 26th: - Before G. Kennicott and J. Tolputt esqs.

Henry Lovell was committed for seven days imprisonment for being drunk and very disorderly, and using obscene language, in the middle of the day, in the vicinity of the "Royal George Hotel", to the great annoyance of the inhabitants.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 10 October 1857. Transcribed by Jan Pedersen.

Quarter Sessions

Thursday October 8th :- Before C. Harewood esq., Judge of the County Court, the Mayor, W. Major, J. Kelcey, G. Kennicott and W. Bateman esqs.

Matthew Marsh pleaded not guilty to a charge of stealing a purse containing £1 2s, the property of John Martin, on 31st July.

Mr. John Minter appeared for the prisoner.

The short facts of the case were that the prosecutor, a superannuated coast-guardsman, employed the prisoner, a coal carrier, to bring him some coke. The prisoner in going to the cellar, had occasion to pass a door on which hung the jacket of the prosecutor, with the purse in the pocket. The purse (empty) was later found among the coke.

Upon cross-examination by Mr. Minter, the prosecutor admitted that he had gone to the gas works to see if he could find the purse, and also to the "Royal George".

Mr. John Minter made a forcible appeal to the jury, and called a witness, who stated that the prosecutor said at the "Royal George" that he had left the purse on the corner of the counter.

The Judge then summed up, and the jury returned a verdict of Not Guilty.

 

From the Folkestone Chronicle 12 November 1859. Transcribed by Jan Pedersen.

WARNING TO CARTERS, HIGGLERS & OTHERS

Wednesday November 9th:- Before W. Browell and R.W. Boarer esqs.

Charles Read and George Gibbs, the former an inhabitant of Sandgate, and the latter of Dover, severally appeared on summonses, charged by police constable Swain, with leaving their carts and horses for upwards of three quarters of an hour standing in the public thoroughfare, opposite the "Royal George Hotel," without anyone to take care of them. This being an offence under one of the clauses of the Folkestone Improvement Act, 1855. The constable having been sworn proved that on Thursday, November 3rd, the defendants' carts and horses were standing for the time named in the summons, with no person to take care of them.

The defence in both cases was that they were waiting for herrings, and had no intention of breaking the law.

In the case of Read, the magistrates inflicted a nominal fine of 6d and costs 9s. which was paid at once.

As George Gibbs had taken off his horse's reins the magistrates considered this an aggravation of his offence, and sentenced him to pay a fine of 1s. with costs 11s., or in default of paying seven days hard labour; the prisoner was committed to Dover Gaol in default.

 

From the Folkestone Observer 2 February, 1861. Transcribed by Jan Pedersen.

FIRST CHARGE OF DRUNKENNESS THIS YEAR

Tuesday January 29th:- Before the Mayor, R.F. Browell, R.W. Boarer and J. Kelcey, Esqs.

Edward Loach, 28, and George Phillips, 21, were charged with being drunk in Queen Square on Monday night. P.C. Reynolds said that about 12 o'clock on the previous night he was on duty in Queen Square, when he saw the two prisoners and another man, who were drunk and making a disturbance outside the "Royal George Hotel." He ordered them away and they went to the corner of Kingsbridge Street and commenced again to make a disturbance – Loach and his brother apparently quarrelling. Being again ordered away, they came round once again to Queen Square, and recommenced their disturbance, knocking on the door of the "Royal George." Being again ordered away, they became insolent, and Loach was taken into custody; but fell on the pavement, and Phillips then struck witness, when he also was taken into custody. There was no other person present. Being cautioned with the remark that Mr. Caister was ill, Phillips replied, “---- old Caister, he would not give us any beer at Christmas”. Fined 5s eacg with costs 4s 6d., to be paid within a week.

RESISTING THE POLICE

George Phillips was then charged with resisting P.C. Reynolds in the execution of his duty. P.C. Reynolds deposed that when taking Loach into custody, Phillips struck him (witness) on the mouth, making his gums bleed, and causing his lips to swell. He then seized witness by the collar and tore his coat, and kicked and resisted violently. Calling on Mr. Kent and Mr. Iverson for assistance, witness secured him, handcuffed him, and brought him to the station. In reply to the Mayor, witness said prisoner resisted so much that he was obliged to handcuff him. No defence was offered. Prisoner was then committed to prison, with seven days' hard labour.

A third charge, of wilful damage to the policeman's coat, was not entered on, the prisoner agreeing to pay the cost of repair.

 

Note: Was Caister Manager at Royal George? Was not licensee according to More Bastions. Jan Pedersen.

 

From Western Daily Press 01 May 1875.

LAST NIGHT'S GAZETTE (by Telegraph.) BANKRUPT.

Hobson Wright le Butt, of the "Royal George Hotel," Folkestone, Kent, hotel keeper.

 

From the http://www.kentlive.news By Vicky Castle, 19 August, 2017.

A man died following a reported fight at the Harbour, Folkestone.

A man has died after a reported fight in Folkestone in the early hours of this morning (August 18).

Police are investigating after the man was found with serious injuries near the Harbour wall, outside the "George" pub around 2.25am.

Royal George murder 2017

Witnesses said ambulance crews battled to save the man but he was sadly pronounced dead at the scene.

Police are making enquiries.

Unconfirmed reports say he had been beaten to death following a fight.

A Kent Police spokesman said: "An investigation has been launched by officers from the Kent and Essex Serious Crime Directorate following the death of a man in Folkestone.

"We were called at 2.24am on Saturday 19 August 2017 to a report that a man had been found with serious injuries near the harbour wall.

"Ambulance staff attended but he was pronounced dead at the scene.

'It's just terrible' people react with shock after a man was 'murdered' at Folkestone Harbour.

The area is still cordoned off.

The man has not yet been identified and enquiries into the circumstances behind his death are ongoing."

Around 5.30am a 56-year-old man from Folkestone was arrested in connection with the incident.

He remains in custody.

Business owners whose stalls are within the cordon have been left wondering when they will be able to get back in.

At 9am there was still one police car at the scene and three officers appearing to make enquiries.

The investigation is being handled by detectives from the Kent and Essex Serious Crime Directorate.

Witnesses or anyone with information is urged to call 101 quoting reference 19-0176.

10:30 What we know so far.

A man was found with serious injuries near the Harbour wall, outside the "George" pub around 2.25am.

10:32 Latest from the scene.

Kent Live content editor Vicky Castle says the scene remains cordoned off.

10:38 Full Kent Police statement.

A Kent Police spokesman said: "An investigation has been launched by officers from the Kent and Essex Serious Crime Directorate following the death of a man in Folkestone.

"We were called at 2.24am on Saturday 19 August 2017 to a report that a man had been found with serious injuries near the harbour wall.

"Ambulance staff attended but he was pronounced dead at the scene.

The man has not yet been identified and enquiries into the circumstances behind his death are ongoing."

10:46 Forensic officers have now arrived at the scene.

11:19 Police investigation.

Reports suggest it is now being treated as murder. Police have not confirmed this with us but we have chased them for confirmation.

11:20 Cordoned off for 'several hours'.

A police officer at the scene told our reporter that the cordon was likely to remain in place for several hours.

Stall and pub owners nearby said they haven't been told much and have been waiting around in the area to see when they can get back to their businesses.

13:15 Man was in his fifties.

Police have confirmed that the man who died at Folkestone Harbour last night was in his fifties.

13:36 Videos show forensic detectives investigating scene

15:17 Second man arrested.

A second man, aged in his thirties, has now also been arrested in connection with the murder.

Both he, and the 56-year-old Folkestone man arrested earlier are in custody.

15:21 Next of kin informed.

Police have also confirmed the victim's next of kin has been informed.

A spokesman for the force said: "The victim’s next of kin have been informed and enquiries into the circumstances around the incident are ongoing."

Witnesses or anyone with information is urged to call 101 quoting reference 19-0176.

Royal George murder 2017

16:41 Everything we know so far.

This morning (August 19) people in Folkestone woke up to the tragic news a man in his fifties had died.

Police later confirmed his death was being treated as murder.

Here is everything we know about last night's incident so far.

16:49 The cordon has been lifted.

Police are no longer at the scene of last night's incident.

The cordon near the "George" pub has been lifted by officers as their enquiries continue.

Two men have been arrested on suspicion of murder and the identity of the victim - who is aged in his fifties - has not yet been made public.

From the Dover Mercury, 23 August 2017 By Matt Leclere and Sean Axtell

Woman, 27, among group held over harbour death.

Royal George 2017

Female suspect released after man dies close to fountain.

Six people arrested after the suspected murder of a grandfather at Folkestone Harbour have been released.

A seventh person was released on bail in connection with the death of Steve Holton, who was from the town, early on Saturday morning.

Officers made three more arrests on Sunday after making four initial arrests earlier in the weekend. One of them was a woman from Dover.

Mr Holton, 54, was pronounced dead at the scene by paramedics who tried to revive him after being called to the area next to the harbour fountain.

He was a father to four sons and floral tributes left where he died described him as “the true Delboy”.

A tribute from his sons said: “Never thought the day would come to say goodbye.

“Never be the same without the true Delboy. Love, your sons.”

Flowers and cards appeared next to Chummy’s fish bar with one describing Mr Holton as a “darling husband” and said: “Wait for me”.

Police say Mr Holton was found with serious injuries near the harbour wall outside the Royal George pub.

Forensic teams and police officers set up a cordon around the pub garden, fish stalls and around the fountain throughout the day on Saturday.

Mr Holton was found suffering from a cardiac arrest by paramedics when they arrived at the scene shortly after 2.10am on Saturday.

But despite their efforts to revive him, Mr Holton was pronounced dead at the scene.

Detectives are continuing to appeal for witnesses following the incident but have not released further details about the circumstances.

It was reported there had been a fight in the area in the early hours of Saturday and that no weapons were used but this has not been confirmed.

A post-mortem has taken place and a report is being prepared for the coroner, a police spokesman said.

The coroner’s office was unable to provide details of the post-mortem results.

Police say they have released two people without charge, four pending further inquiries, while a seventh person was released on bail.

Three people were taken into custody for questioning on Sunday and a 28-year-old man was bailed until September 19.

The suspect was taken into custody along with a 24-year-old woman and a 25-year-old man but they have since been released without charge.

The remaining four suspects - a 27-year-old woman from Dover and three men aged 26,37 and 56 from Folkestone - were all released pending further inquiries after their arrests on Saturday and earlier on Sunday.

A spokesman for the ambulance service said: “We got the call at about 2.10am to the Royal George in Beach Street, where it was confirmed a man was in cardiac arrest.

“Efforts to revive the person were unsuccessful and the patient was pronounced dead at the scene.”

Anyone with information is urged to call police on 101 quoting reference ZY/39012/17 or Crimestoppers on 0800 555111.

 

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

This page is still to be updated.

 

LICENSEE LIST

THORPE Stephen 1823+ Pigot's Directory 1823

GODDEN Richard 1828-39+ Pigot's Directory 1828-29(Pigot's Directory 1832-34Pigot's Directory 1839 Stade)

HORLOCK Mark 1847+ Bagshaw's Directory 1847

TWEED Philip to Apr/1858 dec'd (Wine and Spirit Merchant) Folkestone Chronicle

TWEED William (brother of above) Apr/1858-62 (age 42 in 1861Census) Folkestone Chronicle

STRATTON Robert N 1871+ (age 40 in 1871Census)

LEBUTT Hobson Wright 1874-May/75 bankrupt Post Office Directory 1874

TRITTON Mrs Agnes 1899+ Kelly's 1899

Last pub licensee had KIRBY George 1903-13 Kelly's 1903

DOWSON Geo 1922

Last pub licensee had OBERMAN William R 1934+ Kelly's 1934

RELEN Albert Geo Alfred 1938

Last pub licensee had PRIOR George 1952-58

MORRIS ???? (son of Roger from "Malvern") ????

???? Alan & Drew to 2010+

 

Pigot's Directory 1823From the Pigot's Directory 1823

Pigot's Directory 1828-29From the Pigot's Directory 1828-29

Pigot's Directory 1832-34From the Pigot's Directory 1832-33-34

Pigot's Directory 1839From the Pigot's Directory 1839

Bagshaw's Directory 1847From Bagshaw Directory 1847

Post Office Directory 1874From the Post Office Directory 1874

Kelly's 1899From the Kelly's Directory 1899

Kelly's 1903From the Kelly's Directory 1903

Kelly's 1934From the Kelly's Directory 1934

Folkestone ChronicleFrom the Folkestone Chronicle

CensusCensus

 

The following has kindly been researched and sent by Jan Pedersen and is still to be formatted.

 

Royal George, Beach Street c1734 – Present

Licensees

Elizabeth Jeffrey c1740s 1765
Hunt Jeffrey 1765 1792
John Wingfield 1792 1801
Jacob Farley 1801 1811
Richard Stroud 1811 c1816
Robert Hutchins c1816 c1820 To George
Richard Thorpe c1820 c1824
Richard Godden c1824 1830s
Mark Horlock c1847 1848
Charles Heginbotham 1848 1854
Philip Tweed 1854 1858
William Tweed 1858 1864
C. Plater 1864 1866
Robert Nelson Stratton 1866 1872
Thomas Groves 1872 1874
Hobson Le Butt 1874 1878
Robert Crump 1878 1880
John Mountstephens 1880 1882
Matilda Crump 1882 1887
Thomas Pope 1887 1889
Susan Elgar 1889 1890
Agnes Tritton 1890 1899
George Kirby 1899 1914 From Chequers
George Dowson 1914 1930
William Oberman 1930 1934 Ex Clarendon Hotel
Albert Relen 1934 1952

Arthur George Prior 1953 ????
Joe Smith 1958 1966
Bert Morris 1966 1982
James Godden and Michael Webb 1984 1985
Danny Jordan and Anthea Jordan 1985 1988
Danny Jordan 1988 1995
Gary Moffat 1995 1997
Gary Moffat and Thomas Long 1997 2000 Thomas Long From Harbour Inn. To White Lion (2)
Graham Smethers, Linda Smethers and Allen Cornelius 2000 2002
Graham Smethers, Linda Smethers and Constantinos Michael 2002 2002
Constantinos Michael, Alan Goodship and Rosemary Goodship 2002 2002
Ian Jarvis and Maria Jarvis 2002 2004
Maria Jarvis, Allen Cornelius and Christy Taylor 2004 2004 +

 

 

Folkestone Sessions Books 1765 – 1779 & 1792 - 1811.

General Sessions 29 April 1765.

Before John Hague (Mayor), Mr. John Jordan, Mr. William Pope, Mr. Thomas Baker, Mr. Thomas Rolfe, and Mr. John Baker.

Neat Ladd, James Francklyn, Chas. Hill, Thos. Wilton, Ambrose Dadd, Ric Boxer, Widow Jeffery, Widow Gittens, Ric Beear, Mary Gittens, and Joseph Trevillon were fined at this Session 3/4 each for having false measures in their houses, which fines were paid into the hands of the Overseers of the Poor.

Neat Ladd, George; James Francklyn, Rose; Charles Hill, White Hart; Thomas Wilton, no record; Ambrose Dadd, Chequers; Richard Boxer, Fishing Boat; Widow Jeffery, Royal George; Widow Gittens, North Foreland; Richard Beear, Three Compasses; Mary Gittens, Privateer; Joseph Trevillon, Crown.

 

Folkestone Sessions Books 1765 – 1779 & 1792 - 1811.

General Sessions 10 November 1801.

Before William Knight (Mayor), Edward Andrews, Thomas Baker, John Castle and John Gill.

The licence of the Royal George was transferred to Jacob Farley.

Note: Date is at variance with More Bastions.

 

Kentish Gazette 20 May 1803.

Advertisement.

To be sold by Auction, at the Royal George, Folkestone, on Thursday, the 26th of May, at Two o'clock: A clinker-built cutter called the Dolly, burthen sixty one tons, with her materials, in one lot. The above vessel is well-found, and may be fitted for sea in a few days.

For particulars, apply to Mr. Thomas Farley, builder, Folkestone.

 

Kentish Gazette 5 July 1808.

Advertisement.

To be sold by Auction;

At the Royal George, in Folkestone, on Friday, the 15th instant, between four and five o’clock,

Lot 1: All that substantial Freehold messuage or tenement and the washhouse now used therewith, joint use of the yard with the next Lot, well therein, passage thereto, and appurtenances, in Dover Street, in Folkestone, and now in the occupation of Mr. William Moon.

Lot 2: All that other substantial Freehold messuage or tenement adjoining the above premises, with the like use of the yard, well, passage, and appurtenances thereunto belonging, and now in the occupation of Mr. Paul Rayner; and also the stable at the back part of this Lot, in the occupation of Mr. William Knight, surgeon, as undertenant to said William Moon.

The tenants have notice to quit at Michaelmas next. Further particulars may be had of Mr. Knocker, attorney at law, Dover.

 

Kentish Gazette 18 December 1855.

Mr. Philip Tweed, of the Royal George Hotel, has been appointed a Custom-house agent for this port.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 24 May 1856.

Wednesday May 21st :- Before James Tolputt Esq., Mayor, W. Major and J. Kelcey Esqs.

Ellen Ovendon appeared on summons charged with committing an assault on Ann Davis.

It appeared that on Saturday night last, the 17th inst., about 11 o'clock, the complainant, in company with another woman, went into the Royal George spirit stores. At the bar stood the defendant, and immediately upon the complainant's entrance, (to use her own words), she “flew at me, boxed my ears, and tore my bonnet”. The barman however interposed to prevent further hostilities.

The barman proved that the bonnet was torn by the defendant, but that no blows were struck, as he prevented it. Bad language was bandied from one to the other; and in his opinion there was hardly any choice as to which was the worst.

The defendant admitted the charge, but pleaded the provocation she had received by the complainant calling her names. Convicted in the penalty of 1s. fine and 13s. costs. The money was paid.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 29 August 1857.

Wednesday August 26th: - Before G. Kennicott and J. Tolputt Esqs.


Henry Lovell was committed for seven days imprisonment for being drunk and very disorderly, and using obscene language, in the middle of the day, in the vicinity of the Royal George Hotel, to the great annoyance of the inhabitants.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 10 October 1857.

Quarter Sessions.

Thursday October 8th :- Before C. Harewood esq., Judge of the County Court, the Mayor, W. Major, J. Kelcey, G. Kennicott and W. Bateman Esqs.

Matthew Marsh pleaded not guilty to a charge of stealing a purse containing £1 2s, the property of John Martin, on 31st July.

Mr. John Minter appeared for the prisoner.

The short facts of the case were that the prosecutor, a superannuated coastguardman, employed the prisoner, a coal carrier, to bring him some coke. The prisoner in going to the cellar, had occasion to pass a door on which hung the jacket of the prosecutor, with the purse in the pocket. The purse (empty) was later found among the coke.

Upon cross-examination by Mr. Minter, the prosecutor admitted that he had gone to the gas works to see if he could find the purse, and also to the Royal George.

Mr. John Minter made a forcible appeal to the jury, and called a witness, who stated that the prosecutor said at the Royal George that he had left the purse on the corner of the counter.

The Judge then summed up, and the jury returned a verdict of Not Guilty.

 

Southeastern Gazette 10 November 1857.

Local News.

Monthly Meeting of the Town Council.—Present, the Mayor; Aldermen Kennicott, Tolputt, Gardiner; Councillors, Jinkings, Caister, Baker, Gambrill, Cobb, Banks, Meikle, Pledge, Major, Baker, Hunt Jefferey (Walton,) Hunt Jefferey (Coolinge,) Tite, and Boorne.

The minutes of the last meeting having been read and confirmed, Messrs. John Banks, John Boorn, Meikle, and Jinkings, the newly-elected councillors, were sworn in.

The purchase of the premises once used as a brewery belonging to Messrs. Calvert and Co., London, was considered. The Mayor reported what had taken place in reference thereto, and the sum which Mr. Tweed, of the Royal George, would take for his interest therein, but as notices had been served by the town-clerk on those parties, the further consideration of this business was postponed.

Folkestone Chronicle 27 February 1858.

Death:

Feb. 25th, at Folkestone, Mr. Philip Tweed, of the Royal George Hotel, aged 36, deeply regretted.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 27 March 1858.

Notice. Royal George Hotel, Folkestone.

All persons having claims on the estate of the late Mr. Philip Tweed are requested to send in their accounts, and all persons indebted to the estate are requested to settle their accounts on or before the 14th of April next.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 17 April 1858.

Wednesday April 14th: - Before R.W. Boarer Esq., Mayor, James Kelcey and W. Bateman Esqs., and Capt. Kennicott.

Transfer of licences. The licence of the Royal George Hotel was transferred from the late Philip Tweed, to his brother, William Tweed, the administrator under the will.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 12 November 1859.

Wednesday November 9th:- Before W. Browell and R.W. Boarer Esqs.

Warning to Carters, Higglers and Others –

Charles Read and George Gibbs, the former an inhabitant of Sandgate, and the latter of Dover, severally appeared on summonses, charged by police constable Swain, with leaving their carts and horses for upwards of three quarters of an hour standing in the public thoroughfare, opposite the Royal George Hotel, without anyone to take care of them. This being an offence under one of the clauses of the Folkestone Improvement Act, 1855. The constable having been sworn proved that on Thursday, November 3rd, the defendants' carts and horses were standing for the time named in the summons, with no person to take care of them.

The defence in both cases was that they were waiting for herrings, and had no intention of breaking the law.

In the case of Read, the magistrates inflicted a nominal fine of 6d and costs 9s. which was paid at once.

As George Gibbs had taken off his horse's reins the magistrates considered this an aggravation of his offence, and sentenced him to pay a fine of 1s. with costs 11s., or in default of paying seven days hard labour; the prisoner was committed to Dover Gaol in default.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 6 October 1860.

Advertisement.

Royal George Hotel.

W. Tweed begs to inform the inhabitants of Folkestone and its vicinity that he has re-taken the above house, and will continue to supply articles of the first quality, at the lowest possible prices.

Note: Re-taken? More Bastions has him here 1858 – 1864 continuously.

 

Folkestone Observer 2 February 1861.

Tuesday January 29th:- Before the Mayor, R.F. Browell, R.W. Boarer and J. Kelcey Esqs.

The First Charges Of Drunkenness This Year.

Edward Loach, 28, and George Phillips, 21, were charged with being drunk in Queen Square on Monday night. P.C. Reynolds said that about 12 o'clock on the previous night he was on duty in Queen Square, when he saw the two prisoners and another man, who were drunk and making a disturbance outside the Royal George Hotel. He ordered them away and they went to the corner of Kingsbridge Street and commenced again to make a disturbance – Loach and his brother apparently quarrelling. Being again ordered away, they came round once again to Queen Square, and recommenced their disturbance, knocking on the door of the Royal George. Being again ordered away, they became insolent, and Loach was taken into custody; but fell on the pavement, and Phillips then struck witness, when he also was taken into custody. There was no other person present. Being cautioned with the remark that Mr. Caister was ill, Phillips replied, “---- old Caister, he would not give us any beer at Christmas”. Fined 5s each with costs 4s 6d., to be paid within a week.

Note: Was Caister Manager at Royal George? Was not licensee according to More Bastions.

Resisting The Police.

George Phillips was then charged with resisting P.C. Reynolds in the execution of his duty. P.C. Reynolds deposed that when taking Loach into custody, Phillips struck him (witness) on the mouth, making his gums bleed, and causing his lips to swell. He then seized witness by the collar and tore his coat, and kicked and resisted violently. Calling on Mr. Kent and Mr. Iverson for assistance, witness secured him, handcuffed him, and brought him to the station. In reply to the Mayor, witness said prisoner resisted so much that he was obliged to handcuff him. No defence was offered. Prisoner was then committed to prison, with seven days' hard labour.

A third charge, of wilful damage to the policeman's coat, was not entered on, the prisoner agreeing to pay the cost of repair.

 

Folkestone Observer 11 March 1865.

Wednesday March 8th:- Before Captain Kennicott R.N., W. Bateman and J. Tolputt Esqs.

Alfred Titmarsh appeared in answer to a summons charging him with having assaulted and beaten a young woman named Sarah Jordan, on Saturday night.

Complainant said that soon after 12 o'clock on Saturday night she went up High Street, and saw Mrs. Titmarsh at the top of Mill Bay steps, and spoke to her. They both went down the steps and into the home of Mrs. Sacery, of Norwich Place, where they had a few words, but “nothing out of the way”, and then Mr. Titmarsh came and called his wife out, when he asked what the row was all about. His wife told him complainant had been quarrelling with her all the night; complainant then had her say, told him not to believe what she said, and tried to reason with him, but he wouldn't listen and struck her on the mouth with his fist, and kicked her in the chest, saying “You b----, I'll jaw-lock you”. This was not the first time he had ill-used her by a great many; he didn't knock any of her teeth out this time, but he had done so on previous occasions. The defendant was not drunk; the blow which he gave her knocked her into Mrs. Sacery's house. A young man named Banks took the defendant away, and she went out of the house to go home when Mr. Titmarsh again struck her on the face with his fist, kicked her in the stomach, and ran up the steps to call a policeman.

By the Bench: What did he call a policeman for?

Defendant: To have her locked up, gentlemen, for scratching my face.

Complainant went on to say that Mr. Sacery fetched a policeman, and when defendant saw him he ran away. In answer to defendant she did not deny she had been to the Royal George that night, or that she had some drink with some men there, but denied that she ran at defendant and threatened and tried to scratch his eyes out, and that she was so drunk that she fell into Mrs. Sacery's house.

She called Mrs. Sacery, who said she lived at Norwich Place, Mill Bay, and saw the assault complained of. Mrs. Titmarsh and Mr. Jordan came into her house and began to quarrel and make a noise, and her husband tol them if they were not quiet he would turn them out of the house, as his child was lying ill in bed. Mr Titmarsh came down and called his wife out; the complainant also went out , and witness saw him hit her in the face with his fist and knock her down. Witness's husband's brother picked her up, took her into the house, and shut the door. Mrs. Jordan was not drunk; no more were Mr. And Mrs. Titmarsh. After defendant had struck complainant, he kicked her right into the house, and she fell over the steps.

Defendant said he went to the play on Saturday night, and after he left he went down to the Royal George and had two or three pints of ale, and saw Mrs. Jordan there and a man with whom she had been quarrelling. Mrs. Jordan had threatened to do for his wife, and when he went down the steps he found them quarrelling and Mrs. Jordan rushed at him and threatened to scratch his eyes out, but he didn't strike her or kick.

A lad named Banks, who lives in Mill Bay, said that on Sunday morning between twelve and one o'clock he was leaving home to go on board a collier belonging to Mr. Page, when he saw Mr. Titmarsh coming down the steps, and Mrs. Jordan rushed out of Mrs. Sacery's house at defendant, just like a dog, and tried to scratch his face, saying “You b---, I'll scratch your eyes out”, when Mrs. Titmarsh got between them and said “You shan't hit him, you shall hit me”, and then the two women went on fighting. He held Mrs. Titmarsh's bonnet and shawl and Mrs. Jordan told him that if he didn't put them down she would pitch into him. Mrs. Jordan was beastly drunk, and indecently exposed herself.

Mrs. Sacery was recalled, and said she did not see the young man near the place at the time the assault was committed.

The Chairman said the magistrates considered the assault proved, although they believed it arose out of the women's quarrel. It used to be considered a cowardly thing to strike a woman, but from the number and frequency of assaults of this kind, which had now become quite common, it might be inferred that a great many men had become cowards. The defendant had admitted that he had been to the play on Saturday night, and that he had been to a public house and had two or three pints of beer, while at the same time his wife and family were going about the town begging and telling people they were starving.

The defendant was ordered to pay a fine and costs amounting to 16s., in default, 14 days' imprisonment with hard labour.

 

Folkestone Observer 8 July 1865.

Saturday July 1st:- Before Captain Kennicott R.N. and J. Tolputt Esq.

James Baker was charged with being drunk and incapable, and using obscene language in High Street, on June 30th. He was also further charged with having assaulted police constable Smith in the execution of his duty.

Police constable Smith said that last night about half past eight o'clock he was on duty in High Street, when he was sent for to the Royal George in Queen's Square, where he found the prisoner with his horse and truck, and some bobbins. He was very drunk, and incapable of taking care of his horse and cart. Witness ordered prisoner to move on, but he said he should move on when he liked, and two persons offered to take care of the cart whilst he went to lay down. Defendant used very abusive language to witness and then went away up High Street. Witness followed and took him into custody, and on the way to the Station House defendant was violent, made use of obscene language, tried to trip him up and kick him, and struck him on the chest with his fist.

The magistrates fined the defendant 5s. and costs for assaulting and resisting the constable, and dismissed the other two charges.

 

Folkestone Observer 15 July 1865.

Saturday July 8th:- Before Captain Kennicott R.N. and J. Tolputt Esq.

Thomas Hart, a fisherman, was charged with being drunk and riotous in Queen's Square on the 7th instant.

The defendant admitted the charge.

He was further charged with using obscene language at the same time and place.

Defendant denied this charge.

He was also further charged with resisting police constable Henry Hills in the execution of his duty.

Defendant pleaded Not Guilty.

Police constable Hills said that on Friday night last, about ten minutes past eight o'clock, he was on duty in High Street, where he received information which induced him to go to Kingsbridge Street, where he found the defendant fighting with a young man named Pettit, but they parted when witness went up to them, and Pettit went away. Defendant did not go away, but “pitched into” a man named May and knocked him down. Hills parted them, and told defendant that if he started again ge should lock him up. Defendant was very drunk and riotous, and halloed and saif if he wanted to fight he would fight, and made use of obscene language. A crowd of between 100 and 200 people had collected round the defendant, whe went into the Royal George, but came tumbling out a few minutes afterwards with a man named James May, when Hills took him into custody. Defendant resisted very much, and a young man named Newman tried to rescue him. In coming up High Street the defendant tried to trip him, when both fell down and Hills tore his trousers at the knee, but he succeeded in getting him to the station house.

The bench ordered defendant to pay a fine of 10s. and costs. In default, to be imprisoned for 14 days.

 

Folkestone Observer 22 July 1865.

Before Captain Kennicott R.N. and James Kelcey Esq.

Richard Mercer, father of the last prisoner, was charged with assaulting police sergeant Newman.

P.S. Newman said – Last night about a quarter before eleven the prisoner came to the station to admit his son to bail. On looking over the charge I said I did not think I should be justified in taking bail; as he had been fighting he might be fighting again. It was better he should remain till the morning. He then left the station but about half past eleven he came again, with Mr. Wilson of the (Royal) George public house, and he produced a written order from the Superintendent that his son was to be admitted to bail with two sureties. I said “Very well; if it is the Superintendent's wish to admit him to bail, I must admit him”. I went upstairs to get the bail-book and I brought it down and put it on the table, and as I did so the prisoner said “I shan't stop here. I've had enough of it. I shall go”. And he went out, followed by Mr. Wilson, so I took up the book and went to shut the door. As I did so, he pushed the door and tried to get in again. I said “What do you want here now?”. He said “I want to come in again”. I said “No, you don't come in here tonight”. He said “Yes, I will”, and pushed open the door about half way, and forced his way into the station. I went towards him to stop him coming in, and he got hold of me by the collar with his right hand. I got hold of him and tried to release myself from him, but he dragged me out into the market. He then kept hustling me about and I kept hold of him, and we pulled each other about till another son came up to his assistance. The two of them together hustled me out of the market and tried to force me down the steps at the back of Mr. Fagg's house. I caught hold of the iron railing and shouted “Police!”. Mr. White, who lives in the court, came up and took away the son. I then brought the defendant into the station and locked him up. I dropped the bail-book in the market place. The son was as bad as the father. No blows were struck. It was only hustling.

The prisoner said it was about a quarter to ten o'clock when he first came up to the station and he asked the sergeant to bail his son, but he said he did not think he could unless he (prisoner) saw the Mayor or the Superintendent. He went down and saw Mr. Doridant and he said he did not know whether or not it was in his power, he had better see the Superintendent, so he saw the Superintendent, who gave him an order, and he came to the station and gave the sergeant the order. He said “How did you get this?”. I said “From the Superintendent”. He said “You are a liar”. I said “You ought to know the Superintendent's handwriting”. He looked at it for a minute or two and then said “If it is the Superintendent's, I am not justified in taking bail”. He (prisoner) then said “Well, then, I'm off”, and he had got half way across the market when the sergeant called him to come back again. He went back, and when he got in the doorway the sergeant pinched his (prisoner's) foot with the door. He got his foot out, and the sergeant came after him, and said “I shall not give him bail, and I will lock you up”. He (prisoner) went down the steps, and the sergeant took him and locked him up. That was all that was done.

At the request of the bench Charles White, cordwainer, was sworn, and he said he was taking his supper about half past eleven o'clock, and went to the door when he heard a scuffle. He went up the steps, and when he got to the top there were the prisoner, and his son and sergeant Newman struggling together. Sergeant Newman, on seeing witness, shouted out “Police!”, and charged him to assist, and he went and took the son away. They had hold of sergeant Newman. When witness took the son away sergeant Newman took the prisoner to the lock-up. They both had hold of sergeant Newman somewhere about the collar.

The prisoner here fainted, and was removed from the dock to the outer hall. After a few minutes he was brought back into court, when he said he did not intend anything – only to bail his son out.

The bench then sentenced him to a fortnight's hard labour.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 18 November 1865.

County Court.

Wednesday 15th November:- Before C. Harwood Esq.

Edward Hayward v William Tweed – In this case the claim was for £2 3s 2d. The defendant, who formerly kept the Royal George Hotel did not appear, and an order was made for payment forthwith.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 21 April 1866.

County Court.

Wednesday April 18th:- Before C. Harwood Esq.

James Worsell v William Tweed – A claim of £1 2s 7d. The defendant is the landlord of the Spread Eagle, near the Middlesex Hospital. To be paid forthwith.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 23 June 1866.

County Court.

Tuesday June 19th:- Before Mr. Biron.


Shrewsbury v Tweed – Plaintiff is a pipemaker at Folkestone, and sued the defendant, who keeps the Spread Eagle, Charles Street, near the Middlesex Hospital, to recover £1 13s 11d, for pipes supplied to him while tenant of the Royal George. Defendant did not appear, and an order for immediate payment was made.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 27 October 1866.

Wednesday October 24th: Before the Mayor, Captain Kennicott R.N., J. Tolputt and R. W. Boarer Esqs.


Temporary license was granted to Robert Nelson Stratton for the Royal George

Note: Date for Stratton and is at odds with that given in More Bastions.

 

Folkestone Observer 28 March 1868.

Monday, March 23rd: Before Captain Kennicott R.N., and J. Tolputt Esq.


James White, 28, a private of the 7th Dragoon Guards, charged with being a deserter, pleaded not guilty.

P.C. Ingram Swaine said: This morning, between twelve and one o'clock, I was on duty near the Royal George, on the Backway, and met the prisoner in an undress state. He had no jacket and no cap. He was very wet. He did not know where he was or where he was going. He was the worse for liquor. I charged him with being a deserter. I took him into custody. He said he did not wish to desert, but to find his clothes. He said he belonged to the 7th Dragoons, but had no pass. He was not troublesome at all. I found his cap, stock, and jacket this morning, in the lower part of the town, at the Queen's Head. I found the door unfastened, and went in, rousing the landlord. Prisoner seemed to be stupefied, but he could walk very well.

Prisoner said he was sorry he had been overcome by liquor. He had been a soldier for eight years, and had a good conduct stripe.

The Chairman said he was sorry to see a man in such a position, but he ought to have known better. Ordered to be sent to the depot of his regiment at Shorncliffe.

 

Folkestone Express 28 March 1868.

Monday, March 23rd: Before Captain Kennicott and Alderman Tolputt.


James White, 28, was charged with being a deserter from the 17th Dragoon Guards.

P.C. 6F deposed: That morning about 25 minutes to one o'clock he was on duty in the lower part of town, near the Royal George, when he met the prisoner without jacket and cap, and he was very wet. I asked him where he was going to; he said he did not know. I then asked him whence he came from, and he said he did not know. I then charged him with being a deserter. He said he did not want to desert – he wanted to find his clothes. At the police station he said he belonged to the 17th Dragoon Guards. I asked him if he had a pass, when he said he had not. He was the worse for liquor, but not so drunk but what he knew what he was about. I found his jacket, stock, and cap at the Queen's Head beerhouse, where he had been allowed to sleep in the tap room.

The Clerk said that according to the Articles Of War the prisoner would be liable to be charged with being a deserter.

The prisoner said he hoped the Bench would look over this case as he was drunk.

Captain Kennicott said that to look over one would be to look over a hundred.

The prisoner was ordered to be returned to the Camp, to be dealt with as his Commanding Officer may think fit.

 

Folkestone Express 28 November 1868.

Assault on the police.

William Saccrey was charged with assaulting P.C. Ovenden on the 5th of November.


P.C. Ovenden deposed that he was on duty at the bottom of the town on the 5th, and was standing under the arches, opposite the Royal George Hotel when the defendant passed him and went towards the fish market. He shortly afterwards returned and, standing with his back to the Royal George, he threw a lump of fish offal, which struck witness on the left arm. He then walked into the crowd. Several people were in that neighbourhood at the time larking about and squibbing, and several others were throwing offal about. The defendant could see witness plainly. He had given him no provocation. The police are generally speaking pelted with stones and offal on these occasions.

The defendant stated he did not see the police constable on that evening, nor was he “firing” offal. He was not sober, or he should not have done it.

The Mayor said the Bench were of opinion that the defendant committed the offence, and they fined him 6d. and 10s. costs, or seven days' imprisonment.

 

Southeastern Gazette 1 March 1869.

County Court.

This court was held at the Town Hall, on Monday, before W. C. Scott, Esq.


G. Worsell v. G. Plater. Mr. Minter appeared for the plaintiff, who claimed £7 2s. for a debt incurred when the defendant was residing at No. 4, Marine Terrace.

The defendant put in a deed of assignment for the benefit of his creditors, as an answer to the claim. He was formerly the keeper of the Royal George Hotel, Folkestone.

Plaintiff sworn, said he supplied the defendant with the meat, and had applied for the money several times, and received a letter promising to pay. The debt was incurred in May, 1867.

Mr. Minter then examined the defendant as to the accuracy of the signatures to the deed. He said he had paid £600 for a business in Southampton Row, Holborn. The brokerage and lawyer’s fees amounted to £30 and he owed £225 to Mr. Wm. Holdness, a bill discounter, which was for bills and money lent. He had not got the consent notes.

Mr. Minter criticised the conduct of the defendant in producing a document of this sort, and urged that as the defendant had not properly proved it, it was not a sufficient answer to the action. There was a great improbability of its being of a genuine character, as it was not likely the broker and the bill discounter would accept a composition of Is. in the £.

The defendant here applied to have the case adjourned for a month to enable him to obtain legal assistance.

After a discussion between his Honour and Mr. Minter, the case was adjourned, on the defendant paying the costs of the adjournment.

 

Folkestone Express 24 February 1872.

The Bankruptcy Act, 1869.

In the County Court of Kent, holden at Canterbury.

In the matter of proceedings for liquidation by arrangement or composition with creditors instituted by Robert Nelson Stratton of the Royal George Hotel, Folkestone, Kent.


Notice is hereby given that a first General Meeting of Creidtors of the above named person has been summoned to be held at the Royal George Hotel, Folkestone, Kent, on the sixth day of March next, at 3 o'clock in the afternoon precisely.

Dated the 14th Day of February, 1872

John Minter,
Folkestone,
Attorney for the said Debtor.

 

Folkestone Express 18 May 1872.

Monday, May 13th: Before The Mayor, T. Caister, J. Tolputt and J. Clarke Esqs.

Temporary License.

The license of the Royal George Hotel was temporarily transferred to Thomas Groves


 

Folkestone Express 1 June 1872.

Wednesday, May 29th: Before The Mayor, R.W. Boarer, J. Clarke and S. Eastes Esqs.


Mr. Minter applied for temporary authority to sell at the Royal George, by Mr.Thomas Groves, stating that Mr. Stratton had petitioned to have his affairs wound up in liquidation, and under the Bankruptcy Act the property was vested in Trustees, who had given notice of their intention to apply for the license to be granted to Mr. Groves. He apprehended that the new Licensing Act vested the license in the Trustee, to be given by him to anyone to be approved of by the Bench.

The formal notices to the Overseers of the Poor and the constables were proven to have been served by Mr. Pilcher and certificates of character were put in.

A temporary license was granted to Mr. Groves.

 

Folkestone Express 13 July 1872.

Wednesday, July 10th: Before The Mayor, T. Caister and J. Tolputt Esqs.


The license of the Royal George Hotel was transferred from the Trustees of Mr. Stratton to Mr. Groves.

 

Folkestone Express 22 March 1873.

Thursday, March 20th: Before W. Bateman and J. Tolputt Esqs.


George Lambert, shoemaker, was charged with stealing a pair of boots, value 6s., the property of Richard Hawke, being bailee of the same, on the 18th instant.

Prosecutor said he was a porter at the Royal George Hotel. On Monday last he gave prisoner a pair of boots to repair, and prisoner brought them back on the following day about noon. On trying them on he found they hurt his feet, and followed prisoner, and giving him the boots back told him they crippled him and that he must alter them and let him have them back as soon as possible. Prisoner took the boots and told prosecutor he was to call for them at his house if he wanted them. From what he had been told he went to Mrs. Evans's second hand shop in Dover Street, and was there shown his boots, which Mrs. Evans said prisoner had sold to her. In the evening he went to the Superintendent of Police, who told him he had better have Lambert apprehended, which was done. The boots produced were his property.

Elizabeth Evans said prisoner went to her shop on Tuesday and asked her to buy a pair of boots, which she did for 2s. 6d., and a pair of boy's leggings. She did not inquire who they belonged to, as shoemakers were in the habit of selling her second hand boots and shoes.

Prisoner pleaded Not Guilty, and declined to make any statement at present or to call any witnesses. He also elected to have the case sent for trial.

The Bench said he would be committed for trial at the Quarter Sessions, but they would accept bail, himself in £10 and one surety in £10, which prisoner said he had no doubt he could procure.

 

Southeastern Gazette 25 March 1873.

Local News.

At the Petty Sessions on Thursday last, George Lambert, a shoemaker, was charged with stealing a pair of boots, value 6s., the property of Richard Hawke.


Prosecutor said he was porter at the Royal George Hotel. On Monday he gave prisoner a pair of boots to repair, which he did and brought them back on Tuesday at noon. Finding they hurt his feet, he requested prisoner to take them back and alter them and to let him have them back again as soon as he could. Prisoner took them away but did not return them. From information received, witness went to Mrs. Evans’s second-hand shop, Dover- Road, where he found his boots, Mrs. Evans telling him that she had bought them of the prisoner. He then communicated with the superintendent, and prisoner was apprehended.

Mrs. Evans gave evidence to the effect that she bought the boots of Lambert for 2s. 6d., and a pair of boy’s leggings.

The prisoner was committed for trial.

 

Folkestone Express 3 May 1873.

Quarter Sessions.

Tuesday, April 29th: Before J.J. Lonsdale Esq.


George Lambert, who was committed on a charge of stealing a pair of boots and a duck was stated by His Honour to have been sent to a lunatic asylum by order of the Secretary of State.

The Grand Jury returned No True Bill with reference to the boots, and a True Bill with reference to the duck.

His Honour said that under the circumstances the recognisances of the witnesses would be respited, and they would be liable to appear again when called upon.

 

Folkestone Express 16 August 1873.

Saturday, August 9th: Before The Mayor, J. Tolputt and J. Clarke Esqs.


Amelia Spearpoint, Dover Street, was charged with using obscene language in the Royal George on the 4th August.

Mr. Till was for the prosecution in this case.

Emily and Mary Pope, the defendants in the last case, were the complainants in this affair, and deposed to defendant using bad language towards them at the Royal George on the night of the 7th August.

Defendant's statement was that Emily and Mary Pope said something unladylike about her hisband, but denied using any bad words to them.

Defendant was fined 10s. and 11s. costs.

Mrs. Pope and her two daughters came to and went away from the court in a cab. The two girls were very fashionably attired, with a profusion of jewellery, including large stars in their head dress.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 21 March 1874.

Monday, March 16th: Before The Mayor, J. Tolputt and J. Clarke Esqs.


Mr. Hobson Wright Lebutt applied for a temporary license to sell excisable liquors at the Royal George Hotel. Granted.

 

Folkestone Express 21 March 1874.

Monday, March 16th: Before The Mayor, J. Tolputt, and J. Clark Esqs.


Mr. Hobson W. Le Butt applied for and obtained temporary authority to sell intoxicating liquors at the Royal George Hotel under the license obtained by Mr. Thomas Groves.

Wednesday, March 18th: Before The Mayor, J. Clark and J. Tolputt Esqs.

The license of the Royal George was transferred to Mr. H.W. Le Butt.

 

Folkestone Express 28 March 1874.

Wednesday, March 25th: Before The Mayor, Col. De Crespigny, J. Clark, W. Bateman, and J. Tolputt Esqs.


George Brooks, alias Poole, pleaded Guilty to being drunk and disorderly, and committing wilful damage by breaking a window, the property of the Executors of the late Charles Edward Jordan, South Foreland Inn.

Mr. H. Jordan said prisoner went to the South Foreland and asked for some beer, but as he was drunk he refused to serve him, and he became so abusive he was obliged to put him out, when he went to a private compartment and kicked at him through the window and broke it, doing damage to the amount of 5s.

Supt. Wilshere said the police were called to the Royal George, the Dew Drop, and the Victoria to turn prisoner out.

Mr. H.W. Le Butt, Royal George Hotel, said prisoner threatened him because he would not serve him with beer, and took up a pewter pot which he thought he was going to throw at him, and he sent for the police. Prisoner had been the terror of the neighbourhood for three days.

A previous conviction for assaulting the police in September, 1872, was proved.

Fined 1s. for the wilful damage, 5s. the cost of the window, 5s. for being drunk, and 7s. costs, or 21 days' in default.

 
Folkestone Chronicle 2 May 1874

Saturday, April 25th: Before The Mayor and J. Tolputt Esq.

Eliza O'Leary, wife of Jeremiah O'Leary, was charged with having, on the evening of the 23rd inst., broken two windows of glass at the Royal George.

Mr. Lebutt said that defendant came into the inner bar of his house last Thursday evening, the 23rd of April, about half past nine o'clock. She asked for a glass of whisky. He said to her “You had better not have any more tonight. If you come back tomorrow you shall have one”. At that moment her husband came into the bar, took her by the shoulders, and pushed her into the street. Within two minutes afterwards, five stones in succession were thrown at the windows of the bar which faces the tramroad. One large stone came through into the bar. Two panes of glass were smashed. He did not see the stones thrown. He went outside and saw defendant, who was talking to a crowd that had collected. He said to her “What did you do this for?”, and she replied “I have done it, and must suffer for it”.

Catherine Smith deposed to seeing defendant take up a stone and throw at the glass.

The prisoner was remanded until Wednesday next, the Bench accepting bail, and one surety in £10.

 

Folkestone Express 2 May 1874.

Wednesday, April 29th: Before The Mayor, J. Kelcey, J. Hoad, and R.W. Boarer Esqs.


Elizabeth O'Leary was charged with wilfully damaging a window to the amount of £6, the property of Mr. Hobson Wright Le Butt, Royal George Hotel, on the 23rd April.

Mr. Le Butt said: Defendant came into the inner bar of my house last Thursday evening about half past nine o'clock and asked for a glass of whisky. I said to her “You had better not have any more tonight. If you come tomorrow you shall have one”. She was drunk. At this moment her husband came into the bar and took her by the shoulders and put her into the street. Within two minutes afterwards five stones in succession were thrown at the window of the bar which daces the Tram Road, and one large stone came through into the bar and two panes of glass were smashed; it was plate glass, a quarter of an inch thick. I did not see the stones thrown; one only came inside, the others dropped into the street. I went outside and saw defendant there; she was talking to a crowd of people who had collected. I said to her “What did you do this for?” She said “Well, I have done it, and I must suffer for it”. She said she could do six months for it, and would break every ---- pane of glass in the house. I asked her why she should do so, and she said because her husband came there. P.C. Keeler came up at the time.

Catherine Smith said: I am a widow, and live on The Narrows. I was with defendant last Thursday evening between nine and half past. We went into the Royal George and had a pint of porter, which I paid for. After we had drunk the porter we went into the front bar, and just as we were going out defendant's husband came in, and as soo as she saw him she went out into the street. I saw her husband strike her before she got out of the house. I went out of the house about five minutes after defendant, but before the windows were broken. She was in the road and I saw her throw stones twice and heard a smashing of glass after the stones were thrown. I saw the bar window of the Royal George broken after she had thrown the stones. I saw Mr. Le Butt come out of the house and heard him ask her what she had done it for. She said because her husband had knocked her about. She went home with me.

Defendant was remanded to Wednesday, the Magistrates offering to accept bail of £10, failing which she was sent to Dover.

 

Southeastern Gazette 4 May 1874.

Local News.

At the Police Court, on Wednesday, before the Mayor, R.W.Boarer, J. Kelcey, and J. Hoad, Esqs., Elizabeth O’Leary was charged with breaking two panes of plate glass, value £6 in the Royal George Hotel.


It appears that Mrs. O’Leary, after increasing her naturally high spirit by the aid of alcohol, went to the hotel in question, and demanded a glass of whiskey. This Mr. Le Butt refused to let her have on the ground that she had already “fortified ” herself sufficiently. Indignant at the imputation the lady took up a handful of stones, and avenged the insult at the expense of the bar windows. She was remanded to prison for a week, to give her time for reflection

 

Folkestone Chronicle 9 May 1874.

Wednesday, May 6th: Before The Mayor, J. Kelcey and J. Hoad Esqs.


Eliza O'Leary was charged on remand with smashing windows at the Royal George.

The evidence of Mr. H.W. Lebutt, which was given in our last, having been taken, Thomas Burtenshaw assessed the damage done at £6 10s.

The prisoner was committed for trial at the Quarter Sessions, bail being accepted in one surety of £10, another in £5, and herself in £25

 

Folkestone Express 9 May 1874.

Wednesday, May 6th: Before The Mayor, J. Hoad and J. Kelcey Esqs.


Elizabeth O'Leary was brought up on remand from the previous Wednesday on a charge of wilfully and maliciously breaking two panes of glass, value £6 10s., at the Royal George Hotel.

The evidence of Mr. Le Butt and Mrs. Smith, as reported in our last, was read over, and the following additional evidence taken.

Mr. Tom Burtonshaw, foreman to Mrs. Baker, plumber, said he was called by Mr. Le Butt to examine a window on the 24th April, and found two squares of British polished plate glass broken in the bar window. The costs to replace them would be £6 10s., the dimensions being 71¼ in. x 26¾ in, each window containing 13 ft. superficial. It would not be possible to replace the glass for £5. He got estimates from two houses, and £6 10s., the one he had quoted, was the lowest.

P.C. Keeler deposed: I was on duty at the bottom of Dover Street about a quarter before ten on the night of the 23rd April, when I saw a mob of people in front of the Royal George Hotel. On going to see what was the disturbance I saw prisoner standing among a crowd of people. I went up to her, and before I said anything to her she said “I broke those windows”. I saw two panes broken in the bar window facing the Tram Road.

Prisoner was committed for trial at the Quarter Sessions, the Bench offering to accept bail, two sureties in £5 each, or one in £10.

Prisoner said she did not know of anyone who would be surety for her, and was removed in custody.

 

Folkestone Express 30 May 1874.

Tuesday, May 26th: Before J. Kelcey and R. W. Boarer Esqs.


Catherine Harrington was placed in the dock, charged with being drunk and disorderly. Prisoner pleaded Not Guilty.

P.C. Hogben said he was called by Mr. Le Butt, Royal George Hotel, at half past one on Monday afternoon to remove prisoner from his bar, as she would not leave, because he refused to serve her with beer as she was drunk. Witness asked her to leave, and with an oath she said she would not. He put her out and told her to go home quietly, but she refused to do so. He followed her, and two or three ladies and gentlemen called his attention to her disorderly conduct. She was drunk and he took her into custody. Prisoner denied being drunk and said she only went with her mother to have a glass of beer, and the landlord refused to serve her mother. She had no maney herself to get any beer.

Supt. Wilshere said he was at the Police Station shortly aftr prisoner was locked up, and she was decidedly drunk and abusive.

By prisoner: I did not call you an Irish brute.

Prisoner said her mother could prove that she was not drunk, but on being called she did not answer.

Fined 5s. and 5s. 6d. costs, or seven days' hard labour. Locked up in default.

 

Folkestone Express 20 June 1874.

Wednesday, June 17th: Before J. Tolputt Esq.


A dirty, unkempt fellow, who gave the convenient name of John Smith, and who appeared in the dock innocent of soap, shirt and vest, was charged with begging and also with being drunk.

P.C. Hogben gave an account of the fellow's proceedings, which were as follows: At half past eight on Tuesday night he saw prisoner coming down Dover Street, and accosted a Provost Corporal, telling him the “bobby” has been watching him all the evening, and that he was going to watch the “bobby”. He then went to the Royal George and laid a tract on the counter and asked someone to buy it, and refused to go away unless something was given to him, which was done. Thence he went to the True Briton and offered a coastguardsman a tract, and received a coin. Thence to the Alexandra Hotel, and then followed two gentlemen with a tract in his hand and rolled against them, and they told him they would punish him if he did not go away. He then followed some gentlemen coming from the Pavilion. Hogben, thinking the fellow had enjoyed his game long enough, asked him if he had a certificate for hawking, and he said a gentleman had given him the tracts to get a living with when he came out of a London hospital, and that he had a wife and two children. Prisoner was worse for drink, and he was run in.

Tenpence halfpenny and a bundle of religious tracts were found on prisoner, who begged hard to be let off, promising never to visit Folkestone again. He was sent to Dover for fourteen days' hard labour.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 27 June 1874.

Wednesday, June 24th: Before The Mayor, J. Hoad and J. Kelcey Esqs.


Hobson Wright Lebutt, landlord of the Royal George Hotel, was summoned for assaulting Henry Payne, baker, High Street.

Mr. Minter appeared for complainant.

Henry Payne, sworn, said: On Saturday night, about half past nine, I was at defendant's house, and called for a pint of ale. I was sitting in the bar parlour; I had a right there. The barmaid brought me the ale, and I gave her sixpence. She brought me the change. Lebutt took it and said “I'll keep that”. I said to the barmaid “Never mind about him, it is my change”. I tried to take the change. He ordered me out of the house. I tried to take the change from the female, not from him. He would not let me drink my ale, nor go out. Some German there pitched into me. Lebutt caught hold of me and hit me. I did not drink my ale, or get any change.

On the application of defendant the case was adjourned, by consent, until Saturday next.

 

Folkestone Express 27 June 1874.

Wednesday, June 24th: Before The Mayor, J. Kelcey, and J. Hoad Esqs.


Hobson Wright Le Butt was summoned on a charge of assaulting Henry Paine, baker, High Street. Mr. Minter appeared for complainant.

Complainant said: I was in defendant's house, the Royal George, on Saturday evening about half past nine o'clock, when I called for a tankard of ale in the bar parlour; the ale was brought to me by the barmaid, who also brought me the change. Defendant would not allow me to take it, but took it himself. I attempted to take it from the barmaid. Defendant ordered me out of the house before I had drank my ale. He then walked about like a madman and put me across a chair and would not allow me to go out, and yet I said I should not stay. I had not a clear course, or I should have gone out. A German gentleman was there, but he had gone away. I hardly knew what defendant was doing to me. I neither had my ale nor my money. It was not the first time defendant has assaulted me.

By defendant: You ordered me out of the house. You begged my pardon and gave a cigar, and we were to be friends. You did not tell me not to come into the bar parlour again. You struck me first.

By The Mayor: Defendant struck me on my right temple with his fist and said “Out with you”.

By defendant: I adhere to the statement that you struck me and knocked me down.

Defendant said as complainant adhered to the statement that he struck him, he must ask for an adjournment as he had two witnesses who were willing to appear.

As Mr. Minter made no objection, the case was adjourned to this day.

 

Southeastern Gazette 29 June 1874.

Local News.

At the Police Court, on Wednesday, before the Mayor, J. Kelcey, and J. Hoad, Esqs., Hobson Wright Le Butt, landlord of the Royal George Hotel, was summoned on a charge of assaulting Henry Paine, baker, High Street.


Mr. Minter appeared for the complainant, who stated that he went into the bar-parlour of the Royal George, about half-past nine on Saturday night, and called for a tankard of ale, which was brought to him by the barmaid, who also brought the change. He endeavoured to receive it from her, but was prevented by defendant, who took it himself. Defendant ordered him out of the house, walked about “like a madman,” held complainant across a chair, and struck him on the right temple. He would have left the house, if there had been a clear course. Defendant pulled him about so much that complainant did not exactly know what he did to him, but he neither had his ale nor received his money; and it was not the first time defendant had assaulted him.

In cross-examination by defendant, Mr. Paine said defendant begged his pardon and gave him a cigar on the understanding that they were to be friends.

The defendant, who denied striking the complainant, requested that the case might be adjourned to enable him to procure the attendance of witnesses, and this request was granted.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 4 July 1874.

Saturday, 27th June: Before The Mayor and J. Clarke Esq.


Hobson Wright Lebutt was summoned by Henry Payne for assaulting him. This case was remanded from last Saturday, and the evidence reported in out last issue.

The Bench fined defendant 5s. and 14s 6d. costs.

 

Folkestone Express 4 July 1874.

Saturday, June 27th: Before J. Clark and J. Hoad Esqs.


The complaint of Mr. Henry Paine, baker, against Mr. Hobson Wright Le Butt, of having assaulted him on Saturday, June 20th, which was adjourned from the previous Wednesday for the production of two witnesses by defendant, was again before the Bench.

Mr. Minter appeared for complainant, and in addition to the evidence given on Wednesday called Joseph Timson, who said: I was in the Royal George on the evening in question and saw all that passed in the bar parlour, and heard complaiant order a pint of ale, which the barmaid brought, and also brought threepence change which defendant took and said “That will be a little outset of it”. I don't know what he referred to. Defendant took hold of complainant to put him out. I saw no blows struck on either side – only a scuffle – and I took complainant away from defendant.

By defendant: You were across a chair as well as complainant; complainant was on top of you.

Defendant said the two witnesses he expected to have produced had left the town, one having gone to Hastings, and the other to London. Complainant was in his private room, and he ordered him to leave, and he was very quarrelsome, and two gentlemen said they would leave the house if he were allowed to be in the bar. Complainant struck him a blow and he returned it.

In answer to Mr. Clark, Mr. Timson said Mr. Paine refused to go out when ordered to do so by defendant, who pushed him before he refused to go.

Mr. Clark said the Bench did not think it was a very serious assault. If defendant did not wish complainant to come into his house he should not have taken his change. Defendant must pay a fine of 5s. and 14s. 6d. costs.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 1 August 1874.

Quarter Sessions:

Tuesday, 28th August: Before J.J. Lonsdale Esq.


The Grand Jury retired, and soon returned with a true bill against Eliza O'Leary, 30, prostitute, who was committed by W. Wightwick Esq (Mayor of Folkestone) on the 6th May, charged with maliciously damaging real property of a personal nature (a window), to an amount exceeding £5, the property of Hobson Wright Lebutt, between the hours of 9 p.m. and 6 a.m., on the 23rd of April, 1874. The prisoner pleaded guilty.

Mr. Worsfold Mowll, of Dover, appeared for the prosecution, and said he was desired by the prosecutor to recommend her to the merciful consideration of the Court, and to state that she had already been thirteen weeks in custody on this charge.

The Learned Recorder, in passing sentence, said it was a serious charge, and that she was liable to be sent into penal servitude for five years. Taking the fact that she had been such a long time in prison into consideration, he should now award her one month's imprisonment, with hard labour, in the house of correction at Dover.

 

Folkestone Express 1 August 1874.

Quarter Sessions.

Tuesday, July 28th: Before J.J. Lonsdale Esq.


Eliza O'Leary pleaded Guilty to maliciously damaging real property of a private nature (a window) to an amount exceeding £5, namely £6 10s., the property of Hobson Wright Le Butt, Royal George Hotel, Folkestone, on the 23rd April.

Mr. W. Mowll, of Dover, who appeared for the prosecution, said prosecutor wished to recommend prisoner to mercy, as she had been in gaol thirteen weeks.

The Learned Recorder: Perhaps that is an interested recommendation. I think, having read the depositions, that you (prisoner) did not quite know what you were doing. It seems the landlord advised you not to have any more liquor that night, but to come again in the morning.

Prisoner: It was through my husband knocking me about. I did not know what I was doing.

The Recorder: I have power to inflict upon you five years penal servitude, but I am not going to do anything like that. It appears that several stones were thrown at the window and some went through, and persons inside the house might have been injured. Believing that you were hardly yourself at the time, and I do not know whether you were drunk or not, which would be no excuse, and taking into consideration that you have been already so long in gaol, I shall only sentence you to one month's hard labour.

 

Southeastern Gazette 1 August 1874.

Quarter Sessions.

The Midsummer session was held on Tuesday, before J. J. Lonsdale, Esq., Reoorder.


Eliza O’Leary pleaded guilty to breaking a window at the Royal George Hotel, on the 23rd April, doing damage to the amount of £6 10s.

Prisoner said it was her husband’s ill usage which had driven her to the act, and she hardly knew what she was about.

Taking into consideration that prisoner had been in gaol thirteen weeks, she was only sentenced to one month’s hard labour.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 12 September 1874.

Saturday, September 5th: Before S. Eastes, J. Tolputt and J. Clark Esqs.


Mr. Lebutt, landlord of the Royal George, was summoned for assaulting Adam Forester on the 10th inst. The evidence of complainant (who was in defendant's employ) stated that defendant turned him out of the house because he came late, having first stripped him of his clothes.

The defendant said that complainant was insolent to him, and gave him provocation.

The Bench fined him £2, and 18s. costs.

 

Folkestone Express 12 September 1874.

Saturday, September 5th: Before S. Eastes, J. Tolputt and J. Clark Esqs.


Mr. Hobson Wright Le Butt was summoned on a charge of assaulting Adam Forrester. Mr. Minter appeared for defendant.

Complainant said: On Tuesday morning I went to the Royal George Hotel about a quarter before eight o'clock. I was ordered to get there at six o'clock. Defendant wanted me to make an apology. I was his porter. Defendant knocked me on to the ground with his fist and called me a lazy scamp. He stripped my waistcoat off my back and ripped it into ribbons. He also dragged my trousers off; they belonged to him. He put his hand in my pocket and took out what I had there, but left my keys. After he had taken my trousers off he pulled me through the kitchen, through the servants' hall to the main entrance, by the hair of my head, and threw me into the street nearly naked. I ran to the cottage nearby and waited there till Mr. Austen brought me a pair of trousers to go home in. There were about fifty people present. I did not strike defendant. He assaulted me simply because I was late.

Cross-examined: Defendant complained of my being late. I did not tell him he was a liar. He told me to take my clothes off and leave his service. I went into the kitchen, but he would not give me time to take my clothes off. He kicked me behind in the street.

Defendant was fined £2 and 18s. costs.

 

Folkestone Express 31 October 1874.

County Court.

Saturday, October 24th: Before G. Russell Esq.


A. Forrester v H.W. Le Butt: In this case the claim was for one week's wages, a week's notice, a week's board, and damages to clothing, and detention of a key.

Defendant did not appear, and plaintiff said he was a weekly servant to defendant at 10s. per week and his board, and was turned out without any trousers, and a key and corkscrew which were in his trousers pocket were kept by defendant, who had to pay £4 for the assault by order of the magistrates.

His Honour said he could only deal with the question of wages, and gave judgement for £2 forthwith.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 7 November 1874.

Inquest.

An inquest was held yesterday at the Royal George Hotel, before J. Minter Esq., Coroner, yesterday morning, on the body of Henry Samuel Poole, a boy nine years of age, who was drowned in the Harbour on the previous Wednesday. James Baker said he was engaged working on the harbour on the day in question, and left about 10-30, and returned about 10-45, when he saw the body of deceased floating in from two to three feet of water. He saw Mr. Hall, and called his attention to the body, and he (witness) fetched P.C. Sharpe. George Davis deposed that he took the body out of the water, and tried to restore animation. The deceased brought up a quantity of water. The body was taken to the Royal George Hotel, and the landlord put it into a warm bath, wrapped it in flannels, and did all in his power to restore animation, but in vain. Dr. Mercer said that every effort had been made to restore the deceased, who died from drowning. Henry Beer deposed that he knew the deceased, and saw him playing on the Wednesday morning in a rowing boat afloat, which was made fast to the gridiron. A short time afterwards the boat was gone. He heard a lad thus caution the deceased, “If you don't mind, you will fall”. A little boy, who was too young to be sworn, made a very intelligent statement, for his age, to the Jury as to how the accident had happened. The deceased was playing in the boat, and from there he got on to the jetty, sitting there with his legs hanging over. He told him that if he didn't mind he would fall. Presently he leaned forward, and in taking hold of something fell into the harbour. He was very much frightened, and ran away and informed his mother of what had occurred. After the Coroner had summed up the evidence, the Jury returned a verdict of “Accidentally Drowned”. The parents of the deceased, who are in very indigent circumstances, return their thanks publicly to Mr. Lebutt for having collected the sum of £10 to discharge the funeral expenses and other matters.


 

Folkestone Express 7 November 1874.

On Wednesday morning a little boy named Henry Samuel Poole was playing on the groynes near the gridirons in the harbour, when he fell into the water and was drowned.


The inquest was held at the Royal George Hotel on Friday morning before Mr. J. Minter Esq., Coroner, and a jury.

H. Poole, father of the deceased, said the child was nine years of age, and was his son. Witness was at sea on Wednesday, and knew nothing of the accident.

Henry Beer, fisherman, Fenchurch Street, deposed: I last saw deceased about nine o'clock on Wednesday morning, playing with another little boy in a boat near the place where the body was found. The boat was afloat and moored to the gridiron. When I passed the place again about half past ten, the boat was gone, and the boys also. I did not see deceased again until the body was found. I heard the other little boy tell deceased to get into the boat or he would fall into the water. There were four or five feet of water. I saw deceased with one leg on the iron work and the other on the boat.

The little boy who was with deceased was too young to be sworn, but stated that he saw him fall into the water when he was sitting on the edge of the groyne.

James Baker said: I was going to the coal bulk about half past ten on Wednesday morning when I saw the body of deceased floating on it's face near the groyne. I called to Hall, the chief mate of the steam boat, and he got the body out of the water while I went for a policeman.

George Davis, deputy harbour master, said: I was coming along the tramway about a quarter before eleven on Wednesday morning, when my attention was called to the body of a boy floating in the harbour. With assistance I got it out and rolled it, and made the usual means for restoring animation, without effect, and the body was taken to the Rotal George.

Mr. Richard Mercer, M.R.C.S., said he found that every proper means had been used at the Royal George, deceased having been placed in a warm bath, and hot blankets, and attempts were made to produce artificial respiration. Death was caused by drowning, and deceased's mother told him the child had been subject to fits.

A verdict of “Accidentally Drowned” was returned.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 21 November 1874.

Coroner's Inquest.

An inquest was held last evening at the Royal George Hotel, before F. J. Till Esq. (Deputy Coroner), touching the decease of William Walker, a seaman in the employ of the South Eastern Railway Company, who came by his death under the circumstances detailed below,


The jury having been sworn, they proceeded to view the body, after which the subjoined evidence was taken.

James Jones, being sworn, said: I am a shipwright on the South Eastern Company's works. I have viewed the body of deceased, which I identify as that of William Walker. I last saw him alive about 9-30 this morning. About 20 minutes after, I again saw him, lying on the deck of the Princess Clementine, and the men endeavouring to restore animation, but he was quite dead.

Adam Pope, a lad of 14, was next sworn, who said: I am a call-boy on board the Princess Clementine. I knew the deceased; he was mate of the ship. I last saw him about 4-00 p.m. under the bridge, on the deck of the vessel. I last saw him alive about 8-15 a.m., going down the quay to go on board. I was going to breakfast. At 9 o'clock I went on board the ship. At 10, Charles Hammond, the boatman, told me to go and call the mate. I went to his berth in the fore part of the ship to find him. The door being open, I saw deceased, and thought he was standing on the locker. I called to him two or three times, but he did not answer. I went to Hammond and told him deceased must be dead or in a deep sleep. Hammond said “I'll go and roust him out”, and then he went away. The next time I saw deceased he was lying on deck. Yesterday deceased told me to go and tell his wife she was to get her own dinner as he should not be home. I thought he looked white, and I told him so. He said “Yes, Adam, I have got a pain up here” (putting his hand to the back of his head). He had not said anything to me before about this. He was quite sober when I saw him on the quay. (This witness was commended by the jury for the very clear manner in which he had given his evidence)

Thomas Golder said: I am a labourer in the employ of the South Eastern Railway Company. I knew deceased as the mate of the Clementine. I las saw him in his berth on board the ship at about 10 a.m. this morning. Hammond called out to me “Tom, I think Old Will is dead”. I went down to his berth as quick as I could, and looking around, I saw him hanging in a corner. I put up my hand, and felt a cord, and I cut him down. The cord produced is like that I saw on the body of deceased, and has been cut. We took the body on deck and tried to restore him, but he was quite dead. His face and hands were cold when I cut him down, but the body was limp. I have identified the body of deceased as that of William Walker.

Richard Mercer, sworn, said: I am a Member of the Royal College Of Surgeons, and am living in the Sandgate Road. I have seen the body of a man lying on board the Princess Clementine. I saw him about ten this morning on the deck of the vessel, dead. I made an examination of the body, and found his neck dislocated. There was at that time no appearance of the mark of the cord, but since then it has developed itself on the flesh. It was too soon after death to notice this before. The body was warm. The cause of death was dislocation of the neck. I heard that he had had a blow on the head, but I could not trace anything.

James Goodburn, sworn, said: I am the Captain of the Princess Clementine. Deceased was mate on board the vessel. There had been a collision on the 14th instant between that ship and another vessel in the Channel. Deceased complained of his head several times daily, and said he had been thrown from the wheel on to the deck at the time of the collision. He was always a very quiet sober man.

Superintendent Wilshere: About 11 a.m. this morning I heard of the death of the body viewed by the jury. I visited the ship and searched the body, but found nothing but a purse containing 3d., and a few memorandums. I found in the cabin a quantity of cord similar to that produced.

The Coroner here read a letter received from Mr. James Durden, chief boatman of the Coastguard, stating that deceased had told him of the fall he had received in the collision, and of frequent pains he felt in his head and neck. The contents of this letter were corroborated by the subjoined evidence.

John Reynolds, Sergeant of police, said: I knew the deceased William walker well. I last saw him alive yesterday. I spoke to him about the collision; he told me he was at the wheel, and when the collision happened it threw him over the wheel onto the deck and cut his head. He said the blood ran down his neck from the wound, and he complained of a pain down his neck to his shoulder, so that he could hardly move.

William Earnshaw said, in answer to a juror, that the cord produced is similar to that supplied by the Company.

Henry Woods: I am chief engineer on board the Princess Clementine. I was on board when the collision took place, and the next morning I had some conversation with the deceased, and he complained of a blow on the head as well as a strain in his neck. I have seen him daily since. His cabin is opposite to mine, and we could see into each other's cabin. He has been daily since the accident writing a great deal, and overhauling his books, contrary to his usual custom. On Wednesday I saw him writing very fast, and that induced me to notice him particularly. I have observed that he has been very strange the last few days, and not inclined to talk.

This concluded the evidence, and, the Coroner having summed up, the jury returned a verdict of “Temporary insanity, caused by a blow on the head, sustained by a fall during the recent collision”.

 

Folkestone Express 21 November 1874.

An inquest was held last evening at the Royal George Hotel before F.J. Till Esq., Deputy Coroner, and a jury, on the body of William Walker, mate of the steam boat Princess Clementine, the particulars of which will be found in the evidence given below:


James Jones deposed: I am a shipwright on the South Eastern Railway Works. I knew the deceased, William Walker. I last saw him alive about half past nine this morning; saw him again about twenty minutes before ten. I lost sight of him for a few moments, and when I saw him again he was lying on the deck, dead. He was quite sober.

Adam Pope deposed: I am fourteen years of age, and call boy on board the Princess Clementine. I knew deceased, who was mate on board the same vessel. I saw him last at a quarter past four o'clock this afternoon, lying dead under the bridge on board the Princess Clementine. I saw him alive at eight o'clock this morning, going down the quay to go on board. I went on board at nine o'clock. About five minutes to ten, Charles Hammond, the boatman, told me to call the mate (deceased) directly. I went to his berth to find him. The door was open and I looked round, and I thought deceased was standing on the locker. I said “Mr. Mercer” and he did not answer. I spoke louder, and still he did not answer. I went to Mr. Hammond and said “He is in a deep sleep, or he must be dead”. Mr. Hammond said he would go and roust him out. Deceased and I had a conversation yesterday about twelve o'clock, when he said “Will you go and tell my wife I shall not be home to dinner, and tell her to get her own”. I thought he looked white and told him so. He put his hand to the back of his head and said “I have a pain here”. He was perfectly sober at eight o'clock. (This witness gave his evidence in such an intelligent manner as to call forth the commendation of the jury)

Thomas Golder deposed: I am a labourer in the employ of the S.E.R. Company. I knew deceased very well, and the last time I saw him was at a little before ten this morning, in his berth. I was called down by Mr. Hammond, who said “I think old Will's dead”. I went to his berth as quickly as I could, and looked round and saw him hanging up in a corner of his berth. I put my hand up and felt a cord round his neck, and attached to a hook. Mr. Hammond handed me a knife and I cut him down. I think the cord produced is the same which was round deceased's neck. I took the body on deck, and four or five of us tried to revive him. His hand was cold when I cut him down, but his body was limp. He was swinging clear, and was dead when I cut him down.

Mr. R. Mercer, M.R.C.S., deposed: I saw deceased for the first time this morning, when he was dead, between a quarter and half past ten, on the deck of the Princess Clementine. I made an examination of the body, and found his neck dislocated. I have examined him since, and found the mark of a cord round his neck. The body was cold. The cause of death was dislocation of the neck. I had heard that he had had a blow on the head, and examined him, but could find no traces of it after a second examination.

Captain James Goodburn deposed: Deceased was mate on board the Princess Clementine, of which I am Captain. Deceased complained of his head on the night of the collision of the Princess Clementine with another vessel, and said he was thrown from the wheel to the deck. He complained daily of the pain in his head. He was a very quiet, sober man. The collision happened six days ago.

Superintendent Wilshere deposed: Shortly before eleven today I heard of the death of the deceased, and visited the ship, searched the body, and found a purse, threepence, and some pencils. In the cabin I found some twine corresponding with that now produced.

A letter from Mr. J. Durden, Chief Officer of the Coastguard, was read, which corroborated the statements of the witnesses as to the state of mind of the deceased.

Police Sergeant Reynolds deposed: I knew deceased well. I saw him the last time yesterday. I spoke to him about the collision, and he told me he was at the wheel, and when the collision happened it threw him over the wheel, on to his head and cut it, and blood ran down his neck from the wound, and said it pained him down his neck and his shoulders, so that he could hardly move. He was a sober man.

Mr. W.E. Earnshaw deposed: The Company supply cord precisely the same as that produced.

Henry Woods expressed a wish to give evidence as to the habits of the deceased, and on being sworn said: I am chief engineer on board the Princess Clementine. I was on board when the collision took place, and next morning he complained of a blow on the head, likewise a strain in his neck, and that it was so bad he could hardly move his head. I have seen him on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday. His cabin is opposite mine, and we can see into each other's cabins distinctly. Each day he has been overhauling his books and writing very much, which is contrary to his usual custom. On Wednesday morning he was writing in such a manner which made me notice it. I observed that he had been very strange the last day or two, and not inclined to talk, which is contrary to his usual habits.

Mr. Mercer, by a juror: The injuries deceased complained of would probably have the effect of causing a mental derangement.

The jury returned a verdict that deceased hung himself whilst in a state of temporary insanity caused by the injuries to his head.

 

Southeastern Gazette 23 November 1874.

Inquest.

On Friday evening last an inquest was held at the Royal George Hotel, before F. J. Till, Esq., deputy-coroner, on the body of William Walker, mate of the steam boat “Princess Clementine.” It appeared that some time since, deceased had received an injury to his head by being thrown down in a collision. The injury had caused him great pain at times. When a boy went to call deceased on the morning of the day in question, he could get no answer, and, he having called a man named Golder, it was found that Walker had hung himself.


The jury returned a verdict of “Temporary Insanity”.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 5 December 1874.

Local Intelligence.

About a month ago a boy named Poole fell into the harbour and was drowned. After the Inquest, which was held at the Royal George Hotel, on the body, Mr. Lebutt kindly collected £10 5s. 6d. (in subscriptions ranging from 3d. to 2s. 6d.), for the parents, who are in poor circumstances. Out of this the funeral expenses were defrayed and the balance remaining, £5 11s. 6d., has been handed over to the parents.


 

Folkestone Express 5 December 1874.

Local News.

It will be recollected that a little boy named Henry Samuel Poole was accidentally drowned in the harbour on the 4th ultimo. Mr. H.W. Le Butt, Royal George Hotel, very kindly collected £10 5s. 6d. from 166 subscribers, ranging from 3d. to 2s. 6d. each. After the funeral and other expenses were paid there was a balance of £5 11s. 6d., which Mr. Le Butt has handed to the parents of the poor boy.


 

Folkestone Chronicle 2 January 1875.

An inquest was held last evening at the Royal George Hotel before J. Minter Esq., Coroner, on a child named James Fagg, living in East Street. From the evidence it appears that the poor little fellow caught hold of the kettle, which was on the fire, and drank out of the spout. The hot water injured the mucus membrane, the windpipe, and inflicted other injuries which caused death. The jury returned a verdict of Accidental Death.


 

Folkestone Express 2 January 1875.

Inquest.

An inquest was held at the Royal George Inn last (Friday) evening, before J. Minter Esq., and a jury, on Thomas, infant son of John Fagg, fisherman, East Street, aged two years and nine months. The following evidence explains the fatal occurrence:


Mrs. Fagg said she was boiling some fishing lines the previous afternoon about half past three, in her parlour, with her little girls. There was a fire in the room, and a kettle on the hob. The deceased came in from the street and went to the fire. Witness's daughter, Annie, suddenly called out “Mother! Tommy is drinking boiling hot water out of the kettle”. Witness turned round and saw deceased screaming in front of the fire. Witness picked him up; he was foaming at the mouth and crying. Witness tried to force butter and milk between his lips, but could not get the deceased to open his mouth. Witness called in a neighbour, and was going to take deceased to the doctor's, but he cried to go to sleep, so witness stayed in. The child went to sleep for two hours, and after he woke up she took him to Mr. Mercer's. The child died a little after one a.m.

Annie Fagg, deceased's sister, aged ten, who said she could not either read or write, corroborated her mother's evidence.

Mr. Richard Mercer, surgeon, deposed that the child had been scalded in the throat. The upper part of the gullet and windpipe were blistered, and the mucous membrane was parched. The injuries were such as would be caused by drinking boiling water. He prescribed soothing remedies, but it died from the shock to the system and the injury to the throat. There was no hope of recovery from the first.

The jury returned a verdict of Accidental Death.

 

Southeastern Gazette 4 January 1875.

Inquest.

An inquest was held on Friday evening last, at the Royal George Inn, Beach Street, before J. Minter, Esq., and a jury, touching the death of Thomas, infant son of John Fagg, fisherman, East Street, aged two years and nine months. The following evidence was adduced:—


Mrs. Fagg said she was baiting some fishing lines the previous afternoon, about half-past three, in her parlour, with her little girls. There was a fire in the room, and a kettle on the hob. The deceased came in from the street and went to the fire. Witness’s daughter Annie suddenly called out, “Mother ! Tommy is drinking boiling hot water out of the kettle.” Witness turned round and saw deceased screaming in front of the fire. Witness picked him up; he was foaming at the mouth and crying. Witness tried to force butter and milk between his lips, but could not get the deceased to open his mouth. Witness called in a neighbour, and was going to take deceased to the doctor’s, but he cried to go to sleep, so witness stayed in. The child went to sleep for two hours and after he woke up witness took him to Mr. Mercer’s. The child died at one a.m.

Corroborative testimony was given by the little girl Annie, and the medical evidence was to the effect that death had resulted from a shock to the system and injury to the throat caused by drinking boiling water.

The jury returned a verdict of “Accidental Death.”

 

Folkestone Chronicle 20 March 1875.

Wednesday, March 17th: Before The Mayor, Col. De Crespigny, R.W. Boarer, J. Tolputt, and W. Bateman Esqs.


Hobson Wright Lebutt was summoned for wilfully damaging a ladder, the property of Charles W. Spurrier, on the 13th inst.

Mr. Minter appeared for defendant.

The defendant was also charged with stealing a cask and a pair of trousers, of the value of 21s., at the same time.

The Bench, having heard the evidence, dismissed both cases.

Notes: Lebutt was licensee of the Royal George and Spurrier the Alexandra Hotel.

 

Folkestone Express 20 March 1875.

Wednesday, March 17th: Before The Mayor, Col. De Crespigny, R.W. Boarer, J. Tolputt and W. Bateman Esqs.


Hobson Wright Le Butt, of the Royal George Hotel, was charged with wilfully and maliciously damaging a ladder, the property of Charles William Spurrier, of the Alexandra Hotel on the 18th inst. Mr. Minter appeared for defendant.

Prosecutor deposed that at half past six p.m. on Saturday evening he was in his bedroom at the back of the house, and heard someone moving some casks. He saw it was Mr. Le Butt, and thinking that he was moving his own casks took no further notice of it. On Sunday morning he missed a ladder which lay partly on his own ground and partly on that belonging to the Royal George. He afterwards found a broken piece of the ladder by the back door of the Royal George; the other part he had seen in the back premises of the same hotel. The value of the ladder was 15s.

Cross-examined by Mr. Minter: I believe defendant is landlord of the Royal George. Had not been unfortunate with his ladder; had often lent it to defendant. Had had no dispute with Mr. Groves, the late landlord. Had not asked defendant for the ladder on account of his state; he considered he would not have done it if he had been sober. He considered he was a dangerous man.

Mr. Minter: And therefore you want to get rid of him.

The Bench dismissed the case without calling on Mr. Minter for his defence.

Mr. Minter: You ought to be obliged to us for taking care of your ladder. You can have it on application.

Mr. Spurrier: Very well, my next action will be in the county court.

Mr. Minter applied for a certificate of dismissal to bar further proceedings, but as the charge was not one of felony, the Magistrates did not grant it.

The same defendant was next charged with stealing a cask and pair of trousers, value 21s., at the same time from the same prosecutor. Mr. Minter again defended.

Mr. Spurrier said on Saturday he had a 36 gallon cask, belonging to Messrs. Truman, Hanbury and Co., standing on ground at the back of his house. He saw it at 5 p.m. At 6.30 he saw defendant moving some casks, and at seven o'clock he found the cask in question was gone. He saw the cask on Sunday in Mr. Le Butt's back building. Prosecutor also lost a pair of trousers hanging on a line on defendant's land, and he also found these in this building. He could identify them.

By Mr. Minter: I laid the information and knew that I was swearing that defendant feloniously took these. I did not, as a neighbour and hotel keeper, think it well to ask him for it. The cask stood on the right of way, but on one side, so that defendant could have passed.

The trousers – a very small pair of knickerbockers – were produced by Mr. Le Butt, to the amusement of the Court.

Mr. Minter addressed the Court for the defence, saying he was sorry Mr. Spurrier had allowed his temper to get the better of him and bring forward this charge. He saw that he had not taken the usual course of apprehending the supposed thief under a warrant, but had summoned Mr. Le Butt to answer this trumpery charge. The fact was Mr. Le Butt had suffered depredations on a fowl house, and locked up all the loose property in the yard.

The Mayor said the Magistrates had unanimously decided to dismiss the case.

Applause was expressed in Court at the decision, but this was instantly suppressed.

The parties then left the Court. Miss Spurrier took up the offending pair of breeks left by Mr. Le Butt, and retired with her father.

 

Southeastern Gazette 22 March 1875.

Local News.

At the Borough Petty Sessions, on Wednesday, Hobson Wright Le Butt, landlord of the Royal George Hotel, was charged with wilful damage to a ladder worth 15s., belonging to Mr. C. Spurrier, of the Alexandra Hotel.


On March 13th, plaintiff saw defendant moving some casks in a yard common to both hotels. The next morning he discovered that the ladder had been broken and placed in an out-house belonging to Le Butt. He could swear to one of the spokes produced.

Cross-examined by Mr. Minter, who defended, plaintiff said there was no mark on the spoke by which he identified it.

The Mayor said that the Bench would not trouble Mr. Minter, but dismiss the summons. Mr. Spurrier said he should go to the county court for a remedy.

 

Folkestone Express 24 April 1875.

County Court.

Saturday, April 17th: Before G. Russell Esq.


In the judgement summons plaint, Simon Joseph, outfitter, High and Tontine Streets v Hobson Wright Le Butt, landlord of the Royal George Hotel, for £10 for a suit of clothes (which had been adjourned from last Court) His Honour committed defendant for 14 days' forthwith.

Saturday, April 17th: Before J. Tolputt, J. Clark and R.W. Boarer Esqs.

Mr. Hobson Wright Le Butt, of the Royal George Hotel, who did not appear, was summoned for non-payment of £8 16s. on a Gas account due on December 31st.

Superintendent Wilshere proved the service of the summons.

Stephen Page, the collector of the Folkestone Gas and Coke Company, proved the case, and an order was made for payment within seven days after demand; in default of payment, a distress warrant to issue; in default of distress, one month's imprisonment.

 

Folkestone Express 8 May 1875.

Advertisement.

To be Let, with immediate possession, that well known Family Hotel and Continental House, known as the Royal George, close to the Railway Station, the Harbour, and Pavilion Hotel, recently painted and decorated, and capable of doing at once a first class business. Incoming moderate.


No stock to take.

Apply for terms &c., to
JAMES PLEDGE,
Auctioneer and valuer,
Folkestone

 

Folkestone Chronicle 22 May 1875.

County Court.

Before G.A. Russell Esq.

< p class="address">Interpleader Case.

This was a case which occupied the attention of the Court for some time. George Wetherham was plaintiff, Hobson Wirght Lebutt, late landlord of the Royal George Hotel, defendant, and The City Of London Brewery Company, claimed certain sums of money owing to it by defendant from a sum recovered by distraints by plaintiff.


Mr. J. Minter appeared for plaintiff, Mr. Mowll for claimant, but defendant was not represented.

It appears that defendant owed Mr. Wetherham £14 7s., for which a judgement in the County Court was obtained. The deputy bailiff was put in possession of this hotel under the summons, and the goods sold. The City Of London Brewery Company made a claim to the property seized under the levy. After some discussion on legal points, His Honour gave judgement for claimant.

 

Folkestone Express 22 May 1875.

County Court.

Saturday, May 15th: Before G. Russell Esq.


Interpleader Case

In an interpleader action which occupied the attention of the Court a considerable time George Wetherhahn was plaintiff, Hobson Wright Le Butt, late landlord of the Royal George Hotel, Beach Street, defendant; the City Of London Brewery Company appeared to claim certain sums of money owing to it by defendant from a sum recovered by distraints by plaintiff.

Mr. J. Minter appeared for the plaintiff; Mr. Mowll, of Dover, for the claimant; defendant was not represented by a solicitor.

The facts of the case, briefly stated, were these: Defendant owed Mr. Wetherhahn the sum of £14 7s., for which he obtained a judgement against him in this County Court, and issued an execution in due course. The deputy bailiff was put in possession of the hotel under this summons and goods were sold. The City Of London Brewery Company then made a claim to the property seized under the levy and the money was paid into Court to abide the event. It was stated that subsequent expenses had raised Mr. Wetherhahn's claim to £21 2s. 6d.

When the case came on for hearing, Mr. Smith, a collector for the City Of London Brewing Company, and Mr. Le Butt were called by Mr. Mowll in support of the claimant's case.

After some contention on legal points raised by Mr. Minter, His Honour gave judgement for the claimant.

 

Folkestone Express 5 June 1875.

Local News.

On Tuesday afternoon a large display board was blown from the parapet of the Royal George Hotel, breaking some tiles and boarding in it's descent. It fell but a short distance from two little girls who were passing the hotel at the time.


 

Folkestone Express 12 June 1875.

Advertisement.

The Royal George Hotel, Folkestone.


Now to be LET, with immediate possession.

Apply personally to James Pledge, Auctioneer and Valuer, Folkestone.

 

Folkestone Express 31 July 1875.

Wednesday, July 28th: Before The Mayor and J. Kelcey Esq.


Ann Owens, 63, old woman of dissipated appearance, but who described herself as “a poor widow trying to earn an honest crust”, pleaded Not Guilty to a charge of being drunk and disorderly in Queen Square on the previous day.

P.C. Hogben proved that on Tuesday afternoon about four o'clock he found the prisoner near the Royal George Hotel drunk and fighting with another woman. Witness had cautioned prisoner a few days before for begging.

Defendant declared with great volubility her innocence of the charge, and called a woman named Ann Besley, lodging at the Radnor Inn, who saw defendant struck by another woman. She seemed then quite sober. The striking went on for about twenty minutes before the police came.

Superintendent Wilshere said that at the time of the wedding of General Casson's daughter, defendant was drunk near the church and abusive towards the wedding party. She had not been charged with the offence as the witnesses would not come forward.

The Mayor said the Bench would dismiss the case, as oath was brought against oath, although they had strong suspicions that defendant was drunk at the time.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 6 November 1875.

Tuesday, November 2nd: Before The Mayor, J. Tolputt, and T. Caister Esqs.


Charles Edward Evans, a driver in the Royal Artillery, was charged with stealing a “spinning Jenny”, of the value of 10s., the property of Mr. Lebutt, of the Royal George Hotel, on the previous Saturday.

The prisoner was remanded until today (Saturday)

 

Folkestone Express 6 November 1875.

Friday, November 5th: Before The Mayor, T. Caister and J. Tolputt Esqs.


Charles Frederick Evans, a driver in the 25th Brigade, Royal Artillery, was charged with stealing a “spinning jenny”, value 10s., the property of Mr.Le Butt, Royal George Hotel, on the previous evening.

Lieutenant Little, R.A., was present during the hearing of the case.

Eliza Amos, barmaid at the Royal George Hotel, Beach Street, said that on Thursday evening at six o'clock prisoner came to the house. He came into the bar with another man, a civilian called “Dicky Buff”, and asked for two glasses of ale. Witness served the beer and the two stayed in the bar about a quarter of an hour. Prisoner went away first, and in about five minutes afterwards witness missed the “spinning jenny” produced. It stood behind the bar on a shelf and anyone would have to reach over to get it. Prisoner was brought to the hotel about seven o'clock by the provost, some soldiers, and a policeman. The latter asked witness if she had seen prisoner before, and she replied in the affirmative. Prisoner asked where the civilian was who gave it to him, but witness did not reply. Prisoner had a stripe on his arm when he first came in the house.

Frederick Wallis said he was landlord of the Crown And Anchor Inn, Dover Street. On Thursday evening at a quarter past seven prisoner came in alone and asked for a glass of ale. Prisoner produced the “spinning jenny” from under his arm and said he had bought it for the Artillery sports. He asked witness to buy it for 5s., and witness ultimately gave him 4s. for it. Witness afterwards heard that the “jenny” was missing and gave information to the police.

Superintendent Wilshere asked for a remand, and the Bench accordingly granted a remand until today (Saturday).

 

Folkestone Express 13 November 1875.

Saturday, November 6th: Before The Mayor, J. Tolputt, T. Caister and W.J. Jeffreason Esqs.


Frederick Charles Evans, a soldier in the 25th Brigade, Royal Artillery, was charged on remand from the previous day with stealing a “spinning jenny”. The particulars appeared in our issue of last week.

Corporal James Hall, of the Garrison Military Police, said he went in search of the prisoner, whom he found in a public house in Dover Street. Witness told him he would have to go to the Royal George. Prisoner asked what for, but witness made no reply. On arriving at the Royal George, the barmaid identified prisoner as having been there that evening.

P.C. Butcher said that about half past seven on Thursday evening he received the prisoner from the last witness and took him to the station. Prisoner was there identified by Mr. Wallis of the Crown And Anchor as the man who sold him the “spinning jenny”. Witness then locked the prisoner up, and afterwards two stripes, which had been on his arm, were found lying on the floor of the cell.

Prisoner, who had nothing to say, was committed for trial.

 

Folkestone Express 18 December 1875.

Wednesday, December 15th: before The Mayor, R.W. Boarer Esq., and Captain Crowe.


Harris Hayward, a fisherman, was charged with being drunk and disorderly on the previous day.

P.C. Knowles said that about a quarter to eleven on Tuesday morning he heard a noise inside the Royal George public house. On looking in he saw the defendant in a fighting attitude. He went in and endeavoured to persuade him to go out, but he refused to do so, and began fighting another man. Witness and the landlord then ejected him, and on getting into the street he shouted and became so violent that witness was compelled to take him into custody.

The Bench fined defendant 5s., and costs 4s. 6d.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 29 January 1876.

Quarter Sessions.

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


John Frederick Evans, 22, Bombardier in the 25th Brigade, Royal Artillery, was indicted for stealing one spinning Jenny, value 10s., the property of Mr. Hobson Wright Lebutt, landlord of the Royal George, Folkestone.

Mr. Kingsford prosecuted.

Prisoner stole the article from the counter of the Royal George, and afterwards sold it to the landlord of the Crown And Anchor for 4s.

The Recorder sentenced him to six months' imprisonment with hard labour.

 

Folkestone Express 29 January 1876.

Quarter Sessions.

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


John Frederick Evans, 22, a bombardier in the Royal Artillery, was charged with stealing a “spinning jenny”, value 10s., the property of Hobson Wright Le Butt, on the 4th November, 1875.

Prisoner pleaded Not Guilty.

Mr. Kingsford prosecuted, and briefly stated the facts of the case to the jury. He then called Eliza Amos: I am a barmaid at the Royal George Hotel. On the day in question I saw the prisoner come in, and I also saw the “spinning jenny” quite safe. After the prisoner was gone out I missed the “spinning jenny”. Prisoner had two gold stripes on his arm. The same evening prisoner was brought to the house. I had given information to the police.

By the prisoner: There were two other men in the house. I do not know them.

Frederick Wallis: I am the landlord of the Crown And Anchor, Dover Street. On the 4th November prisoner came to my house and offered a “spinning jenny” for sale. He said he had bought it for the Camp Sports, but did not want it. I bought it from him for 4s.; he asked 5s. for it. I heard afterwards that a “spinning jenny” had been stolen from the Royal George, and I gave information to the police.

Corporal J. Hall, 41st Regiment: I went in search of the prisoner and found him in the Crown And Anchor. He was in the tap room. I called him out and handed him over to P.C. Butcher.

P.C. Butcher: I received the prisoner into custody and charged him, but he made no reply. I took him to the station and saw Mr. Wallis, who said “That's the man I bought the “spinning jenny” from”. Prisoner had two gold stripes. I afterwards saw him in the cell, but the stripes were taken off his jacket and were lying on the floor under the bed.

Mr. Wallis, re-called, said: Prisoner had two stripes on his arm.

Prisoner said that he went into the Royal George with two sailors, and soon after one of them came out with the article and asked him to sell it. He took it to one place, but could not sell it, and he then took it to Mr. Wallis who bought it. He bore a good character in the regiment, and if it had not been for drink he should never have had anything to do with the matter.

The learned Recorder, in summing up the case, reverted to the fact that there had been an attempt on the part of the prisoner to disguise himself by cutting off his stripes.

The jury returned a verdict of Guilty, and the Recorder said he did not think it was a case in which the prisoner wished to get out of the army, and he should therefore only sentence the prisoner to be imprisoned with hard labour for six calendar months.

 

Southeastern Gazette 29 January 1876.

Quarter Sessions.

The Epiphany Quarter Session for this borough was held on Friday last, at the Town-hall, before the Recorder (J. J. Lonsdale, Esq.).


John Frederick Evans, 22, a bombardier in the 25th Brigade Royal Artillery, was indicted for stealing a spinning jenny, value 10s., the property of Mr. Hobson Wright le Butt, landlord of the Royal George, Folkestone. Mr. Kingsford prosecuted.

Prisoner, who made drink the excuse for his crime, was sentenced to six months’ hard labour.

 

Folkestone Express 15 April 1876.

Monday, April 10th: Before The Mayor, Col. De Crespigny, Ald, Caister, and W.J. Jeffreason esq.


John Philpott was charged with being drunk and begging in Queen's Square on Sunday evening.

Superintendent Wilshere said that at about nine o'clock on Sunday evening he saw prisoner go to several persons. Prisoner afterwards went into the Royal George, and witness followed him. Prisoner went round with his hat, saying that he was nearly blind, and had had nothing to eat all day. He was very drunk. Witness called the attention of the landlord, and prisoner was told to go out. He refused to go, became very violent, threw himself down, and had to be dragged to the police station.

The Mayor: Has the prisoner been here before?

The Superintendent: Not that I can trace, according to the name, though his face seems familiar to me.

Alderman Caister: I am sure I have seen him before.

The prisoner was ordered to pay a fine of 5s. for being drunk, or in default seven days' imprisonment with hard labour, and was committed for a further term of seven days for begging.

 

Folkestone Express 10 August 1878.

Wednesday, August 7th: Before The Mayor, Alderman Caister, General Armstrong, and J. Kelcey Esq.


The license of the Royal George was transferred to Mr. Crump.


 

Folkestone Express 13 December 1879.

Wednesday, December 10th: Before The Mayor, R.W. Boarer Esq., Aldermen Banks and Hoad, Captain Crowe and Captain Fletcher.


Benjamin Cloke was summoned for assaulting George Dorrell on the 3rd December. Mr Minter appeared for the defendant.

Complainant, a hawker, of Hythe, said on Wednesday he was in the Royal George shortly before five in the afternoon. As he was going in, defendant came up and wanted to fight. He declined to fight, and sat down on a form for a minute or two, and defendant then struck him with his fist and knocked him off the form.

Cross-examined: I did not strike defendant at all, and the landlord did not tell me to let defendant alone.

George Wire, a hawker, of Hythe, corroborated complainant's statement. He added that Cloke was annoyed because Dorrell had taken his trade away.

Robert Crump, the landlord of the Royal George, said the parties had been in and out of his house several times during the day. He served Cloke with shrub and cloves. He saw Cloke strike complainant, because he pulled his jacket off. Cloke was excited, and complainant was annoying him. The witness Wire had had too much to drink and he was requested to leave the house.

Henry Newman said complainant struck the first blow and defendant returned it.

The Bench dismissed the case.

 

Folkestone Express 17 April 1880.

County Court.

Saturday, April 10th:


Crump v L.S. Wallace: Plaintiff is the landlord of the Royal George Inn, and he obtained judgement against the defendant, who is a medical man, residing at Brockley, near New Cross, for £2 13s. 4d., a debt incurred while he was staying at plaintiff's house. His Honour ordered his committal for 30 days, but suspended the warrant for 14 days for payment.

 

Folkestone Express 30 July 1881.

Wednesday, July 27th: Before The Mayor, General Cannon, Alderman Caister and J. Fitness Esq.


William Davis was charged with stealing a concertina, value 7s. 6d., on the previous day.

George Heatcote, a boiler maker, lodging at the Oddfellows Arms, said he was in the Royal George on the previous afternoon playing a concertina, and left about seven o'clock, leaving the concertina there. When he returned a few minutes afterwards the instrument was gone. He gave information to the police, and subsequently saw the prisoner at the Radnor lodging house, with the concertina in his possession.

P.C. Hogben said he received information from prosecutor that he had lost a concertina. He went to the common lodging house, and there found prisoner in the kitchen playing a concertina. He asked prisoner to let him look at it, and prisoner said it belonged to one of his mates. Witness took the concertina and showed it to prosecutor, who identified it as his property. Prosecutor went with witness to the kitchen and gave prisoner into custody. Prisoner was very violent and used beastly language all the way up the street.

Prosecutor, in reply to the clerk, said he had not known prisoner previous to Monday. They had been in company together on that day.

Prisoner said he took the concertina to his lodging, thinking prosecutor would go there for it. He had no intention of stealing it.

The Bench did not consider there was any felonious intention and dismissed the prisoner.

 

Folkestone Express 14 January 1882.

Editorial.

There is no getting away from the fact that publicans are a badly-used class of tradesmen, and this was very strongly exemplified at the borough bench on Saturday. If a landlord of an inn permits a disturbance to take place in his house, he is amenable to the law. This being so, the law should uphold him in any reasonable precautions he may take to secure order. The County Court Judge recently remarked that when he could not reconcile common law with common sense, he came to the conclusion that there was something wrong in the common law. And that is just the conclusion common sense must arrive at in regard to the case in point. We have not the slightest doubt that the Magistrates' Clerk rightly advised he justices as to the law, but an Act of Parliament which will not protect and support a publican who refuses to serve a man, whom though apparently sober, he believes will create a disturbance, but who actually says he was so drunk that he could not remember what had taken place, is manifestly an unjust one.


Saturday, January 7th: Before The Mayor, Captain Fletcher, Alderman Hoad, F. Boykett and M.J. Bell Esqs.

John Davidson jun. was charged with being abusive and quarrelsome and refusing to quite the Royal George Hotel on the 31st December.

Mr. J.H. Mountstephen, the proprietor, said the defendant was in the bar using very bad language about 2.30 in the afternoon. He was abusing the barmaid, and witness ordered him to leave, but he refused to do so. He went in search of a policeman. Defendant appeared to be sober. He had nothing to drink, and the barmaid had orders not to serve him, and that was the cause of his abuse.

Harriett Smith, the barmaid, said in consequence of instructions she refused to serve defendant. He called her foul names. Mr. Mountstephen ordered him to leave, and as he refused he went to fetch a policeman. While he was gone, defendant went away.

Defendant said he had been off to a ship where he had a lot to drink. If he had not been drunk, he should not have entered the house. He did not remember using abusive language in the house at all.

The Bench dismissed the summons.

 

Folkestone Express 17 November 1883.

Monday, November 12th: Before The Mayor, Colonel De Crespigny, Alderman Caister, J. Fitness, J. Clark, and J. Holden Esqs.


James Higgins was charged with being a deserter from the Royal Dublin Fusiliers, stationed at Dover.

P.C. Knowles said he found the prisoner in the Royal George on the previous day, without either pass or furlough. He took him into custody, and had considerable trouble in getting the prisoner to the police station.

Corporal West, 2nd Battalion, Dublin Fusiliers, said he knew the prisoner as a private in the Regiment. He left the barracks on Saturday night without leave.

The prisoner was ordered to be handed over to a military escort and taken back to his Regiment.

 

Folkestone Express 19 January 1884.

Monday, January 14th: Before Colonel De Crespigny, Alderman Caister, J. Holden, J. Clark and J. Fitness Esqs.


Charles Jones was charged with stealing a till, value 1s., and 4s. in money, the property of Matilda Crump, landlady of the Royal George.

William John Ford, a ship's carpenter, said on Saturday afternoon he was in the private bar of the Roay George, kept by his aunt, Mrs. Crump. His attention was attracted by hearing money jingle in the direction of the outer bar. Someone in the bar called out “Two sixpences for a shilling”. He ran into the bar, and saw a man with no hat on just going out of the door. He noticed the till was gone. He ran out of the wholesale entrance and met P.C. Keeler, whom he asked if he had seen a man go past with no hat on. Keeler said he had. They then went in opposite directions and witness overtook the prisoner in a court. He was counting some money. He said “I want you, old fellow, for taking a till out of the bar”. Prisoner replied that he knew nothing about it, and had never been in the house. He gave him into the custody of P.C. Keeler. He subsequently found a hat in the bar of the Royal George. A chair had been removed up to the front of the counter so that anyone standing on it could reach the till. When they got to the top of High Street prisoner refused to go any further unless he was carried. He could identify the prisoner as the man he saw in the bar. There was no-one else in the bar when he left.

Arthur Frank Ellis said he saw the prisoner in the bar of the Royal George about five o'clock, in company with two other men. He then had his hat in his hand. Witness afterwards went with Ford, and saw him stop the prisoner, who had his hat in his hand.

Mrs. Crump said on Saturday afternoon she saw the till safe. It then contained about 4s. Prisoner was in the bar at the time with two men.

P.C. Keeler said he took the prisoner into custody on Saturday afternoon. At the police station he searched him. When charged with stealing the till and contents he said “I deny the charge”. He had 1s. 7½d. concealed in a sock in the lining of his coat. He searched for the till and found it in a doorway in Queen's Square, near the Royal George. He had previously seen prisoner pass that way, and noticed that he had no hat on. He received the hat produced from Mrs. Crump. He offered it to prisoner, who said “That's mine, and the handkerchief too”.

Prisoner elected to be tried summarily, and pleaded Not Guilty. He said he left the bar intending to return, or he would not have left his hat there.

He was convicted, and sentenced to two months' hard labour.

 

Folkestone News 19 January 1884.

Monday, January 14th: Before Colonel De Crespigny, Alderman Caister, J. Clark, J. Holden and J. Fitness Esqs.


Charles Jones was charged with stealing a till and 4s. in money from the Royal George on the 12th inst.

Wm. J. Ford, carpenter on board the steamship Boulogne, stated that he was in the Royal George hotel about 5.10 on the afternoon of the 12th inst., when he heard money jingle in the direction of the bar, and he ran to the bar and saw the prisoner just going out, without a hat. Witness noticed the till was gone and he ran out, and seeing a policeman, asked him if he had seen a man without a hat. He and the policeman took different directions, and witness eventually overtook the prisoner, who was counting some money in his hand. On his charging the prisoner with the theft, prisoner denied having been in the place. P.C. Keeler came up, and he gave the prisoner into his custody. Prisoner's hat was afterwards found in the bar at the Royal George. There was a chair placed against the bar so that prisoner could reach to get at the till. Witness saw the face of the man as he went out the bar door, and he recognised the prisoner as the man who ran out the bar door.

A.F. Ellis, visitor at the Royal George, said he saw the prisoner in the bar in company with two other men. Prisoner then had his hat in his hand. Witness went with Ford and overtook the prisoner in South Street. Prisoner was then counting some money.

Mrs. Crump, landlady of the Royal George, said she served a customer shortly before the robbery. Prisoner was in the bar at the time. There was about 4s. in the till.

P.C. Keeler said he received the prisoner into custody from the witness Ford. On their arrival at the police station prisoner was charged with the robbery. He denied the charge. On being searched, prisoner was found to have 1s. 7½d. concealed in his coat. Witness afterwards searched for the till, and found it near the Royal George, in a doorway. Witness had previously seen the prisoner come from the direction where the till was found. Witness then noticed that prisoner had no hat on. Prisoner had, since he had been in custody, acknowledged that the hat found in the bar was his.

Prisoner pleaded Not Guilty. He was in the bar with two or three other men. He left his hat whilst he went out for a few minutes. He had been in and out several times during the afternoon.

Prisoner was sent to prison for two months.

 

Folkestone Express 27 September 1884.

Wednesday, September 24th: Before The Mayor, Alderman Caister, Dr. Bateman, Captain Carter, J. Holden, J. Clark and J. Fitness Esqs.

Adjourned Licensing Meeting.

Mrs. Crump, of the Royal George Hotel, was called upon to support the renewal of her licence, and she did not appear, but had sent her barmaid, who said that Mrs. Crump was unwell. The Bench at first refused to grant the licence, but eventually granted it and gave it to the person who represented Mrs. Crump, with instructions to tell her that she would have to appear in person for the future, and look well to the conduct of her house during the ensuing year.

 

Folkestone Express 28 March 1885

Tuesday, March 24th: Before Aldermen Banks and Hoad.

Richard Gatehouse, no home, was brought up on a charge of stealing 1s. and a purse belonging to William Bull, of 16, Rossendale Street. It appeared that the men had been together in the George Hotel bar, and there, it was alleged, the purse was stolen.

The prosecutor was not in Court, and the prisoner was therefore discharged. Almost at the same instant, the prosecutor arrived, only to find that the prisoner had departed.

 
Folkestone Express 30 January 1886

Saturday, January 23rd: Before The Mayor, F. Boykett, W.J. Jeffreason and H.W. Poole Esqs.

Mrs. Crump, landlady of the George Hotel (sic), was summoned for having her house open for the sale of liquor during prohibited hours.

Sergeant Warman said on Wednesday morning, the 6th January, at ten minutes past twelve, he was on duty in Beach Street. In company with P.C. Wood he visited the Royal George Hotel. The front door was unfastened. He saw three men in front of the bar, named Tucker, Griffiths and Nelson, in company with a person named Miss Smith, who lived in the house, and a young person behind the bar. There were five tankards standing on the bar close to the men, and two glasses, which had contained stout or porter. He asked how it was they made it so late. Miss Smith said “All right, Sergeant Harman. I am talking to these men about my window being broken last night”. He said “Are you in charge of the house?” She said “Yes. Mrs. Crump is away, and I am very sorry for it”. He told her he was responsible, and should report the matter to the Superintendent. She said “I am very sorry. I hope you won't do that”.

By Mr. Minter: I believe Mrs. Crump was away. I asked the men in the presence of Miss Smith if they could give any explanation why they were there at that time of night. I got no reply from them. Tucker endeavoured to get out of the house, but was prevented by P.C. Wood.

Mr. Minter, for the defence, said Mrs. Crump was away ill in Devonshire. She left instructions that the house was to be closed at the proper time, and that had been done. There had been some damage done to the doors and windows the previous night, and Miss Smith was simply in conversation with the three men about the matter, and the lapse of time was not noticed.

Harriet Smith said she was managing the house for Mrs. Crump. She was particularly careful to close the house at eleven o'clock. On the night in question Tucker went in about half past ten, and another man about a quarter to eleven. She was telling them of what had occurred on the previous night. They had nothing drawn for them after eleven.

Elizabeth Macpherson, barmaid, said on the night in question she was sitting in the private bar waiting for Miss Smith to go to bed. Nothing was drawn for the men after eleven. The bar door was closed and locked, and only the hotel entrance door was open.

The Bench dismissed the summons, and summonses against the three men who were on the premises were withdrawn.

 
Folkestone News 30 January 1886

Wednesday, January 27th: Before The Mayor, General Armstrong, H.W. Poole and F. Boykett Esqs.

Mrs. M. Crump, landlady of the Royal George Hotel, was summoned for keeping the house open during prohibited hours. Mr. Minter appeared for the defendant, and on her behalf pleaded Not Guilty.

P.S. Harman said on Thursday morning, January 6th, about ten minutes past twelve, he was on duty in Beach Street. In company with P.C. Wood he visited the Royal George Hotel. The front door was unfastened and he went in. Three men were standing in front of the bar, along with a Miss Smith, who lived in the house. There was a young person behind the bar. A pint tankard and two glasses stood on the bar near the men. They appeared to have been recently used. Witness said “How is it you make it so late tonight?” Miss Smith said “It's all right, Sergeant Harman. I'm talking to these men alone, my window being broken last night”. He said “Are you in charge of the house?” and she said “Yes. Miss Crump is away. I am very sorry for it”. He told her he should report it to the Superintendent. She said “I hope you won't. I'm very sorry”. He then left the house.

By Mr. Minter: I believe Mrs. Crump is away.

By the Clerk: I asked the men in the presence of Miss Smith if they could give any explanation why they were there at that time of night, and they did not answer. One of the men, Turner, tried to escape, but was prevented by P.C. Wood.

Mr. Minter said the house was in the care of Miss Smith. Her instructions were to close the house punctually at eleven o'clock. He believed that had been done, as no previous complaints had been made. The night previous the front door had been smashed, and the handle taken off the bell. Undoubtedly Miss Smith was telling those three men about it, and they did not observe how the time was flying. The charge was for keeping the house open for the sale of liquor. The question would have to be decided by the Bench. The fact of the men being there did not prove the case.

He called Miss Harriett Smith, who said she was in the employment of Mrs. Crump. She always closed the house at eleven o'clock. It was a fact that the door had been broken, and that she was telling the men about it. No liquor was served after eleven o'clock. They did not notice the time as there was no clock in that bar. They were just shaking hands when the police sergeant came in.

Corroborative evidence was given by the barmaid.

The summons was then dismissed. The summonses against the three men were withdrawn.

 
Folkestone Express 29 May 1886

Tuesday, May 25th: Before Dr. Bateman, Alderman Caister, J. Holden and J. Fitness Esqs.

James Leon and Thomas Leon were charged with stealing one bowl, containing 15s., the property of William Hearnden, landlord of the Oddfellows in Radnor Street. The prisoners lodged there, and on the previous morning they both kept asking him to trust them with beer. They were in the taproom which was close to the bar. He watched the prisoners and saw them go to the closet and come out, and afterwards he noticed the bowl in the closet. The money was all in silver.

Susannah Hearnden, wife of the prosecutor, said she went to the bowl on the morning in question between 9 and 10, and there was between 9s. and 15s. in silver in it. She went out a few minutes and when she returned she went to the drawer again and missed the bowl and the money.

Elizabet Macpherson, barmaid at the Royal George Hotel, recognised both the prisoners, who went to their bar between 10 and 11 o'clock that morning. She served them with beer and rum, for which the prisoner Leon paid each time with a sixpence.

Sergeant Butcher proved apprehending the prisoners. He found them lying on the embankment near the Junction Station at 12.45. He awoke them and found they were both very drunk. With assistance he took them to the police station. He searched the prisoners and found 4d. on Leon and 1s. 2d. on the other prisoner.

The prisoners were sentenced each to six weeks' hard labour.

 
Folkestone News 29 May 1886

Tuesday, May 26th: Before Dr. Bateman, Alderman Caister, J. Fitness and J. Holden Esqs.

James Leon and Thomas Freeney were charged with stealing a bowl containing 9s. in silver, the property of William Hearnden.

William Hearnded, landlord of the Oddfellows, in Radnor Street, said: About a week ago, prisoners came to lodge in my house. Yesterday they kept asking me for beer in the taproom. They wanted trust because they had no money. My wife was in and out of the bar, and left there about nine o'clock for a few minutes. I kept seeing them peep into the bar, and afterwards I found the bowl in which the money was kept in the closet. It was usually kept in the bar. He had seen it there about eight o'clock, when there was about 15s. in it.

Cross-examined: I did not see you sell your coat and shirt for 8d. I gave you two pints for a “livener”, but that was at eight o'clock.

Susannah Hearnden, landlady of the Oddfellows, said she was absent from the bar only a few minutes, and on coming back she missed the bowl and the silver that was in it. She left prisoners standing in front of the bar when she went out.

Elizabeth MacPherson, barmaid at the Royal George Hotel, recognised prisoners, who came to the bar, and she served them with three quarts of beer and twopennyworth of rum. The prisoner Leon paid each time with sixpences.

Police sergeant Butcher said he went in search of the prisoners and found them lying fast asleep on the embankment near the Junction Station at 12.45. He woke them. They were very drunk, and with assistance he brought them to the station. They were charged by the Superintendent, when Leon asked if anyone saw them take it. On Leon he found 4d., and on Freeney he found 1s 2d.

Prisoners pleaded Not Guilty. Sentenced to six weeks' imprisonment with hard labour.

 
Folkestone News 12 June 1886

Saturday, June 5th: Before The Mayor, Aldermen Caister and Sherwood, J. Clark, J. Holden and J. Fitness Esqs.

William Bartlett was called, but did not answer, and the charge of being disorderly was heard in his absence.

P.C. Stanning said: On Sunday evening last I was on duty in Beach Street, and was called to the Royal George to turn defendant out of the house. When he was outside I requested him to go home, but he went into Radnor Street, and there made a most horrible noise with a mouth organ, and collected a most disorderly mob around him.

Fined 20s., with 10s. costs, or 14 days'.

 
Folkestone Express 29 October 1887

Wednesday, October 26th: Before H.W. Poole and Surgeon General Gilbourne.

Thomas John Pope was granted an extension of temporary authority to carry on the Royal George Hotel.

 
Folkestone Express 17 December 1887

Wednesday, December 14th: Before Capt. Carter, J. Hoad, J. Fitness and E.R. Ward Esqs.

The licence of the Royal George Inn, was transferred to Mr. Thomas J. Pope

 
Folkestone Express 21 April 1888

Wednesday, April 18th: Before The Mayor, Surgeon General Gilbourne, Col. De Crespigny, J. Brooke and H.W. Poole Esqs.

Charles Stone was charged with obstructing P.C. Osborn in the execution of his duty.

P.C. Osborn said when he had Noble in custody, Stone came from the direction of the arches and tried to take him away. He dragged both of them from the Royal George to Austin's shop. Defendant was not sober.

Defendant said he was trying to get the man home quietly when P.C. Osborn came up. He then advised him not to resist the police.

John Minter, a labourer, said he saw defendant have hold of Noble's arm whilst the constable had him.

Supt. Taylor said there were several convictions against the defendant, from 1880 onward. On one occasion he was sentenced to a month's imprisonment for assaulting the police.

The Bench fined him £1 and 11s. costs, or 14 days' hard labour. Allowed a week to pay.

 
Folkestone Express 14 July 1888

Saturday, July 7th: Before The Mayor and J. Fitness Esq.

Edward Sheward was summoned for being drunk and disorderly in Fenchurch Street.

Kennett, the Market Inspector, said on Friday he was called by the landlord of the Royal George to eject the defendant and a prostitute from his house. He did so; the woman went away, but the defendant wanted to fight and was very abusive. A man named Smith ultimately took him away.

The defendant said he formerly lodge with Kennett, and ever since that time he had sought to annoy him.

Defendant was fined 2s. 6d. and 9s. costs. He asked for time to pay, and the Mayor recommended him to go to the landlord of the public hose where he got drunk and get the money.

 
Folkestone Chronicle 8 June 1889

Saturday, June 1st: Before Alderman Banks, W. Wightwick Esq., Surgeon General Gilbourne, Major H.W. Poole, and J. Brooke Esq.

The licence of the Royal George Hotel was transferred to Mrs. Susan Caroline Elgar.

 
Folkestone Express 8 June 1889

Saturday, June 1st: Before Alderman J. Banks, H.W. Poole, J.H. Brooke, and W. Wightwick Esqs., and Surgeon General Gilbourne.

Mrs. Susan Caroline Elgar applied for the transfer of the Royal George Hotel, which was granted.

 
Folkestone Chronicle 22 June 1889

Thursday, June 20th: Before Captain Crowe and J. Brooke Esq.

George White, a tramp, was charged with stealing a cheese, value 2s. 6d., the property of Joseph Baxendale (Pickford and Co.).

Herbert Major, landlord of the Queen's Head Inn, said on Wednesday afternoon one of Pickford's vans was standing opposite the Royal George, and he saw the prisoner take something out of the van, put it under his coat, and run in the direction of Radnor Street. He told the driver of the van what he had seen, and afterwards went with P.C. Bailey to the Radnor lodging house, where he pointed out the prisoner. There was a cheese on the table, cut into pieces.

William Rye, a carman in the employ of Messrs. Baxendale, said he was delivering beer at the Royal George Inn, and had 25 Dutch cheeses in his van. He was in the cellar, and when he came up Mr. Major told him what had occurred.

Prisoner was sentenced to two months' imprisonment.

 
Folkestone Express 22 June 1889

Thursday, June 20th: Before Captain Crowe and J. Brooke Esqs.

George White was charged with stealing a cheese, value 2s. 6d., the property of Joseph Baxendale.

Herbert Major, landlord of the Queen's Head Inn, said on Wednesday afternoon one of Pickford's vans was standing opposite the Royal George. Prisoner was standing by the van. Witness saw him take something out of the van, put it under his coat, and run in the direction of Radnor Street. He told the driver of the van what he had seen, and afterwards went with P.C. Bailey to the Radnor lodging house, where he pointed out the prisoner. There was a cheese on the table, cut into pieces.

William Rye, carman in the employ of Messrs. Baxendale (Pickford and Co.), said he was delivering beer at the Royal George Inn, and had 25 Dutch cheeses in his van. He was in the cellar, and when he came up Mr. Major told him what had occurred. He counted the cheeses and found one was missing.

P.C. Bailey proved apprehending the prisoner at the Radnor and finding the cheese on the table. When charged he said he knew nothing about it.

Prisoner was sentenced to two months' imprisonment.

 
Folkestone Chronicle 7 September 1889

Wednesday, September 4th: Before J. Clarke and J. Fitness Esqs.

Edwin John Pope was summoned for being drunk and refusing to quit the Royal George on August 28th, and also with assaulting a barman.

Stephen Fowle, barman at the Royal George, said on Wednesday last the defendant went to the house in a drunken condition, and he refused to serve him. He then struck witness between the eyes.

The Bench fined defendant 5s. for refusing to leave, and 9s. costs, and 10s. for the assault, with 9s. costs.

 
Folkestone Express 7 September 1889

Wednesday, September 4th: Before J. Clarke and J. Fitness Esqs.

Edwin John Pope, a fisherman, was summoned for being drunk and refusing to quit the Royal George on August 28th, and also with assaulting the barman. The defendant pleaded Guilty.

Stephen Fowle, barman at the Royal George, said on Wednesday last the defendant went to the house in a drunken condition, and he refused to serve him. He then struck him between the eyes, and was afterwards ejected from the house.

The Bench fined defendant 5s. for refusing to leave, and 9s. costs, and 10s. for the assault, and 9s. costs, and in default seven days' hard labour for the first offence, and for the second, 14 days' without hard labour.

 
Folkestone Express 3 May 1890

Wednesday, April 30th: Before F. Boykett, J. Brooke, H.W. Poole and W.G. Herbert Esqs.

Mary Ann Tritton was summoned for having her house open during prohibited hours on Sunday afternoon, the 20th April. Mr. Minter appeared for the defendant.

P.C. Lawrence said he was on duty on Sunday week in the neighbourhood of the Royal George, and at 4.30 saw two men enter the house. Witness went in after them, and saw five men standing in the passage opposite the bar. A man named Bates was drinking porter or stout. There were four glasses on the bar door containing beer. Miss Tritton and a young woman named Fanny Godden were in the bar. He asked what was the meaning of that, and they made no answer. He called in Stannage and took the names of the five men; two of them were soldiers stationed at Shorncliffe. Miss Tritton said she had served the two Folkestone men, but not the soldiers. She said her father and mother were gone out for a walk and left her in charge of the house.

Cross-examined: She did not say she served the gentlemen who came in with a South Eastern man, thinking they came by boat.

Mr. Minter said the defendant had held a licence for 16 years and had never before been before the Bench, but in that case there might have been a technical offence. Mr. and Mrs. Tritton were out, but they expected someone to come from Boulogne, and the little girl thought those people were from Boulogne.

Defendant was called, and said they expected a gentleman from Boulogne. She and her husband were out for a walk. Her daughter was told to serve no-one who came, except passengers from the boat. She refused to supply the soldiers.

The Bench dismissed the case, and advised the defendant to leave a more competent person in charge in the future.

 
Folkestone Express 10 May 1890

Wednesday, May 7th: Before W. Wightwick and W.G. Herbert Esqs.

Alfred Engram, William Henry Stone, George Betts, Patrick Campbell and Walter De Burgh were summoned for being upon licensed premises during prohibited hours on Sunday afternoon, April 20th. Mr. F. Hall represented three of the defendants.

This charge arose out of the recent prosecution of the landlady of the Royal George Hotel for having her house open for the sale of liquor during prohibited hours on Sunday.

P.C. Lawrence repeated the evidence he gave on that occasion.

Walter De Burgh, a corporal in the Leinster Regiment, said that about 4.30 on the Sunday, having walked from Hythe and seeing the door of the Royal George open, he went in. He asked for refreshments, but was refused. He saw no drink served.

The Bench fined each defendant 2s. 6d. and 10s. costs, in the case of the two who were soldiers, and 9s. in the other cases.

 
Folkestone News 10 May 1890

Wednesday, May 7th: Before W. Wightwick and W.G. Herbert Esqs.

Five men, whose names were Stone, Bates, Ingram, Campbell, and De Burgh – the two latter being corporals of the Leinster Regiment, stationed at Shorncliffe – were charged with being in the Royal George Hotel on Sunday, the 20th of April, during prohibited hours.

Mr. F. Hall appeared for Ingram, Campbell, and De Burgh, who pleaded Not Guilty.

P.C. Lawrence said that he was passing the hotel about 4.30 and saw Stone and Ingram enter. He went for P.C. Stannage, and then, on entering the hotel found the five defendants in the passage facing the bar. Bates was drinking as witness entered, and there were four glasses on the ledge of the half-door which contained beer. Miss Tritton and a young woman, Fanny Godden, were in the bar. He asked what was the meaning of it, but Miss Tritton made no answer. He then called in Stannage and took the names of the defendants. The two soldiers said they had nothing to drink.

Cross-examined: The front door of the hotel was open. The other glasses contained liquor when he went in. The soldiers said they considered they were entitled to be served as they had walked from Hythe. There was an information against the landlord for having his house open on the same occasion, and it was dismissed by the Magistrates.

P.C. Stannage saw the five defendants at the bar. Miss Tritton said the men told her they were travellers. There were four empty glasses on the ledge of the bar door.

Mr. Hall, in defence, called attention to the fact that the landlady had been dismissed, and he could not understand why the defendants were summoned after the summons against Mrs. Tritton had been heard. The Magistrates' Clerk said the landlady had sworn that she had given instructions to her daughter that she was to serve no-one, and the two soldiers were corporals, and if convicted it might have the effect of their being reduced to the ranks. He urged the Magistrates if they found a technical offence had been committed to deal leniently with Campbell, DE Burgh, and Ingram, whom he represented.

He called Ingram, who said he had been for a long walk and thought he was entitled to a drink. He found the door open, but he was refused to be supplied. The two corporals came in, but were not served.

Corporal De Burgh said he was passing the hotel, and knowing the proprietor very well and seeing the door open, he went in, but was refused the glasses of ale he called for. No-one was served while he was there; as soon as he got in the policeman came in.

The Magistrates considered the case proved. The charge was “being on licensed premises during prohibited hours”. Each defendant was fined 2s. 6d. and costs; the costs against De Burgh and Campbell were 10s., and against the others 9s.

 
Folkestone News 16 August 1890

Wednesday, August 15th: Before The Mayor, Dr. Bateman, J. Fitness Esq., Alderman Pledge, and E.T. Ward Esq.

Wm. Court and Fredk. Court, brothers, were summoned to show cause why they should not be bound over to keep the peace.

P.C. Lilley said that on the night of the 3rd August he was on duty in Beach Street and saw the defendants fighting outside the Royal George. There were twenty or thirty persons looking on. He had a difficulty in separating the defendants. They were not drunk, but had been drinking. There was not much harm done, but they knocked each other down. Frederick went away, but returned in about ten minutes, when the fighting was renewed. The crowd persuaded them not to fight and Fredk. went away, but William remained among the crowd for half an hour. They talked about meeting again the next day, and that was why he asked that they should be bound over to keep the peace. Both were very quarrelsome when in drink.

Frederick said the constable's account was altogether wrong. What happened was, his brother had a cigar in his mouth and he took it away and put it in his own. His brother tried to get it back, and knocked it on the ground. In the scuffle to obtain possession of it they both fell to the ground, and at that moment the constable appeared and “ran them in”.

The Chairman said it was very disgraceful that such scenes should take place on Sunday evenings, whether in fun or earnest, but the Bench would take a favourable view of the matter, and instead of binding the prisoners over would discharge them.

 
Folkestone Chronicle 30 August 1890

Annual Licensing Session

Wednesday, August 27th: Before The Mayor, Major H.W. Poole, Alderman Pledge, Dr. Bateman, and J. Clarke Esq.

Superintendent Taylor asked that the licence of the Royal George (Mrs. Tritton) might be adjourned. On the 20th of April some men were found drinking on the premises during prohibited hours. The men were fined but the landlady was discharged.

The adjournment was granted.

 
Folkestone Express 30 August 1890

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

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

The Royal George

In the case of this house, Supt. Taylor asked for the application to be adjourned. He had had reason to complain of the way in which the Globe was conducted, of which Mr. Tritton was the landlord. When the Globe was given up the licence for the Royal George was granted to Mrs. Tritton. On the 20th of April last, on a Sunday afternoon, several persons were found drinking in the house, and their addresses were taken. Summonses were issued, and the case against the landlady was dismissed, but the people in the house were fined. On those grounds he asked that the application should stand over.

It was ordered accordingly.

 
Folkestone Chronicle 20 September 1890

Saturday, September 13th: Before The Mayor, and Aldermen Pledge and Dunk.

Mrs. Tritton, landlady of the Royal George, was summoned for keeping a disorderly house and allowing prostitutes to remain on the premises longer than necessary for the purpose of obtaining refreshment. Mr. Minter defended, and pleaded Not Guilty.

Sergeant Harman said on the 31st of August he was on duty at the lower part of the town, and at ten minutes past nine he was outside of the Royal George. He saw a woman named Hall leave with an Artillery soldier. At quarter past nine witness looked in at the front door. In the passage, which was used as a bar, he saw 20 soldiers, and two prostitutes named Wright and Lillian. They were all drinking. At 9.30 witness saw Lillian come out of the house with several soldiers and some strange women. They had an altercation outside for a few minutes and went back again. Witness paid another visit to the house at five minutes to ten, when he saw a prostitute named Hopkins. In the bar he saw Mrs. Hall talking to about a dozen soldiers. Wright and Lillian were in the passage with a number of soldiers. They were all drinking and the defendant was supplying the liquor. In the smoking room there were a number of soldiers and three strange women. Witness spoke to defendant. Witness said to her “You see those women, Mrs. Hall, Lillian and Wright. You know they are prostitutes and I shall report you for keeping a disorderly house”. She said “I know the women, but I don't know they are prostitutes”. It was not the first time he had seen the women there. He had seen them there about 30 or 40 times during the past three months.

By Mr. Minter: There were a lot of soldiers there. Did not know that it was a farewell night, or that they were bidding their friends goodbye. He knew the Regiment was going abroad on the following Tuesday.

P.C. Osborn gave similar evidence to that of Sergt. Harman.

P.C. Lawrence said he watched the house in June, and he saw Lillian, Philpott and Wright, all prostitutes, using the Royal George nightly. He saw them leave the house in company with soldiers.

P.C. Stannage stated that he watched the house during the month of July, and saw that the house was frequented by prostitutes every night.

P.C. Read, who watched the house during the month of August, gave similar evidence.

Mr. Minter said he would ask the Bench to disregard the evidence of the last witness, as it had nothing to do with the present charge. If the Superintendent had found charges on all those dates, why had he not brought one against defendant before? On the night in question there were two or three hundred soldiers in the house, and the landlady had much difficulty in keeping order. He believed the soldiers were going away the next day and were bidding their friends goodbye. There was no evidence that the women went to the house for the purpose of prostitution, nor was there any evidence as to how long they remained there. He had not heard that the women might go in as often as they liked, but he believed it had been decided over and over again that the “reasonable” time for refreshments was 20 minutes. The defendant always gave instructions that the principle should be carried out.

John Hawkins, barman at the Royal George, said his instructions were that he was never to allow prostitutes to remain in the house longer than a quarter of an hour. On the night in question there were two or three hundred soldiers in the house, and they were unable to serve them all. The Regiment to which they belonged was going away on the Tuesday. They were in the bar from 6.30 till 10 minutes to 10. Witness did not serve any prostitutes that night.

Frederick Tritton, husband of the landlady, said he assisted in conducting the house. Prostitutes were never allowed to remain on the premises more than a quarter of an hour.

After a short consultation the Bench fined defendant £2 and 15s. costs, and reminded her that her licence had already been held over until the adjournment.

 
Folkestone Express 20 September 1890

Saturday, September 13th: Before The Mayor and Aldermen Pledge and Dunk.

Mrs. Tritton, landlady of the Royal George, was summoned for allowing reputed prostitutes to frequent her house and remain longer than was necessary to obtain refreshment.

Sergt. Harman said on Sunday, the 31st of August, he was on duty at the bottom of the town. About 10 minutes past nine he was outside the Royal George. He saw a woman named Mrs. Hall leave the house with a soldier belonging to the Artillery, and go in the direction of the Lower Sandgate Road. At a quarter past nine he looked in at the front door, and in a passage, which is used as a bar where they serve liquor, he saw about 20 soldiers and two prostitutes – Wright and Lillian. He did not see the women drinking. He watched the house, and at 9.30 he saw Lillian leave the house with three soldiers and several strange women. Lillian was having an altercation with a woman about being struck, and they then returned into the house. At five minutes to ten he went into the house with P.C. Osborne, and met a prostitute nemed Hawkins standing at the inner door, talking to soldiers. In the front bar on the right he saw Mrs. Hall and about ten soldiers drinking. He did not see her return; she could get in by another door. Among a dozen or 20 soldiers in the passage he saw Wright. The defendant was supplying the liquor. The smoking room was full of soldiers, and three or four strange women. He spoke to defendant's husband, and afterwards to defendant, who was in the bar serving. He said “You see that woman, Mrs. Hall standing in the bar. Lillian and Wright are present. You know those women, and they are prostitutes, and I shall report you for keeping a disorderly house and harbouring them”. She said “I know the women, but don't know they are prostitutes”. He left the house, and it was cleared shortly afterwards. He had frequently seen the three women, Wright, Lillian, and Hall in the house. He saw Lillian there on Friday night.

By Mr. Minter: I did not go upstairs; there were a great many soldiers there. I do not know the regiment was leaving, and that the party assembled to say goodbye to their friends. I do not know that it was a “farewell night”. Defendant told me she did not know the women were prostitutes.

P.C. Osborne gave similar evidence. He said he was on duty in Queen's Square from 6.30 till 10 o'clock. At 6.30 he saw Lillian and Wright in the passage with several soldiers. At various times during the evening he saw the same women there.

P.C. Lawrence said in the month of June he watched the Royal George. He saw Lillian, Philpott, and Wright, three prostitutes, frequently in the Royal George. They were there almost nightly, in and out with soldiers.

P.C. Reed said he watched the Royal George during August, and saw Lillian and Wight frequenting the house, in company with soldiers and civilians.

Mr. Minter said his answer would be more directed to the time mentioned in the summons, and he would ask the Bench to disregard the evidence of the last three witnesses altogether. On the Sunday referred to the regiment was leaving, and there were about 200 or 300 soldiers in the house – the house was full, the landlady had great difficulty in keeping order, it was an exceptional occurrence. The landlady always gave instructions to her servants not to permit women to remain in the house, and he felt sure the Bench would not strain the case to convict her. He asked if there was anything unreasonable in there being four or five women among 200 or 300 soldiers. Mrs. Tritton emphatically denied that she ever allowed prostitutes to remain longer than was necessary for the purpose of obtaining refreshment. He did not contend that they were not prostitutes, but there was no evidence that they resorted to the house for the purpose of prostitution. There was the testimony of the policemen that the women went in to obtain liquor, and they were entitled to do that. He had never heard that they might not go in as often as they liked, so long as they did not remain. No offence had been proved in June, July, or August. If the defendant had been infringing the law, he asked why the defendant was not summoned. It was hardly fair play at that distance of time to allege those three occasions to support the charge. The character the defendant and her husband had when they came to Folkestone was a good one of eight years duration from the Superintendent of Police at Hastings, and they had used every possible exertion to make the house more respectable, and he challenged the Superintendent to say that it had not improved. On this particular occasion the house was cleared and closed at a quarter to ten.

John Hawkins, barman, in the service of the defendant, said he had been there a little over four months. His orders were never to allow prostitutes to remain in the house more than a quarter of an hour, and he had carried out those instructions. On the Sunday night in question there were between 200 and 300 soldiers in the house, which was so full that many could not be served. The house was cleared at a quarter to ten. The provosts were standing outside. He served no prostitutes at all, and good order was kept in the house.

In reply to the Magistrates' Clerk, witness said he did not see the three women on Sunday the 31st.

Frederick Tritton, husband of the landlady, said he assisted in conducting the house. Prostitutes were never allowed to remain in the house more than a quarter of an hour. They did not want them there and did not encourage them. They would rather they did not come. On the occasion in question there were over 200 soldiers in the house. Witness kept order and there was no row during the whole time. He closed the house about ten minutes to ten.

By Mr. Bradley: I don't know Wright by name – is she a dark girl? (Laughter)

After a consultation with the other Magistrates, the Mayor said they considered the women were there. They had the sworn evidence of the police constables as to that, and they were bound to receive it. The maximum fine was £10, but they mitigated it to £2 10s., and the costs were £5, levyable by distress, or one month's imprisonment. They did not endorse the licence, but they called attention to the fact that the licence was held over until the adjournment.

 
Folkestone News 20 September 1890

Saturday, September 13th: Before The Mayor, and Aldermen Dunk and Pledge.

Mrs. Tritton, landlady of the Royal George Inn, was charged with harbouring prostitutes on the premises by allowing them to remain longer than was necessary to obtain refreshment. Mr. Minter appeared for the defendant.

P.S. Harman said that on Sunday, 31st August he was on duty outside the Royal George at ten minutes past nine. He saw Mrs. Hall, a prostitute, leave the house with an Artilleryman and go in the direction of the Lower Sandgate Road. He looked in the front door at 9.15, and saw at the bar about twenty soldiers, with two prostitutes, Wright and Lillian. He saw the soldiers drink, but not the women. At 9.30 Lillian came out with two or three soldiers and several strange women. Lillian had an altercation with another woman about having been struck. They all went into the house again. Wright had been inside all the time. At 9.55 he and P.C. Osborne returned and saw a prostitute named Hawkins standing at the inner door, talking to soldiers. Mrs. Hall was also there and about ten soldiers. The defendant was supplying about twenty soldiers with liquor. The smoking room was full of soldiers and there were three or four strange women whom he only knew by sight. He first spoke to Mr. Tritton, and then to the defendant when she was in the bar serving. I said “You see that woman Hall in the bar, and Lillian and Wright are there. You know those women, and know that they are prostitutes. I shall report you for keeping a disorderly house and harbouring them”. Defendant said “I know the women, but I don't know they are prostitutes”. The house was cleared shortly afterwards. This was not the first time by a great many that he had seen prostitutes there. He had seen Lillian, Hall, and Wright there very frequently, perhaps 30 or 40 times. Lillian and Wright were there on the previous evening (Friday).

Cross-examined by Mr. Minter: There were a great many soldiers there, but not 200 or 300. I do not know that the regiment was leaving and that it was the farewell night in Folkestone. Defendant said she did not know that the women were prostitutes, but did not add that she was surprised to hear it.

P.C. Osborne said he was on duty from 6.30 till 10 in Queen's Square. About 6.30 he looked into the Royal George and saw Lillian and Wright with several soldiers. He visited the house about every half hour and saw the same women there. The prostitutes left when the house was cleared, about 9.55.

P.C. Lawrence gave evidence that in June last he was on duty near the Royal George and watched the house. He saw Lillian, Philpott and Wright, who were prostitutes. They were constantly in and out of the house with soldiers.

P.C. Stannage said that he had watched the house during July, and saw prostitutes constantly entering and leaving with soldiers. Had seen them drinking with soldiers.

P.C. Read said that on about five evenings in August he saw Lillian and Wright enter the house with men.

In the course of a long address, Mr. Minter said he would ask the Bench to disregard the evidence of the last three witnesses, because it had nothing to do with the offence charged against them in the summons. On the occasion in question there were some 200 or 300 soldiers in the house, the reason being that the regiment was leaving Folkestone, and that was their jubilee night. The place was full both upstairs and down, indeed it was impossible for the landlady to supply all the customers, but everything possible was done to keep order, and as a matter of fact there was not the slightest disorder during the evening. All the evidence against them was that four or five women went in and out during the evening, and he was sure the Bench would not strain the law in order that a conviction might follow. There was nothing unreasonable about four or five women being unobserved amongst 200 or 300 soldiers, in fact it reflected well upon the defendant that under the circumstances there was no disorder, and Mrs. Tritton absolutely denied that her house was the resort of prostitutes. Her strict instructions were, as he should prove, that no prostitutes should be allowed to remain longer than was necessary to obtain refreshment, and it had been held time and again that fifteen or twenty minutes was a reasonable time. They had a right to necessary refreshment, and defendant could not refuse to serve them as long as they behaved in an orderly manner. There was no evidence as to how long any of the women remained on the night in question, and it was impossible in such a crowd for the landlady to say to certain women “Go out”. As to the evidence which referred to months ago, why was not a summons taken out then? It was hardly fair to bring it up after that time. The defendant and her husband came to Folkestone with an excellent character for eight years from the Superintendent of Police at Hastings. They were told at the time the Royal George was taken that it was a rough house, but they had done their utmost to improve it's tone, and to a very great extent they had succeeded. There had only been one disturbance there during the defendant's tenancy, and that was quelled at once. He would ask the Bench to dismiss the case, because even if they thought there was only a doubt, the defendant was entitled to the benefit of thet doubt.

John Hawkins said he had been barman in the employ of defendant about four months. His orders were not to allow prostitutes to remain longer than fifteen minutes, and he had obeyed those orders. There were over 200 soldiers in the house on Sunday night in question; the regiment was going away on Tuesday, and some of them on Monday. They were crowded from 6.30 to 9.45 when they commenced to close.

In cross-examination witness said he knew Mrs. Hall and “Big Annie” by sight, but did not see them on the Sunsay evening; he was in the other bar.

Frederick Tritton, defendant's husband, said the arrangements of the house were to serve prostitutes and let them go. They generally allowed them 15 minutes. It was not their wish that prostitutes should come there at all, as they had grown-up children, but they were obliged to serve them when they came.

By the Magistrates' Clerk: I know Mrs. Hall by sight, and know her to be a prostitute.

Do you know a woman named Wright? – Not by name. Is it the dark girl? (Laughter)

In reply to further questions, Mr. Tritton said that sometimes they would not see these women for a week, and sometimes they would come in every evening, but never in the daytime.

The Mayor said the Bench had come to the conclusion that the women were there, as they had the sworn evidence of the constables, which they were bound to accept. The full penalty was £10, but the Bench would mitigate it to one fourth of that sum, and the costs were 15s., leviable by distress, or in default one month's imprisonment.

In reply to Mr. Minter, the Mayor said the Bench would not go as far as to endorse the licence, but they drew his attention to the fact that it was already held over till the adjourned sessions.

 
Folkestone Chronicle 27 September 1890

Adjourned Licensing Sessions

Wednesday, September 24th: Before The Mayor, Colonel De Crespigny, Major Poole, Alderman Pledge, and J. Clark Esq.

Mrs. Tritton, of the George Hotel (sic), appeared for the renewal of her licence.

Two offences were brought up against the house, which Mr. Minter, as her advocate, admitted, and in defence made a very able speech, assuring the Bench that in future the house would be conducted differently. No women had been served since the last conviction a fortnight ago, and there was a card in the window stating that no women were served on the premises.

The Mayor said the Bench would give defendant one more chance and the renewal would be granted.

 
Folkestone Express 27 September 1890

Wednesday, September 24th: Before The Mayor, Colonel De Crespigny, J. Clark, J. Pledge, W.G. Herbert, and H.W. Poole Esqs.

Adjourned Licenses

This was the adjourned licensing session, and several certificates which had been postponed were applied for.

The Royal George

Mrs. Tritton applied for a renewal of her certificate.

The Superintendent opposed on the ground that the house had been kept open at improper hours, and that the applicant had been convicted of allowing prostitutes to use the house, and that, on the first occasion the defendant was proceeded against, but escaped conviction.

Mr. Minter took exception to the term “escaped conviction”, and contended that his client did not escape conviction because it was a “righteous judgement”. The objection that the house had been used for harbouring prostitutes, he said, ought not to have been taken, because it had occurred after the General Licensing Meeting. He, however, reviewed the facts of that case, and said the Bench, while inflicting a mitigated fine, said they would not endorse the licence, which showed they intended to give the lady another chance. Acting on his advice, the landlady had refused to supply such woman and run the risk of consequences, and would continue to do so. A notice was in the window that no women were supplied on the premises, and it had had the effect of keeping them away.

The Mayor said the Magistrates had very grave doubts as to whether they ought to renew the licence to the applicant. Mr. Minter had taken advantage of the leniency of the Bench in not endorsing the licence. The Watch Committee, the Magistrates, and the whole public were clamouring for better conducted houses and for fewer houses. The Bench hoped there would have been some offer on the part of the owners as to the conduct of the house, but there was none, and they would take the word of the applicant as a lady, and renew the certificate.

Mr. Minter said any undertaking the City of London Brewery could give, they would give as to the future conduct of the house.

 
Folkestone Express 11 October 1890

Monday, October 6th: Before Capt. W. Carter, Aldermen Dunk and Pledge, J. Fitness, S. Penfold, and E.T. Wards Esqs.

Thomas Clayton, a young man of decent appearance, was charged with stealing 18s. in silver and bronze, the property of Joseph Whiting, landlord of the Bricklayers' Arms.

Joseph Whiting said: I am landlord of the Bricklayers' Arms, in Fenchurch Street. Prisoner came to my house and slept there on Friday last. He was also there on Saturday about the house, sometimes in the kitchen and sometimes in the bar. He was there on Saturday evening. Just before, he said he was not going to stay as he had no money to pay for his bed. About seven o'clock he went out of the front door which leads to the bar. I left the bar about the same time as prisoner was leaving the bar and went to the back part of the house and left the bar unattended. When prisoner told me he had no money to pay for his bed he was in front of the bar. I was absent about a minute, and I went to the till to pay a girl for some fish, when I found I had been robbed. I had just before been to the till, and whatever had been taken was done between the time I was absent from the bar and my return. Prisoner could easily have got at the till by leaning over the counter. Prisoner came back and said he would pay for a bed, and for that of a friend. He went upstairs and I followed him, and saw him come back, and he paid me 1s. 6d. for his and another man's bed and for some beer. I missed from my till about 15s. in bronze and about four or five shillings in silver. I never mentioned my loss until I gave him in charge about nine o'clock. I told prisoner then that it looked very suspicious on his part, and gave him in custody. Prisoner said nothing. P.C. Swift said “You will have to come along with me” and he replied “All right”.

Cross-examined by the prisoner: You had money on Friday night and changed money on Saturday morning. The time you paid for the bed was about nine o'clock. On Saturday morning you might have spent about 6d. or 8d. You told me when you left to take charge of the parcel until you returned.

George Bean, landlord of the Perseverance, said prisoner went to his house on Saturday evening. He was alone. He called for a small soda. There were other people in the bar. He treated people in the bar to the amount of 2s., which he paid for in coppers. He saw he had 2s. 6d. in silver with the coppers.

Jane Tritton said prisoner came to the bar of the Royal George on Saturday evening. Two men went with him. He called for drinks for himself and companions, which he paid for in coppers, to the amount of one shilling. He asked her if she would mind coppers. She said she was short of them, and gave him 2s. 6d. in silver for that amount of coppers.

Stephen Hall deposed to prisoner treating him, and his having a large quantity of coppers in his possession.

P.C. Swift, who apprehended the prisoner, said he asked him “How long have you been in the bar?” He replied “Oh, I don't know. Anything wrong or anybody robbed?” He replied “Yes”. Prisoner said “What's the charge?” and he told him and prisoner answered “All right”. On searching him he found on him 5s. and a halfpenny in bronze, and 2s. 6d. and two sixpenny pieces in silver. He was charged before the Superintendent in his presence and he replied “All right. It is true”.

Prisoner said he did not remember saying that.

In reply to a question, the constable said he was sober.

Prisoner elected to be tried by the Bench, and said that he had been hopping, and the money he had about him was what he had been paid. He denied that he told prosecutor that he had no money.

The Chairman told prisoner that the Bench considered him Guilty. Tradesmen must be protected in their business. It was a gross theft. He would be sent to gaol for six weeks' hard labour.

 
Folkestone Chronicle 31 January 1891

Wednesday, January 28th: Before The Mayor, Aldermen Sherwood, Pledge and Dunk, J. Holden, J. Fitness and E.T. Ward Esqs.

Samuel Todd, well known to the police was charged, on suspicion, with stealing a pair of shoes, value 7s. 6d., the property of some person unknown.

Thomas Kearns, a labourer, living at 24, Pavilion Road, said he was in the bar of the Royal George Hotel on Tuesday afternoon, when prisoner asked him to go to Joseph's to pledge the pair of boots produced for half a crown. He went there, and Mr. Joseph detained him until P.S. Lilley arrived. He took the sergeant back to the Royal George and pointed the prisoner out.

Mr. Joseph recognised the last witness as the man who went to his shop; he detained him because he failed to give a satisfactory account of the boots.

Sergeant Lilley proved apprehending prisoner. On the way to the station he said he bought the shoes from a man in the Sandgate Road. When charged he gave the name of William Smith, 14, Radnor Street.

Supt. Taylor said prisoner had other property in his possession for which he could not give a satisfactory account. He asked for a remand, which was granted.

Prisoner objected to a remand. He would prefer to be punished for this offence now.

 
Holbein's Visitors' List 4 February 1891

Wednesday, January 28th: Before The Mayor, Aldermen Sherwood, Pledge and Dunk, Councillor Holden, E.T. Ward and S. Penfold Esqs.

Samuel Todd took a fancy to someone's shoes, with the inevitable result.

Thomas Cairns, a labourer, said that while he was in the Royal George on the previous afternoon, the prisoner came in with a pair of shoes and asked him to go and pawn them at Mr. Joseph's. He went and asked half a crown on them. Mr. Joseph, however, suspecting something wrong, detained him and sent for Sergeant Lilley. The Sergeant asked witness where he got the shoes, and he went back with him to the Royal George and pointed out the prisoner,

Solomon Walter Joseph deposed to sending for the police. The witness said they were his own property and cost 5s. 6d.

Sergeant Lilley said prisoner told him he bought the shoes. In response to his query “Where?”, prisoner replied “Do you think I stole them?”, and witness, being in doubt, said “I don't know”. He took prisoner to the station.

Prisoner was remanded for a week on the application of the Superintendent, who said several other things had been found in the prisoner's possession, of which he could give no account.

 
Folkestone Chronicle 7 February 1891

Wednesday, February 4th: Before Colonel De Crespigny, W.G. Herbert Esq., Major Poole, W. Wightwick Esq., and Surgeon General Gilbourne.

Samuel Todd was charged, on remand, with being in possession of a pair of boots, which were supposed to have been stolen.

Superintendent Taylor said he had been unable to trace the owner of the shoes or the other property which he found in the possession of the prisoner.

Todd was then discharged.

 
Holbein's Visitors' List 11 February 1891

Wednesday, February 4th: Before Colonel De Crespigny, Surgeon General Gilbourne, W. Wightwick, W.G. Herbert, and H.W. Poole Esqs.

Todd, remanded from the previous Wednesday, was again placed in the cage. Mr. Todd was arrested on suspicion of stealing shoes, and remanded because other property had been found in his possession, which, judging by appearances, he was not in a position to purchase.

Superintendent Taylor now stated that he had failed to trace the ownership of the boots &c.

The Magistrates dismissed the prisoner as there was no evidence against him, but warned him to be very careful in future.

 
Folkestone Chronicle 4 April 1891

Monday, March 30th: Before Colonel De Crespigny, Surgeon General Gilbourne, Major Penfold, and W.G. Herbert Esq.

John Murray and Daniel Harford were charged with stealing two pairs of boots, valued at 15s. 6d., and the property of William Bull.

Charles Smitherman, a polisher, said he was in the Royal George Inn shortly before nine o'clock on Saturday evening, when the prisoner went into the bar and offered a pair of boots for sale. He asked witness if he knew where he could sell them, and he took them to Mr. Carter at the Oddfellows, but he would not buy them. He went back to the Royal George and found Murray waiting.

Joseph Whiting stated that Harford lodged at his house, the Bricklayer's Arms, and on Saturday evening both prisoners called at his bar for some beer, but he refused to serve them.

Winifred Whiting identified Murray as the man who called at her uncle's house on Saturday afternoon with a pair of elastic side boots. He waited until Harford came in and they both went out together.

P.C. Keeler deposed that he found Harford at 11, Fenchurch Street, a house hired by Mr. Whiting as a lodging house. Witness asked him if he had a pair of new boots, and he gave him the pair produced. He said he bought them at the Bricklayer's Arms for 3s. 6d. from a man whom he did not know. Witness took him to the police station, and later on he went to the Marquis Of Lorne, where he found Murray in the bar. He had been drinking.

Both prisoners denied the charge. Murray stated that he bought the boots from a strange man and sold them to Harford.

Each prisoner was sentenced to one month's hard labour.

 
Folkestone Express 4 April 1891

Monday, March 30th: Before Colonel De Crespigny, Surgeon General Gilbourne, Major Penfold, and W.G. Herbert Esq.

John Murray and Daniel Harford were charged with stealing two pairs of boots, value 15s. 10d., the property of William Bull, of High Street.

Prosecutor said on Saturday night, about a quarter to nine, he missed a pair of boots from outside his shop. P.C. Swain called upon him and about five minutes after he was gone he missed a second pair.

Charles Smitherman, a polisher, said he was in the Royal George Inn about a quarter to nine on Saturday evening, when the prisoner Murray went in with a pair of boots and offered them for sale. Murray asked him if he knew where he could sell them. He took them to Mr. Carter at the Oddfellows, but he would not buy them. He returned to the George with the boots. Murray was still there. He thought one of the loops of the boots was broken.

Joseph A. Whiting, landlord of the Bricklayers Arms, said Harford lodged in his house. Both prisoners went to his bar between seven and half past seven on Saturday evening. They called for beer but he refused to serve them.

Winifred Whiting said she recognised Murray as having gone to her uncle's house about half past four on Saturday afternoon with a pair of new elastic side boots. He asked for Dan, meaning Harford, and she told him he was not at home. He waited until he came and they then went out into the back yard together.

P.C. Keeler said he went to No. 11, Fenchurch Street, a house hired by Whiting as a lodging house, and found Harford there. He asked i he had a pair of new boots, and he showed him those produced, saying he bought them from a man he did not know, whom he met at the Bricklayers Arms, and gave 3s. 6d. for them. Witness took him into custody, and when charged by Sergt. Ovenden he made no reply. About half past eleven he went to the Marquis Of Lorne, in Radnor Street, and found Murray in the taproom asleep. He had been drinking. When charged at the police station with stealing two pairs of boots he made no reply.

Prisoners elected to be tried by the Magistrates. Harford pleaded Not Guilty, and Murray Not Guilty. Murray said he bought the boots of a man and sold them to Harford.

The Bench convicted both prisoners and sentenced them to a month's hard labour.

 
Folkestone Chronicle 18 June 1892

Saturday, June 11th: Before Councillor J. Holden, Aldermen Sherwood and Pledge, and Mr. J. Fitness.

Edward Mockridge, a typical fisher-lad, was summoned for having, on the 3rd June, been disorderly on licensed premises – The Royal George – and unlawfully refusing to quit the same when requested to do so by the landlady – Mrs. Agnes Jane Tritton.

Mrs. Tritton told the Bench that defendant came into the house at about 7.30 on the day named, and asked for beer. She refused to serve him, and he then said “If you won't serve me with that, perhaps you will let me have three pennyworth of whiskey?” Witness again repeated that she could not serve him, and he then called for a glass of cold water. Witness requested him to leave the house, but he refused to do so, and straightway began to abuse her in the most unwarrantable and obscene manner. Eventually he was ejected by P.C. Reed, but he returned again to the house, and the constable was forced to remove him a second time. Before he quitted the house, defendant told witness that if she refused to serve him they would have “more windows broken before long”.

The Clerk: Are you troubled with this sort of conduct in your house? – Yes, sir, and we are determined to stop it.

P.C. Reed deposed that whilst he was ejecting the defendant, he used most obscene language.

The Chairman: Now, Mockridge, this is a very bad case. The Magistrates fine you 10s., and if you come up again, just you bear in mind you will be fined considerably more. The fine today is 10s. and 10s. costs.

The Superintendent said he wished to state, for the information of the friends of the defendant in Court, that he had received many complaints from Mr. and Mrs. Tritton about the behaviour of certain parties in the house, and as they were determined to stop it they would receive every possible assistance from the police.

The fine was paid.

 
Folkestone Express 18 June 1892

Saturday, June 11th: Before J. Holden, J. Fitness, J. Pledge and J. Sherwood Esqs.

Edward Mockridge was summoned for refusing to quit licensed premises on the 3rd June.

Mrs. Tritton, landlady of the Royal George Hotel, said the defendant went in about 7.30, and called for a pint of beer. She refused to serve him. He said he would have three pennyworth of whisky, which he was refused. He then said he would have some cold water, and she told him he would not be served with anything in the house. He became very abusive, and used very obscene language, saying that if they refused to serve him they would have some more windows broken. She believed he was drunk. P.C. Reed was sent for and ejected him twice.

Defendant said he was drunk and excited, and did not know what he said.

P.C. Reed said he was called to the Royal George and heard the defendant using bad language to the landlady's daughter. He put him out of the house twice.

Defendant was fined 10s. and 10s. costs, and told that he would be much more heavily fined if he came up again.

Supt. Taylor said he had received repeated complaints from the landlady about the conduct of lads like the defendant. She did her best to keep the house respectably, and she had the support of the police.

 
Folkestone Herald 18 June 1892

Police Court Jottings

The Magistrates present at the Court on Saturday – Messrs. Holden, Pledge, Fitness, and Sherwood – did not have any very important case on which to exercise their judicial faculties.

An illustration of how some people cannot understand a denial was given in the case of Edward Moggeridge, who pleaded Guilty to having been disorderly and refusing to quit licensed premises, to wit the Royal George, on the 3rd.

On the evening of that day he went into the house and called for a pint of beer, with which the landlady refused to serve him, upon which he declared he wouldn't budge until he was put out, and that i he did not get the beer he would break her windows. He eventually had to be ejected by Police Constable Reed, not, however, until after he had crowned his bad behaviour by striking the landlady with a five shilling piece. Her reason for refusing to serve him was that whenever he came in he always created a disturbance. She had “denied” him for the last six months, but he made it a rule to look in once a week and demand beer.

“Sorry for it”, pleaded the defendant, “but I was drunk”.

“Not the slightest excuse” said Mr. Pledge. “And you would look rather strange”, added the Chairman, Mr. Holden, “if we inflicted the full penalty. It will, however, be inflicted in the future, as we are determined to put down this conduct. As it is you will have to pay a fine of 10s. with 10s. costs, or go for seven days' hard labour”.

The money was paid.

Superintendent Taylor, looking round the Court, remarked he had no doubt some of the defendant's companions were present, and he wished to state in their hearing that he had received repeated complaints of insolent insults to which they had subjected the landlady. He hoped that defendant's associates would take notice of what the Bench had said. Mr. Holden said he would assure those who were inclined to offend in that way that the Magistrates would certainly carry out what they had said.

 
Folkestone Chronicle 2 July 1892

Monday, June 27th: Before Alderman Banks and Surgeon General Gilbourne.

George Haynes, labourer, and John Johnson, a pensioner, were charged with stealing a silver Egyptian War medal, value 4s. 6d.

Frederick Tritton, landlord of the Royal George Hotel, said he was in the bar between one and two o'clock on Saturday, the 25th ult. He was showing an Egyptian War medal to Corporal Shorley. They were discussing the weight of it. Haynes joined in the conversation, and asked to look at the medal. Witness handed it to him, and he went outside the house. He returned in about quarter of an hour, and witness asked him for the medal. He replied “I have given it to the corporal, who said it belonged to him”. Witness sent for the corporal, and, in his presence, told him what he said. The corporal said it was not true. Johnson was present when he gave the medal to Haynes, and sat in the bar till Haynes returned. About half past one he gave Haynes into custody. At ten o'clock in the evening Johnson went to the bar again, and said he wished to return the medal. He refused to take it, and sent for a policeman. Sergeant Harman came, and Johnson was given into custody. The medal belonged to Mr. Crookshank, who had now left the Army. The value, he believed, was about £2.

Frederick Shorley, corporal in the Royal Engineers, stationed at Shorncliffe, said he was in the Royal George on Saturday, between one and two o'clock. The two prisoners were in the bar. He and the landlord were in conversation about an Egyptian War medal. The landlord said it weighed over an ounce. Haynes said he did not believe it, and asked to look at it. Mr. Tritton showed it to him, and he walked away with it. He did not say he was going to get it weighed. Haynes did not give him the medal. Haynes was not sober, but he knew what he was about.

Haynes said he had been drinking in the house from six in the morning till three in the afternoon.

Sergeant Swift said Mr. Tritton sent for him, and told him he charged Haynes with stealing an Egyptian War medal. Prisoner replied “I haven't got it, and if I have, it belongs to me as much as it does to you”. On the way to the station he said “I gave it to a man that works on the Harbour, and I expect he has taken it back by now. I would have told him where he could have found it if he had not charged me”.

Police Sergeant Harman said he went to the Royal George at a quarter past ten on Saturday night, and there saw Johnson. He said to him “Have you anything you wish to give to the landlord?” He said “Yes”. Witness said “Hand it up to me then”. He gave up the medal produced. He told him there was already a man in custody for stealing the medal, and he should charge him with being concerned in stealing it. He replied “You have got one locked up for stealing; am I to be locked up for bringing it back?” Witness took prisoner to the police station, and the two men were then charged together with stealing the medal. Haynes said “You have brought it back”. Johnson made no reply.

Haynes stated that he gave the medal to a friend to have it weighed. Johnson said he knew nothing of the matter. It was only “a drunken silly affair”.

The Bench fined Haynes 20s., or 14 days' imprisonment. Johnson was discharged.

 
Folkestone Express 2 July 1892

Monday, 27th June: Before Alderman Banks and Surgeon General Gilbourne.

George Haynes and John Johnson were charged with stealing an Egyptian War medal, value 4s. 6d.

Frederick Tritton, landlord of the Royal George Hotel, said he was in the bar between one and two on Saturday, the 25th inst. The two prisoners were together in one compartment, and a Corporal of the Royal Engineers, named Shorey, in another. Witness was showing an Egyptian War medal to the Corporal, and they were discussing the weight of it. Prisoner Haynes joined in the conversation, and asked to look at the medal. Witness handed it to him and Haynes left the bar and went outside the house. He returned about a quarter o an hour after, and he asked him for the medal. He replied “I have given it to the Corporal, who said it belonged to him, and I gave it to him”. The Corporal left the bar after Haynes. He sent for the Corporal, who went back to the bar, and in Haynes's presence, he told him what he said. The Corporal said it was not true. He had not seen the prisoner, nor had he had the medal in his hand at all. Johnson was present when he gave the medal to Haynes, and sat in the bar till Haynes returned. Witness supposed he heard the conversation between them and the Corporal. About half past one witness gave Haynes into the custody of Sergeant Swift. About ten o'clock on Saturday evening, Johnson went to the bar again, and said he wished to return the medal; he refused to take it and sent for a policeman. Sergt. Harman came and Johnson was given into custody. The medal belonged to Mr. Crookshank, who had now left the army, and was in his keeping with another. The value, he believed, was about £2.

By Haynes: You asked me about the weight of it, and asked me to let you look at it. You said you would have it weighed. I don't know whether you went into the grocer's shop. You did not tell me that you had sent Johnson out to have it weighed. You told me you had given it to a corporal in the Engineers. I have not trusted you with anything.

Fredk. Shorey, corporal in the Royal Engineers, stationed at Shorncliffe, said he was in the Royal George on Saturday between one and two o'clock. The two prisoners were in the bar at the same time. He and the landlord were in conversation about an Egyptian War medal. Haynes joined in the conversation about the weight. The landlord said it went over an ounce. Haynes would not believe it and asked to look at it. Mr. Tritton showed it to him, and he took it and walked away with it. He did not say he was going to get it weighed. Witness did not see Haynes outside. He did not give him the medal. He was sent for again by the landlord and found Haynes in the bar. The landlord said “This man accuses you of having the medal”. He replied “It's false. I haven't had the medal in my hand”. Haynes went up to him in a fighting attitude. Haynes was not sober, but he knew what he was about.

Hatnes said he had been drinking in the house from six o'clock in the morning till three in the afternoon.

Sergeant Swift said Mr. Tritton sent for him and told him he charged Haynes with stealing an Egyptian Was medal. Prisoner replied “I haven't got it, and if I have, it belongs as much to me as it does to you. You have no business with it”. On the way to the police station he said “I gave it to a man that works on the Harbour, and I expect he has taken it back by now. I would have told him where he could have found it if he had not charged me”. At the police station he made the same statement.

By Haynes: You did not say you gave it to a man named Johnson to have it weighed.

Police Sergeant Harman said he went to the Royal George at a quarter past ten on Saturday night, and there saw Johnson. He said to him “Have you anything you wish to give to the landlord, Mr. Tritton?” He said “Yes”. Witness said “Hand it up to me then”. He gave up the medal produced. He told him there was a man already in custody for stealing the medal, and he should charge him for being concerned in stealing it. He replied “You have got one locked up or stealing; am I to be locked up for bringing it back?” Witness took prisoner to the police station, and the two prisoners were then charged together with stealing the medal. Haynes said “You have brought it back”. Johnson made no reply.

Prisoners elected to be tried summarily and pleaded Not Guilty. Haynes made a statement to the effect that he gave the medal to a friend to have it weighed. Tritton knew him to be straightforward and he wished “to unveil some of his secrets”. He was proceeding to do so when the Magistrates' Clerk told him it had nothing to do with the charge. Johnson said he knew nothing of the matter. It was only “A drunken silly affair”. He produced a militia discharge, and said he was working at the fruit boats.

Superintendent Taylor said Haynes had been charged with a woman with being an idle and disorderly person. That was in connection with a robbery from a drunken soldier. Johnson was a stranger.

Haynes said he was now working for the Corporation.

The Magistrates decided to convict Haynes and fined him 20s. or 14 days', with a caution. Johnson was discharged.

 
Folkestone Herald 2 July 1892

Police Court Jottings

“Don't go into the public houses to seek this confounded beer. If you want a glass, have it at home and have done with it”. Such was the advice of Alderman Banks to a couple of defendants in a case which was heard before him and Surgeon General Gilbourne on Monday.

The defendants, John Johnson and George Haines, were charged with stealing an Egyptian War medal, the property of Fredk. Tritton, landlord of the Royal George. Although it was stated to be of silver, this token of bravery was only valued at the comparatively trifling sum of 4s. 6d.

It seemed, from the story told by the prosecutor and a Corporal Storey, stationed at Shorncliffe, that about midday on Saturday the landlord exhibited the medal in question, and a discussion arose as to the weight of it, amongst those who took part in it being the two defendants. Haines asked to look at it, and it was handed to him, upon which he put it in his pocket and walked out of the house. On his return shortly after he was asked for the medal, when he said he had given it to the Corporal, as he claimed it as his. This, however, proved not to be the case, as he had given it to the other defendant, Johnson. He was then given into the custody of Sergeant Swift. The next day Johnson went to the public house and offered to return the medal, but the prosecutor refused to take it, and he was handed over to the charge of Sergeant Harman.

Tritton, asked by the Bench how he came to be possessed of the medal, replied it belonged to a Mr. Crookshank, who had asked him to “take care” of two.

Haines, when apprehended, said he had not got the medal, but, he added, it belonged to him just as much as the prosecutor, as he had no business with it, while Johnson expressed his opinion that is was very hard he should be locked up for bringing lost property back.

Called upon for their defence, Haines said he gave the medal to Johnson to go and have it weighed. Johnson, who declared he had been a soldier 27 years and had a good character discharge said it was all through “a drunken silly lark”. They had been drinking in the house since a quarter to six in the morning, and he knew nothing about it until he found the medal in his pocket.

Haines, who Superintendent Taylor remarked, was in the employ of the Corporation – “And trying to do right if I can” added the defendant – was fined 20s; the case against Johnson, which the Magistrates did not think had been quite brought home, being dismissed.

 
Folkestone Chronicle 27 August 1892

Tuesday, August 23rd: Before The Mayor, Aldermen Banks and Pledge, and Messrs. W.G. Herbert and W. Wightwick.

John McKew and William Fitzpatrick, Highlanders from the Camp, were severally charged with stealing, on the 22nd August, 48 cigars, value 4s., the property of John Thomas Warman, landlord of the Tramway Tavern, Radnor Street.

The prosecutor stated that the prisoners came to his house on Monday evening and had two glasses of ale. He left the bar shortly after serving them, and when he returned he missed the cigars from a case over the spirit jars at the rear of the bar. In order to reach them a person would have to stand on a seat in the bar. When he missed his property, he followed the prisoners into Tontine Street, where he found them talking to two young women, smoking cigars similar to those he had missed. He gave information to the police and P.C. Smoker followed the men into the Royal George, where he asked them for the missing cigars, and one handed him the case produced.

P.C. Smoker deposed that he went to the Royal George, and there found the prisoners smoking in the bar. Warman said he would give them into custody for stealing his cigars, and in response to this McKew put his hand into his pocket and drew out one packet of cigars (produced), saying that was all he had.

McKew denied that he gave the police constable the cigars. He asserted that a corporal of Military Police put his hand into his pocket and withdrew the packet from it. He did not say “There you are, guv'nor”.

The prisoner elected to be dealt with summarily, and both pleaded Not Guilty. McKew stated that he purchased the cigars of a sailor for 6d., and Fitzpatrick said he was not in the habit of smoking.

The Captain of the Company, who was present, said both men had extremely good characters.

The Bench considered the case proved against McKew, and fined him 10s., and in the case of Fitzpatrick, they gave him the benefit of the doubt and dismissed him.

Note: No record of Warman at the Tramway according to More Bastions.

 
Folkestone Express 27 August 1892

Tuesday, August 23rd: Before The Mayor, Aldermen Pledge and Banks, W.G. Herbert and W. Wightwick Esqs.

John McHugh and William Fitzpatrick, Cameronian Highlanders, were charged with stealing 48 cigars, value 4s., the property of James Thomas Boorman.

Prosecutor is the landlord of the Tramway Tavern, Radnor Street. He said the prisoners went in on Monday evening about a quarter past seven and called for two glasses of beer. He served them and left them there, and on his return they had two more glasses He left the bar again, and on his return, missed the cigars from a case on the shelf. The prisoners left the bar as he returned. He followed them, and saw them talking to two girls and smoking cigars similar to those produced. He spoke to P.C. Smoker, and together they followed the prisoners to the Royal George, where McHugh handed him the packet of six cigars produced.

P.C. Smoker said on Monday night he was on duty at the bottom of High Street, when the prosecutor spoke to him and they went together to the Royal George, where they found the prisoners with three other soldiers. Prosecutor gave them into custody for stealing four packets of cigars. McHugh took a packet of cigars from his pouch and handed them to witness.

They both pleaded Not Guilty. McHugh said he bought the cigars from a sailor for 6d.

An officer from the regiment said the prisoners bore an exceedingly good character, and one of them had eighteen months service.

The Bench considered the case proved against McHugh, and fined him 10s. Fitzpatrick was dismissed with a caution.

 
Folkestone Herald 27 August 1892

Police Court Jottings

Two privates in the Cameronians made their appearance in the iron grating known as the “dock” on Tuesday before the Mayor and Messrs. Pledge, Banks, Herbert, and Wightwick, with having been concerned in obtaining a surreptitious smoke at the expense of Jno. Thos. Foreman, landlord of the Tramway Tavern.

The evidence was very simple. The man, who were named John McKew and Wm. Fitzpatrick, went into the house the previous evening, and, having had some beer, left, the landlord, as they were drinking what they had ordered, having occasion to go out of the bar. On his return he missed four dozen of cigars, which he valued at 4s. Suspecting the prisoners, he followed them, and saw them talking to a couple of fair ones and smoking cigars similar in appearance to those he had lost. He invoked the aid of the police, and curiously found a representative of the law in the person of P.C. Smoker, with whome he went to the Royal George, where they found the prisoners. Smoker asked for the “smokes” they had stolen, and McKew handed over a packet of twelve with the remark “It's all I've got, guvnor”. They were taken to the station, and on being searched, nothing except what was their own property was found upon them.

McKew now asserted that he had bought the cigars from a sailor, whilst Fizpatrick declared that he knew nothing about the matter, and as for himself, he was a non-smoker.

An officer of the Regiment, who was in Court, gave each of the men a good character, in consequence of which the Bench dismissed the charge against Fitzpatrick, and let McKew off with a fine of 10s.

 
Folkestone Chronicle 16 September 1893

Local News

Not many hours had elapsed since the Town Hall was occupied by a gay and brilliant company who were enjoying the pleasures of the terpsichorean art, when a gathering of a very different nature took place within it's walls at eleven o'clock on Wednesday morning. In the short space which had elapsed the Hall had been denuded of all it's tasty decorations and luxurious appointments, and had put on it's everyday appearance for the transaction of the business of the Special Licensing Session, which had been appointed for the purpose of dealing with the licenses to which notice of opposition had been given by the police.

At the end of the Hall, backed by high red baize screens, raised seats had been arranged for the accommodation of the Licensing Justices. Here at eleven o'clock the chair was taken by Mr. J. Clark, ho was accompanied on the Bench by Alderman Pledge, Messrs. Holden, Hoad, Fitness, Davey, Poole, and Herbert.

Immediately in front of the Bench were tables for the accommodation of Counsel and other members of the legal profession, while in close proximity were seats for Borough Magistrates who were not members of the Licensing Committee, and for the brewers and agents interested in the cases that were to occupy the attention of the Bench. The body of the Hall was well filled with members of the trade and the general public, whilst there was quite an array of members of the police force who were present to give evidence.

Objection to a Temperance Magistrate

Mr. Glyn, barrister, who, with Mr. Bodkin, appeared in support of the opposed licenses, made an objection at the outset against Mr. Holden occupying a seat on the Bench. Mr. M. Bradley (solicitor, Dover), who appeared on behalf of the Temperance Societies, rose to address the Bench on the point, but an objection was taken on the ground that he had no locus standi. The Magistrates retired to consider this matter, and on their return to the court they were not accompanied by Mr. Holden, whose place on the Committee was taken by Mr, Pursey.

Mr. Glyn's Opening

Mr. Glyn said he had consulted with the Superintendent of Police, and had agreed to take first the case of the Queen's Head. He accordingly had to apply for the renewal of the licence. The Queen's Head was probably known by all the gentlemen on the Bench as an excellent house. The licence had been held for a considerable number of years, and the present tenant had had it since 1889. It was a valuable property, worth some £1,500, and the tenant had paid no less than £305 valuation on entering the house. He need hardly tell the Bench that the licence was granted a great many years ago by their predecessors, and it had been renewed from time to time until the present. The Superintendent of Police was now objecting on the ground that it was not required, and that it was kept disorderly. With regard to the objection of the Superintendent to all these licenses, he (Mr. Glyn) thought he would admit when he went into the box that it was not an objection he was making on his own grounds, but an objection made in pursuance of instructions received from some of the members of the Licensing Committee. Of course a very nice question might arise as to whether under the circumstances the requirements of the section had been complied with, and as to the Superintendent acting, if he might say so, as agent for some of the justices had no locus standi at all to oppose these licenses. The Superintendent of Police, in his report, states that he raised these objections “in pursuance of instructions received from the Magistrates”. Therefore, those gentlemen who gave those instructions were really in this position: That having themselves directed an enquiry they proposed to sit and adjudicate upon it. He knew there was not a single member of that Bench who would desire to adjudicate upon any case which he had pre-judged by directing that the case should be brought before him for that particular purpose, and he only drew their attention to the matter. He did not suppose it would be the least bit necessary to enquire into it, because he felt perfectly sure, on the grounds he was going to put before the Bench, that they would not refuse to renew any one of these licenses. But he thought it right to put these facts before them, in order, when they retired, that they might consider exactly what their position was.

There was another thing, and it applied to all these applications. There was not a single ratepayer in the whole of this borough who had been found to oppose the renewal of any of the licenses. The first ground of objection was that the licenses were not required. He repeated that no ratepayer could be found who was prepared to come before the Bench and raise such a point. No notice had been given by anybody except by the Superintendent, who had given it acting upon the instructions of the Bench.

He understood that even the Watch Committee, which body one generally thought would be expected to get the ball rolling, had declined to have anything to do with the matter, and had declined to sanction any legal advice for the purpose of depriving his clients of what was undoubtedly their property. He ventured to say, with some little experience of these matters, that there never was a case where licenses were taken away on the ground that they were not required, simply because some of the learned Magistrates thought the matter ought to be brought before them, without any single member of the public raising any objection to any of the licenses, and the Watch Committee not only keeping perfectly quiet, but declining to enter into the contest.

He was dealing with the case of the Queen's Head, but his remarks would also apply to the others, with the exception of the cases of three beer-houses, the licenses of which were granted before the passing of the 1869 Act, and his client was, therefore, absolutely entitled to a renewal. With regard to the other licenses, they were granted a great many years ago. Although at that time the population of the Borough was about half of what it is now the Magistrates thought they were required then. They had been renewed from time to time since then, and were the Magistrates really to say that licenses which were required for a population of 12,000 were not necessary for a population of 25,000? He ventured to say, if such an argument were raised by the other side, that it was an absurdity. He should ask the Bench to consider first, and if they formed an opinion on it it would save time, whether having regard to the fact that all the licenses were granted a great many years ago when the population was nothing what like it is now, and also that there had not been a single conviction since the renewals last year. They were prepared to refuse the renewal of any of the licenses. He asked them to decide upon that point, because it decided the whole thing.

Some of the objections were only raised on the ground that the licenses were not required; others referred to the fact that there had been previous convictions, or that the houses had been kept in a disorderly manner. With regard to any conviction before the date of the last renewal he contended that the Bench had, by making the renewal, condoned any previous offence. In not one single instance had there been a conviction during the past year in respect of one of the houses for which he asked for a renewal, and he ventured to put to the Bench what he understood to be an elementary principle of British justice, that they would not deprive the owner of his property simply because it was suggested that the house had not been properly conducted, and where that owner had never had an opportunity of appearing before the Bench in answer to any charge which had been brought against his tenant. He challenged anybody to show that there was a single case in any Bench where a license had been taken away after renewal without there being a criminal charge made against that house, but only a general charge to the Licensing Committee.

Mr. Bodkin, who followed, reminded the Bench of their legal position with regard to the renewal of licenses, and quoted the judgement of Lord Halsbury in the case of Sharpe v Wakefield, in which he said in cases where a licence had already been granted, unless some change during the year was proved, they started with the fact that such topics as the requirements of the neighbourhood had already been considered, and one would not expect that those topics would be likely to be re-opened. Continuing, Mr. Bodkin said that was exactly the position they were in that morning. There had been no change with respect to these houses except that Folkestone had increased in population, and there had been an absence of any legal proceedings against any of the persons keeping these houses. He ventured to say it would be inopportune at the present time to take away licenses where they found the change had been in favour of renewing them.

Mr. Minter said he appeared for the tenants of the houses, and he endorsed everything that had fallen from his two learned friends, who had been addressing them on behalf of the owners. Mr. Glyn referred to the population having increased twofold since the licenses were granted, and he (Mr. Minter) would point out that while the population had increased no new licenses had been granted for the past twelve years. Mr. Minter then referred to the fact that there was not a single record on the licenses of any one of the tenants. Was there any argument he could use stronger than that? As to the objection that the houses were not required for the public accommodation, he was prepared to show, by distinct evidence, that each tenant had been doing a thriving business for the last four or five years, and that it did not decrease. How was it possible, in the face of that, to say they were not required for the public accommodation?

Mr. Bradley then claimed the right to address the Bench on behalf of the Temperance Societies, but an objection was raised by his legal opponents that he had no locus standi, as he had given no notice of his intention to appear, and this contention was upheld by the Bench.

The Bench then retired for a consultation with their Clerk on the points raised in the opening, and on their return to the Court the Chairman said the Magistrates had decided where there were allegations of disorderly conduct the cases must be limited to during the year, and no cases prior to the licensing meeting last year would be gone into. They thought it was right that the Superintendent should state the cases that they might be gone into, and that the Bench might know what the objections were.

The Royal George

Supt. Taylor said he found in this case he could not proceed on the ground of the manner in which the house was conducted, as there had not been any conviction during the year, but he would put in evidence as to whether the house was required for the accommodation of the public.

Sergeant Swift said there were twelve licensed houses within 100 paces from the house.

By Mr. Bodkin: He did not know that there was an hotel business done at the house. He did not know that there were eight bedrooms at the house which are let night after night.

Mr. W.H. Wray, representative of the City of London Brewery Company, the owners of the house, said the house was let to Mrs. Tritton at £60 a year rent. The trade was a good and increasing one. An hotel business was done there. The tenant was a very respectable person, and no complaints were made against her.

Mr. Bodkin: This is a very old house, is it not?

Witness: Yes.

I believe the Mayors of Folkestone used to hold their dinners there? – Yes, I believe that is so.

Mr. Taylor: Do you stay at the Royal George when you are in Folkestone?

Witness: No.

In answer to the Bench the witness said they drew ten barrels a week at the house.

Agnes Tritton, wife of George Tritton, said she held the licence of the Royal George. They had a good class of visitors, and all the rooms were let in the season.

By Mr. Taylor: The bulk of the trade was done in the bar. There had been quarrels in the house, but not lately.

Mr. Bodkin: On glancing through the Visitors' Book I see there is testimonial after testimonial as to the quietness of the house and the excellent accommodation.

A Doctrine Of Confiscation

This concluded the list of objections, and Mr. Glyn addressed the Bench, saying the result of the proceedings was that with regard to all the houses, except the Tramway, there was no serious charge of any kind. As to the Tramway, he challenged anybody to show that any Bench of Justices had ever refused to grant licenses unless the landlords had had notices, or unless there had been a summons and a conviction against the tenant since the last renewal. With regard to the other houses the only question was whether they were wanted or not. Superintendent Taylor, who, he must say, had conducted the cases most fairly and most ably, had picked out certain houses, and he asked the Bench to deprive the owners of their property and the tenants of their interest in respect of those houses, while the other houses were to remain. How on earth were the Bench to draw the line? There were seven houses in one street, and the Superintendent objected to four, leaving the other three. In respect to one of these there had been a conviction, and in respect of the others none. Why was the owner of one particular house to keep his property, and the others to be deprived of theirs? Mr. Glyn enforced some of his previous arguments, and said if the Bench deprived his clients of their property on the grounds that had been put forward they would be adopting a doctrine of confiscation, and setting an example to other Benches in the county to do the same.

The Decision

The Bench adjourned for an hour, and on their return to the Court the Chairman announced that the Magistrates had come to the decision that all the licenses would be granted with the exception of that of the Tramway Tavern.

Mr. Glyn thanked the Bench for the careful attention they had given to the cases, and asked whether, in the event of the owners of the Tramway Tavern wishing to appeal, the Magistrates' Clerk would accept service.

Mr. Bradley: Yes.

 
Folkestone Express 16 September 1893

Adjourned Licensing Session

The special sitting for the hearing of those applications for renewals to which the Superintendent of Police had give notice of opposition was held on Wednesday. The Magistrates present were Messrs. J. Clark, J. Hoad, W.H. Poole, W.G. Herbert, J. Fitness, J.R. Davy, J. Holden, C.J. Pursey and J. Pledge.

Mr. Lewis Glyn and Mr. Bodkin supported the applications on behalf of the owners, instructed by Messrs. Mowll and Mowll, with whom were Mr. Minter, Mr. F. Hall, and Mr. Mercer (Canterbury), and Mr. Montagu Bradley (Dover) opposed on behalf of the Good Templars.

Before the business commenced, Mr. Bradley handed to Mr. Holden a document, which he carefully perused, and then handed to Mr. J. Clark, the Chairman.

Mr. Glyn, who appeared for the applicants, speaking in a very low tone, made an application to the Bench, the effect of which was understood to be that the Justices should retire to consider the document. The Justices did retire, and on their return Mr. Holden was not among them.

Mr. Glyn then rose to address the Bench. He said he would first make formal application for the renewal of the licence of the Queen's Head. It was known to all the gentlemen on the Bench as an excellent house, and the licence had been held for a considerable number of years. The present tenant had held it since 1887; it's value was £1,500, and the present tenant had paid no less than £305 for valuation for going into the house. The licence was granted a great many years ago, and had been renewed from time to time. The Superintendent of Police now opposed on the ground that it was no longer required and was kept in a disorderly manner. First, with regard to the objections of the Superintendent, he thought he would admit when he came into the box that it was not he who was making the objections to all those licenses, but that they were made in consequence of instructions received from some members of the Licensing Committee. Of course in his view, and in their view, a very serious question might arise, whether the Licensing Committee had any locus standi. His general observations in that case would apply to all the cases. The Superintendent, in raising those objections, was acting under instructions from the Licensing Magistrates, so that they were really in this position, that they were sitting to adjudicate in a case they themselves directed. He felt certain the Bench would not refuse to renew one of those licenses, but he thought it right to put the facts before them, in order that when they retired they might consider what their position was. He also pointed out that there was not a single ratepayer objecting to any of the renewals. The first ground of objection was that the houses were not required. Before going further he referred to the very important action of the Watch Committee, who were the parties one would expect to put the law in action. But they declined to have anything to do with it, and declined to sanction any legal advice to the Superintendent for the purpose of depriving his clients of what undoubtedly was their property. He ventured to think that in all his large experience in these matters that there never was a case where a licence was taken away simply because it was not required, or simply because some of the learned Magistrates thought it ought to be done and instructed the Superintendent to raise objections. There were two or three of the houses existing before 1869, and therefore his clients were entitled to a renewal of their licenses, there having been no convictions against them during the year. With regard to the other licenses, they were granted a great many years ago, at a time when th population of this borough was about half what it is now, and the Magistrates then thought they were required. They had been renewed from time to time by that body, and were they willing to say now that they were not required, and deprive the owners and tenants of their property and of their licenses? There was not a single Bench in the county, which, up to the present time, had deprived any one tenant of his licence and his property, simply because a suggestion had been made that it was not required. There had been one case in the county two years ago, but the party appealed to the Court of Quarter Sessions, and that Court said the licence ought to be granted. It would be very unfair to his clients, several of whom had spent large sums of money on their property, to refuse a renewal of their licenses, especially having regard to the fact that they were granted a great many years ago, and against which there had not been a single conviction during the year. In order to save time, he put two questions before the Magistrates:- first, were they prepared to deprive the owners and tenants of their property, and secondly, the licenses having all been renewed since any conviction had taken place, were they prepared to deprive the owners of their property without their having an opportunity and investigating the charges brought against them. It would save a great deal of time if the Bench would consider those two points.

Mr Bodkin followed with a few supplementary remarks. He referred to the case of “Sharpe v Wakefield”, in which the decision had been given that a licence, whether by way of renewal or whether it was an annual matter to be considered year by year, and not renewed as of right. He quoted from the remarks of Lord Halsbury, who seemed to consider that in dealing with renewals they ought not to deal with them exactly in the same way as in new applications. He dwelt upon the fact that last year all the licenses were renewed, and that though no new licenses had been granted for many years, the borough had increased in population, and there had been an entire absence of legal proceedings against any of the houses in the past year.

Mr. Minter, who appeared, he said, for the tenants, emphasised what had fallen from the other two legal gentlemen, and said it would be unnecessary for him to make any lengthy remarks. Mr. Glyn had referred to the population having increased twofold since those licenses were granted. There was another very important matter for consideration, and it was this. That although the population had increased twofold since the whole of those licenses were granted, during the last twelve years no new licenses had been granted. Mr. Glyn had also referred to the hardship on the owners if they lost their property, having regard to the fact that there had been no conviction against the tenants during the year, but in addition to that he desired to call attention to what was the intention of the legislature. The legislature had provided that in all cases where owners of licensed houses were brought before the Bench and charged with any offence against the licensing laws, the Magistrates had the power, if they deemed the offence was of sufficient importance, to record that conviction on the licence. They could do that on a second conviction, and on the third occasion the legislature said that the licence should be gone altogether. He was happy to say there was no record on any one of the licenses of the applicants, notwithstanding that they might have been proceeded against and convicted before the last annual licensing meeting. That showed they were of such trivial account that the Magistrates considered, in the exercise of their judgement, that it was not necessary to record it on the licence. Was there any stronger argument to be used than that the Magistrates themselves, although they felt bound to convict in certain cases, did not record the conviction on the licence? He cordially agreed with the suggestion of Mr. Glyn that the Magistrates should retire and consider the suggestion he had made, and he thought they would come to the conclusion that all the licenses should be renewed. There were cases where the houses could claim renewals as a right, and in which he should be able to show the licenses existed before 1869. That course would save a great deal of time.

Mr. Montagu Bradley claimed to be heard on behalf of the Good Templars.

The Court held that Mr. Bradley had no locus standi, as he had not given notice to the applicants that he was going to oppose.

Mr. Bradley thereupon withdrew.

The Magistrates again retired, and on their return the Chairman said the Magistrates had decided that where it was a question of disorderly conduct, it was to be limited to during the year just ended, and not to go into questions prior to the annual licensing day of last year. They thought it right that the cases should be gone into, in order that they might know what the objections were.

Mr. Glyn enumerated the houses, and they were then gone into separately in the following order:

The Royal George

Superintendent Taylor: This is a case in which I am, under your decision, unable to proceed, and with your permission I will withdraw the opposition, except as to the house not being required.

Sergeant Swift said there were 12 licensed houses within 100 paces.

By Mr. Bodkin: I do not know there is an hotel business done there.

William Henry Wray, representative of the City of London Brewery Company, the owners, said he went to the Royal George once a month. It was let to Mrs. Tritton at £60. It was doing a good and increasing trade. The tenant was most respectable. £300 was paid for valuation by her. There were bedrooms let out night by night and there was a large room in which food was provided. It was a very old house, and the Mayor of Folkestone's dinner used to be held there.

By Mr. Herbert: The present tenant has been there three years and a half.

By the Bench: the beer drawn is an average of 10 barrels a week.

Mrs. Tritton, the tenant, said she and her husband held a licence at Hastings for 8½ years, and also kept the Globe at Folkestone. There were 14 rooms in the house without the basement. They let a lot of bedrooms. Eighteen members of D'Oyley Carte's Company stayed there, and a clergyman sent his choir there. The business was a good one.

By Superintendent Taylor: The hotel business does not last long. The greater part of the trade is done in the bar. All classes of customer come. They had gentlemen one side and common people the other. There had been no disturbances recently – not for two years.

Mr. Bodkin said he had testimonial after testimonial as to the excellence and quietness of the hotel.

Mr. Glyn then addressed the Bench on the whole of the cases, and urged that no Bench had ever refused a licence where there had been no complaint or conviction. He said the Superintendent had conducted the cases ably and fairly, but he had picked out several houses and asked the Bench to refuse licenses to them. How, he asked, could they do so? It would be very nice for the owners of other houses, no doubt. He emphasised his remarks that no Bench in the county had refused a licence on the ground that it was not wanted. Nothing had occurred in the neighbourhood to alter the position of things, yet Folkestone was asked, as it were, to set an example to other boroughs in the county, and to confiscate his clients' licenses, when there was no ground whatever for that confiscation. It was not a small matter. It was not a question of £15. The lowest value was put at £800. The ground of objection was merely that the licenses were not wanted, although they had been in existence many years, and the owners had spent large sums of money on the houses on the faith of the licenses which the justices' predecessors had granted, and which they themselves had renewed. The population had largely increased, and the Magistrates had refused to grant fresh licenses because they thought there were sufficient. He ventured to submit that they would not do what other Benches had refused to do, and deprive his clients of their property. They looked to the Magistrates to protect their property and their interests. If there had been any strong views in operation against the licenses among the public, it would be different. But they had not expressed any such views. There was the Watch Committee, the proper authority to raise those points, who had declined to support the objection, which came from a member of their body, who was not present, and who had not taken part in the proceedings. He asked them, without any fear of the result, to say that under all the circumstances they were not going to deprive his clients of their licenses.

There was some applause when Mr. Glyn finished his speech.

The Justices then adjourned for an hour to consider all the cases.

On their return Mr. J. Clark, the Chairman, said: The Magistrates have had this question under consideration, and they have come to the decision that all the licenses be granted, with the exception of the Tramway Tavern. (Applause)

Mr. Glyn said he need hardly say they were much obliged to the Chairman and his brother Magistrates for the care they had given the matter. With regard to the Tramway Tavern, he asked if they would allow him, in the event of the owners deciding to appeal, which it was probable they would do, to serve the notice on their Clerk.

Mr. Bradley said there was no objection to that.

Mr. Glyn said his friends felt they ought to acknowledge the very fair manner in which Superintendent Taylor had conducted those proceedings.

The business then terminated.

 
Folkestone Herald 16 September 1893

Editorial

The large audience who crowded into the Licensing Justices' Court at the Town Hall on Wednesday last were evidently representative of the interests of the liquor trade in this Borough. Every stage of the proceeding was watched with the closest attention, and it was impossible not to recognise the prevalent feeling that a mistake had been committed in objecting wholesale to the renewal of licenses. Thirteen houses in all were objected to, but as two of them, through a technical point of law, were entitled to a renewal, there remained eleven as to which the Justices were asked to exercise their discretionary powers. In the event, after a long hearing, and a weighty exposition of law and equity, the decision of the tribunal resulted in the granting of ten of these eleven licenses and the provisional extinction of one, as to which, no doubt, there will be an appeal. As this journal is not an organ of the trade, and as, on the other hand, it is not inspired by the prohibitionists, we are in a position to review the proceedings from an unprejudiced and dispassionate standpoint. At the outset, therefore, we must express our disapproval of the manner in which the cases of those thirteen houses have been brought up for judicial consideration. It was rather unfortunate that a Magistrate who is so pronounced a Temperance advocate as Mr. Holden should have taken a prominent part in having those houses objected to. We say nothing of his official rights; we only deprecate the manner in which he has exercised his discretion. We think it likely to do more harm than good to the Temperance cause, inasmuch as it savours of partiality if not persecution. We also think that Mr. Holden would have done well not to have taken his seat on the Licensing Bench. It would be impossible to persuade any licence holder that the trade could find an unbiased judge in the person of a teetotal Magistrate. Conversely, it would be impossible to persuade a Temperance advocate that a brewer or a wine merchant could be capable of passing an unbiased judgement upon any question involving the interests of those engaged in the liquor traffic. The presence of Mr. Holden on the Bench was not allowed to pass without protest. Counsel for the owners handed in a written document, the Justices retired to consider it in private, and as the result of that consultation Mr. Holden did not resume the seat he had originally taken. The legal and other arguments urged by the learned Counsel for the owners and the tenants are fully set out in our report. We attach special importance to one contention, which was urged with a degree of earnestness that made a deep impression in Court, and will make a deeper impression outside. All these houses, be it remembered, had had a renewal of licence at the annual licensing meeting held last year. At that date the discretionary power of the Court had been as firmly established in law as it is at the present moment. At that date whatever laxity had taken place during the previous year in respect of the conduct of any one of those thirteen houses had been condoned by the renewal of the licence. At that date the congestion of public houses in particular parts of the town was as notorious as it is now, and nothing had happened in the interval to change in any material degree the general circumstances which prevailed in 1892 when the licences were renewed. In no single case out of the thirteen has there been a conviction recorded on the licence since the licenses were renewed in 1892, and under these circumstances it was argued by Counsel that to extinguish any one of these licences would amount to an act of confiscation. There can be no pretence for saying, therefore, that the objections raised this year to the renewal of the licences originated in the laches of the tenants themselves. They had their origin with either the Bench as a whole or a section of the Bench, and it was at the instance of the whole body or of a section of the Justices that the chief officer of police was instructed to report upon the question. So far as the ordinary course of police supervision was concerned the houses, with one solitary exception, appeared to have had a clear record, there being no conviction for any infraction of the Licensing Acts. It therefore savoured of persecution to arraign the whole of these thirteen houses and to press against them the argument that they are not required by the population, although last year the Justices, by renewal of the licenses, had decided that they were. Under these circumstances it was rather unfair to throw upon the Superintendent of Police the onerous and invidious duty of making the best case he could in support of the objections. It is only right to say that the fair and straightforward manner in which that officer discharged the duty elicited the commendation of everybody in Court – Bench, advocates, and general audience. Ultimately the Justices renewed all the licenses, with the exception of that of the Tramway Tavern, and on this case their decision will be reviewed by an appellate court. The impression which all these cases have created, and will leave on the public mind, is that the Temperance party have precipitated a raid upon the liquor shops, and that in doing so they have defeated their own object. Persecution and confiscation are words abhorrent to Englishmen. The law fences the publican round with restrictions and penalties in abundance, but in teh present case the houses had not come overtly within the law. To shut up the houses would therefore savour of confiscation, although in strict law the licence is deemed to be terminable from year to year. In the result the victory lies with the trade, and the ill-advised proceedings against a whole batch of houses have created a degree of sympathy for the owners and tenants which was given expression by the suppressed cheers that were heard on Wednesday at the close of the investigations.

Licensing

It will be remembered that on the 23rd ult. the Justices adjourned until the 13th inst. the hearing of objections to the renewal of the following licensed houses – Granville, British Colours, Folkestone Cutter, Tramway, Royal George, Oddfellows (Radnor Street), Cinque Ports, Queen's Head, Wonder, Ship, Harbour, Jubilee, Victoria – thirteen in all. These cases were taken on Wednesday last at the Town Hall, the large room having been transformed for the purpose into a courtroom. The Justices were Messrs. Clarke, Hoad, Pledge, Holden, Fitness, Poole, Herbert, Davy, Pursey, with the Justices' Clerk (Mr. Bradley, solicitor).

Mr. Glyn, and with him Mr. Bodkin, instructed by Messrs. Mowll and Mowll, of Dover, appeared on gehalf of the owners of the property affected; Mr. Minter, solicitor, appeared for the tenants; Mr. Montague Bradley, solicitor, Dover, appeared on behalf of the Folkestone Good Templars, Sons of Temperance, Rechabites, and the St. John's Branch of the Church Temperance Society. Mr. Superintendent Taylor, Chief Constable of the borough, conducted the case for the police authorities without any legal assistance.

Mr. Glyn, at the outset, said: I appear with my learned friend, Mr. Bodkin, in support of all these licences except in the case of the Royal George, for the owner of which my friend Mr. Minter appears. Before you commence the proceedings I should like you to consider an objection which I have here in writing, and which I do not desire to read. I would ask if you would retire to consider it before proceeding with the business.

Mr. Montague Bradley: I appear on behalf of some Temperance societies in Folkestone.

Mr. Glyn: I submit, sir, that this getleman has no locus standi.

The Justices now retired to a private room, and after about ten minutes in consultation all the Justices except Mr. Holden returned into Court. It was understood that the objection had reference to the appearance of Mr. Holden as an adjudicating Magistrate, that gentleman being a strong Temperance advocate.

Mr. Glyn then proceeded to say: Now, sir, it might be convenient if you take the Queen's Head first, and I have formally to apply for the renewal of the licence of the Queen's Head. That is a house which is well known by everybody, and by all you gentlemen whom I have the honour of addressing, as a most excellent house. The licence has been held for a very considerable number of years, and the present tenant has had it since 1889. It is worth £1,500, and the present tenant paid no less than £305 valuation when he entered that house. I need hardly tell you that the licence was granted a great many years ago by your predecessors and it has been renewed from time to time until now, when the Superintendent of Police has objected on the grounds that the house is not required and that it is kept in a disorderly manner. As to the objection made by the Superintendent, for whom I in common with all others have the highest possible respect, I think he will admit that the objection in not made of his own motion but that it is made in pursuance of instructions received from some members of the Licensing Committee. Of course the point has occurred to my learned friend and myself, and it is a very nice one, whether under those circumstances the requirements of the Section had been complied with, and as to whether, the Superintendent having really been acting as agent for the Justices, he had any locus standi at all to oppose these licences. I must leave that to your body, guided as you will be by your most able Clerk. He knows the Section better than I do. He knows under what circumstances and objection can be raised, and that it must be done in open Court and not introduced in the way these objections have been raised. These observations apply to the whole of these renewals, and you will find in this case, sir, indeed in all these cases, that the Superintendent of Police in raising these objections has been raising them, as he says in his report, in pursuance of instructions he received from the Magistrates; therefore those gentlemen who formed that body and who give the Superintendent these instructions are really in this position, if I may so put it to them with humility, of people complaining, by having themselves directed an inquiry, upon which inquiry they propose to sit, and, as I understand, to adjudicate. Now, sir, I know from some long occasional experiences of this Bench that there is not a single member of this Bench who desires to adjudicate upon any case which he had prejudged by directing that the case should be brought before him for a particular purpose, and I only draw your attention to these matters because I am perfectly certain that on the grounds I am going to place before you this Bench will not refuse to renew any of these licences. I think it right, after very careful attention, to put those facts before you in order that when you retire you will consider exactly what your position is. There is another thing I ought to say which applies to all these applications. There is not a single person, not a single ratepayer, in all this borough – and I don't know exactly what the numbers are, but they are very considerable – but there is not a single ratepayer who has been found to object to the renewal of any of these licences. Anyone would have a right to do it if he chose, and I feel certain that the Justices will think that where none of the outside public care to object, this Bench will not deprive the owners and tenants of their property simply because they themselves think that the matter ought to be brought before them, as I understand has happened in this case, for adjudication. Now, let us see the first ground of objection in respect of all these licences. The first ground in respect of each of these licences is that the licence is not needed, and I desire to make a few observations on that. I repeat that no ratepayer can be found here who is prepared to come before the Bench and raise this point. No notice has been given by anybody except by my friend the Superintendent, who has told us in his report that he has been acting upon the instructions of the Bench. But, sir, there is another and very important matter. I understand that in the Watch Committee, which one generally thought would be expected to get the ball rolling, if it is to be rolled at all – if, as my friend suggests, there is any public opinion upon it that these licences are not required – the Watch Committee has actually been approached in this case, that is to say, by some gentlemen connected with the Corporation. I don't know whether it is any of the gentlemen I have the honour of addressing, but they have declined to have anything to do with it or to sanction any such device for the purpose of depriving my clients of what is undoubtedly their property. Therefore I venture to think, speaking with some little experience, that there never was a case in which licences were taken away simply because some of the learned Magistrates thought that the matter ought to be brought before them, and instructed the Superintendent to do so. Now, sir, I am dealing with the Queen's Head, but among the licences are some beerhouses that existed before the passing of the Act of 1869, and the owner is therefore entitled to renewal, for although notice of objection has been given on the ground of disorderly conduct there has been a renewal, and that renewal has condoned any misconduct there might have been. Therefore these houses are absolutely entitled to renewal. Now, sir, with regard to these licences that were granted a great many years ago. Of course at that time, when the population of the borough was about half of what it is now, the Magistrates then thought they were required. Those licences have been renewed from time to time by your body, and are you really to say now that although these, or some of these, licences were granted when the number of inhabitants was 12,000, whereas it is now 25,000 – these licences were not required or are not necessary for more than double the original population? I venture to say that such an argument reduces the thing to absurdity. Of course I know, with regard to these houses, that in this case the Magistrates are clothed with authority, if they choose to deprive the owners and tenants of their property, if they think the licences are not required. But you will allow me to point this out to the Bench, that there is not a single Bench in this County – I am glad to be able to say – who yet have deprived an owner or tenant of his property simply because a suggestion has been thrown out. That is at any rate the case as far as Kent is concerned. It was done at one Bench in this County, but when it came on appeal at the Quarter Sessions they upset the decision of the Magistrates who had refused the renewal of the licence on that ground. This is the only instance I know, and I am sure that I am right, where a Bench in this County had been found to deprive an owner of his property which you are asked to do in this way, and a tenant of his livelihood. I venture to express my views, and I am sure that all the Bench will coincide with me, that it would be very unfair in such cases, when owners – whether brewers or private individuals – have paid large sums of money in respect of licensed houses, when those licences have been renewed from year to year, when the tenants have paid large sums in respect of valuation, and some of them have been tenants for many years and have gained a respectable livelihood in this business – it would be very unfair to deprive the owners and tenants of their property without giving them compensation of any kind for being turned adrift. That brings me again to a consideration I must bring before you, that these licences were granted at a time when the population of the borough was about half what it is now; but now you are asked to say that the licences are not required when the population has become twice as much as it was when the licences were originally granted. Perhaps my friend Mr. Minter will coincide with me that if you should consider this point in the first place and form an opinion on it, it would save a great deal of time. It is now a question as to whether you are, under those circumstances, prepared to refuse the renewal of any of these licences, having regard to the fact that there has not been a single conviction since the last renewal. Having regard to the fact that these licences were granted so long ago and have been renewed from time to time, having regard to the fact that there has been no conviction in the case of any one of them during the present year, and that if any offence had been committed prior to the last renewal it was condoned by that renewal – are you going to deprive the owners and tenants of their property? Now, I only desire to say another word. Some of these objections are made on the ground that the licences are not required; others refer to the fact that here have been previous convictions or that the houses have not been kept in an orderly way. Of course we shall hear what the Superintendent says, and we know that he would be perfectly fair to all sides, but I want to make a general observation about it, and it is this; whether or not these houses have been disorderly. As to that I think you would say that inasmuch as in any case where there has been a previous conviction and you had renewed the licence, that renewal condoned any previous offence. It clearly is so, and if there had been any offence committed since the renewal we should have to consider what was the class of offence which had been committed. But that does not apply in this case. In no single instance has there been a conviction in respect to any of the houses which Mr. Minter and myself ask for the renewal of the licence, and I am going to put to you what I understand to be an elementary proposition of law, that you would not deprive an owner of his property because it is suggested that a house has not been properly conducted where that owner has never had an opportunity of appearing before the Bench or instructing some counsel or solicitor to appear before the Bench in answer to any charge under the Act of Parliament which had been brought against his tenant. If there had been any charge in respect of any of these houses since your last renewal, the tenant would have been brought here, he would be entitled to be heard by counsel, and the question would be thrashed out before the Bench. That has not been done in any single case since you last renewed the licences of these houses, and I am perfectly certain that no Bench in this County, and no gentleman in Folkestone, would deprive an owner of his property simply because it has been suggested that since the last renewal a house has not been properly conducted, although no charge has been made against the tenant, so that he might have a right to put the the authorities to the proof of the charge. I am not aware of such a case, and I challenge anybody to show that there has been any single case before any Bench where a licence has been taken away after renewal following a conviction when there has been no criminal charge against that house, but only a general charge after the renewal. I submit that you are not going to deprive the owners of their property when there has been no charge of any kind investigated in this or any other court against the holders of those licences, and if you would retire and consider this point and give an answer upon it, it would save us a deal of time.

Mr. Bodkin followed on the same side dealing with the legal questions involved in the application.

Mr. Minter then addressed the Court as follows: I appear for the tenants of these houses. The learned Counsel have been addressing you on behalf of the owners, and though I cordially agree with everything that has been said by them, it will be necessary for me to make a few observations. Mr. Glyn referred to the population having increased twofold since these licences were granted, but there is another very important consideration, and that is this – that although the population has increased twofold since the whole of these licences were granted, within the last twelve years, I think I am right in saying that no new licence has been granted. Not only were the licences now under consideration granted when the population was half what it is now, but there has been no increase in the number of licences since that period I have named. The second point is with respect to the hardship which would fall upon owners if a licence were refused on the ground of convictions against the tenant. The learned Counsel has urged that it would be unjust to take into consideration a conviction that took place prior to the last annual licensing meeting, and you will feel the force of that argument. What is the intention of the Legislature? The Legislature has provided that in all cases where the tenants of licensed houses are convicted of a breach of the Licensing Laws the Magistrates have power to record that conviction on the licence, and on a third such conviction the Legislature says that the licence shall be forfeited altogether. Appearing on behalf of the tenants, I am happy to say that there is no such record on the licence of any one of the applicants, and notwithstanding that a conviction may have taken place prior to the last annual licensing meeting, the conviction was of such a trivial character that the Magistrates did not consider it necessary to record it on the licence. Is there any argument to be used that is stronger than that observation? You yourselves have decided that although you were bound to convict in a certain case, it was not of a character that required the endorsement of the licence, and after that conviction you renewed the licence, and again on a subsequent occasion. One other observation occurs to me, with regard to suggestions that have been put before you by Mr. Glyn and Mr. Bodkin, and I entirely concur in what has been said upon it. It is very pleasing to be before you, but I think it will be pleasing to us and you will be as pleased yourselves if time can be saved, and if you will only retire and take into consideration the points which Mr. Glyn has suggested to you, I think you will come to the conclusion that the applications should be granted, but I am excepting the one or two cases in which I appear and in which I can claim as a right to have the licence renewed as they existed before 1869, and therefore these special cases do not arise on the notice served upon my clients. I am sure you will not take offence if I put it in that way, but if we have to go through each one of these cases, and I appear for nine or ten, the tenants are all here and will have to go into the box and be examined, and their evidence will have to be considered in support of the application I have to make. Now let me call attention for a moment to the notice of objection. You may dismiss from your mind the previous conviction; the suggestion is that the houses are not required for public accommodation. I am prepared in each case with evidence to show that the public accommodation does require it, and the test is the business that a house does. I am prepared to show by indisputable evidence that the tenants has been doing a thriving business for the last four or five years, that it has not decreased, and how is it possible with that evidence before you to say that the licence is not wanted? You may regret, possibly, that the number of houses is larger than you like to see, but you would not refuse to entertain the application made today unless you were satisfied that the houses were not wanted for the public accommodation. I hope you will take the suggestion of Mr. Glyn and that you will renew all the licences that are applied for, particularly as there is not a single complaint against them.

Mr. Montague Bradley: I claim the right to address the Bench.

Mr. Minter: I object.

Mr. Bodkin: My friend must prove his notice of objection.

Mr. M. Bradley: I should like Mr. Glyn to state the Section under which he objects to my locus standi.

Mr. Glyn: I should like to know for whom my friend appears – by whom he is instructed.

Mr. M. Bradley: I appear on behalf of Temperance Societies of Folkestone – Good Templars and others.

Mr. Glyn: Now, sir, I submit beyond all doubt that the practice is clear.

Mr. M. Bradley: I think, sir, that the question ought to be argued. I should like to hear Mr. Glyn state his objection.

Mr. Minter: We have objected on the ground that you have not given notice of objection.

Mr. Glyn: My friend should show his right – how he proposes to establish his right.

Mr. M. Bradley referred to Section 42, subsection 2.

Eventually the Chairman said: Mr. Montague Bradley, the Bench are of opinion that you have no locus standi.

Mr. M. Bradley: Very well, sir.

The Justices now retired to their room.

The Chairman on their return said: The Magistrates have decided that where there is a case of disorderly conduct it is to be limited to within the year, and that the Superintendent is not to go into any case previous to the annual licensing day of last year. We think it right that Superintendent should state these cases and that they should be gone into in order that we may know what these objections are.

The cases not eliminated by this decision were then proceeded with, seriatim, and are noticed below in the order in which they were called.

The Royal George

In this case Sergeant Swift proved that within one hundred paces of the Royal George in Beach Street he found no less than twelve licensed houses.

On behalf of the owners, the City of London Brewery Company, their representative, Mr. William Wray, stated that he visited the Royal George once a month. The house was purchased by the company, who let it to Mrs. Tritton at £60 a year rent, and the trade she did was fairly good, and increasing from year to year. He found the tenant a most respectable person, and had no cause for complaint against her, but just the reverse. The amount of valuation paid was £300. She dealt with them solely for beer. He knew the house, and it was a fact the bedrooms were let out from night to night, and there was a room below where people could get refreshments, which were kept for those who chose to go. If it was not an hotel she would be unable to pay the rent.

Counsel: It is a very old house, and I am told the Mayors of Folkestone dinners occurred there. (Laughter)

Witness said he did not know it.

Counsel said he was satisfied that it was only the more modern Pavilion that had cut out the Royal George. (Renewed laughter)

Questioned by Superintendent Taylor, witness said he did not stay at the Royal George when in Folkestone.

By the Bench: The tenant paid £43 per month, therefore drawing about ten barrels a week.

Mrs. Tritton, wife of G. Tritton, said the house was in her name, as the money invested in the business was her private property. The house contains fourteen rooms, and she had a good class of visitors there in the season. Last week she had 26 of Mr. D'Oyly Carte's Company staying there, while a clergyman sent his choir, 26 of them, to her house.

When cross-examined by Superintendent Taylor, the witness admitted that this hotel business did not last for very long, and that the greater part of the trade was done in beer. They had two classes of persons who resorted to this house; the gentlemen on one side, common people on the other. There had been disturbances at the house, but not recently.

Mr. Bodkin said looking through the visitors' book he found testimonial after testimonial as to the respectability of this hotel from persons who had stayed there.

On the conclusion of the cases Mr. Glyn rose and said: The result of these inquiries is, sir, that in respect to all the houses except the Tramway Tavern there is no serious charge of any misconduct of any kind. It is only in the case of the Tramway Tavern that a serious attack has been made, and I have already addressed you as to the Tramway Tavern. If the brewers had notice they might have had an opportunity of testing the case, whether the house has been properly conducted or not, and I challenge anybody to allege that any Bench of Justices in this County other than the Bench I have alluded to have ever refused to grant the renewal of a licence unless the landlord had had notice, or unless there has been a summons or conviction against the tenant. I take that point, sir. It is a technical point, but I have not the slightest doubt that it is conclusive against the points raised. Now, with regard to the other houses, except the beerhouses which have a positive right of renewal. The only other question is whether the remaining houses are wanted or not. The Superintendent of Police has conducted his case most fairly and most ably indeed, and he picks out certain houses and asks the Magistrates to deprive the owners of their property and the tenants of their livelihood, and he asks that other houses may remain. How on earth are you to draw the line? There are seven houses in one street, and how can you deprive four of them of their licence, and grant the renewal of licence to the other three? I must again put before you that no Bench of Magistrates in this County have refused to renew a licence – with the exception of the case which I put before you, and in that case they were overruled – to any old licensed house on the ground on which you are asked to refuse, viz., because it is suggested that the house is not wanted. The County Magistrates, as well as the Magistrates in Boroughs, have felt this, inasmuch as their predecessors in office have granted licences upon the faith of which repairs have been done and expenditure has been incurred, it would be unfair to take that property away unless – as the late Lord Chancellor pointed out – something fresh had happened to alter the neighbourhood since the time of the last renewal. It is not suggested here that anything has occurred with respect to any one of these houses in order to satisfy you that they should be taken away as not being required, and I venture to submit that this Bench at any rate would not adopt a policy of confiscation, for I cannot call it anything else, and, as it were, set an example to other Benches in the County by confiscating my clients' property in any of these cases, having regard to the fact that they are old licences, having regard to the fact that the population has increased twofold, and having regard to the fact that nothing fresh, in the words of the Lord Chancellor, has arisen to induce you to deprive the owners of the licences that were renewed last year. I submit that you, gentlemen, will not be a party to the confiscation of property. It is no small matter that you have to consider. It is not a question of £10 or £15, for the lowest in value of the houses before you today is £800, and the licences have been granted by your predecessors and renewed by you. Your population has largely increased since those licences were granted, and as my friend (Mr. Minter) has pointed out, you have refused to grant any new licences, and under these circumstances I venture to submit that you will not deprive my clients of their property. My clients look to you to protect their property; they have no other tribunal. If there had been any strong view in the Borough against these licences the public would have expressed their views by giving notice of opposition, but they have not done it, whereas the Watch Committee, the proper body to raise these objections, have declined to touch it. Where does the objection come from? It comes from a member of your body, who has not taken part in these proceedings, but who has suggested that the Superintendent of Police should give notice in respect of these houses and have these cases brought before you. I thank you very much for the kind way in which you have listened to my observations and those of my friends, and without fear of the result I am confident that you are not going to deprive my clients of their licences, to which, I submit, the law entitles them. (Suppressed applause in the body of the court)

It being now 2.50, the Justices adjourned for an hour, returning into court just before 4 o'clock.

The Chairman then said: The Magistrates have had this question under consideration, and they have come to the decision that all the licences be granted, with the exception of the Tramway Tavern. (Suppressed applause)

 
Folkestone Visitors' List 20 September 1893

Licensing

That the lot of the publican, like that of the policeman in the “Pirates of Penzance”, is not over and above a happy one, must be conceded. There is no business to which so many pains and penalties are attached, and to embark in which a man must be prepared to go through so keen an enquiry into his antecedents as well as his character at the time when he applies for his licence; and in which he has at last, by the expenditure of much time and money, obtained permission to sell, during certain periods out of the twenty four hours fixed for him by a tender-hearted legislature desirous that he should not overwork himself, he is so heavily handicapped by the restrictions which surround him. In fact, the proverbial toad under the harrow would seem to lead almost a pleasant existence in comparison with unfortunate Mr. Boniface. His natural enemy, the teetotaller, is ever on the alert to worry him, and, if possible, to shut up his shop for him, totally careless at to the ruin which may accrue to him and his family.

In pursuance of some of these tactics some of the members of the Folkestone Licensing Committee a twelvemonth ago discovered all at once, after a lapse of some fifteen years, that there are too many houses in the town. How some few weeks back a prominent member of that Committee, and a steadfast advocate of the Temperance movement, reverted to that decision, and announced that if the brewers did not agree among themselves as to what houses should be closed, the Committee would forthwith proceed to act upon their own judgement, is all a matter of history. Between the time when this announcement was made and the licensing day proper, the Superintendent of Police, who does not seem to have held any pronounced opinions as to the number of houses, drew up, at the request of the Committee, an elaborate report upon that point, showing that there were in the town 130 houses; and in consequence of it he was directed to give notice to the owners and occupiers of thirteen houses that they would be objected to at the adjourned session.

On Wednesday, the 13th, the Special Adjourned Session was held. The Magistrates had wisely provided for the very great interest taken in the question by holding the enquiry in the Town Hall, a great improvement on the stuffy little apartment dignified by the name of a police court. As soon as the doors were opened the body of the hall rapidly filled, the trade, of course, being present in strong force, neighbouring towns also being represented. The teetotallers also mustered pretty strongly, but it may here be stated that Mr. Montagu Bradley, of Dover, who appeared for them, was objected to, and the Bench ruled that he had no locus standi; or in other words the Magistrates could decide the questions that would be submitted to them without the interference of any outside body. So Mr. Bradley politely took his leave shortly after the commencement of the proceedings. A somewhat singular feature in connection with them was the large force of police in attendance in the Hall; probably the authorities anticipated some exhibition of feeling, but none such took place, except early in the morning a working man shouted out “How can you expect justice from that lot? They gave me eighteen months for nothing”. He was speedily ejected, and the business for the remainder of the day was conducted in the most orderly manner. The Magistrates on the Bench were Messrs. Hoad, Pledge, Pursey, Herbert, Davey, Clarke, Fitness, and Poole. Mr. Holden also took his seat, but in deference to a written protest handed in by counsel for the owners he retired. Mr. Glyn and Mr. Bodkin appeared for the owners, instructed by Mr. Mowll, of Dover, Mr. F. Hall, Folkestone, and Mr. Mercer, Canterbury; Mr. Minter, the solicitor for the Folkestone Licensed Victuallers' Association, for the tenants.

Mr. Glyn first opened the proceedings in a temperate and exhaustive speech, delivered quite in the best Nisi Prius style, argumentative and without an attempt at claptrap or sensational appeal. It was a capital forensic effort, and afforded unmitigated pleasure to the Licensed Victuallers themselves, whilst we fancy, from the somewhat lengthened faces of the opponents of the licenses, they must have felt at it's conclusion that the ground had been cut from under them. There was just the faintest attempt at applause when the learned counsel sat down, but this, the only manifestation of feeling throughout the day, was speedily suppressed in the call for silence.

The Superintendent of Police supported his own objections – or rather the objections of the Committee – in person. Armed with a voluminous brief he made the best of a weak case, but evidently it was not a labour of love to him.

Mr. Bodkin's work was chiefly confined to the examination of witnesses, and those who attentively followed him could not have failed being struck with the fact that not an unnecessary question was put to a single witness.

Mr. Glyn based his arguments upon three general grounds, which he applied to all the cases collectively. The first was that this opposition did not emanate from the police. The Superintendent had no grounds for complaint, but was acting under the direction of certain members of the Bench. How far that was approved of generally was evidenced by the fact that the Watch Committee refused to grant him legal assistance in opposing these licenses. The objection urged against them was that they were not required. Now, up to the present time not a Bench in the county of Kent had been found to deprive an owner of his property or a tenant of his livelihood because someone chose to say a house was not necessary. But what were the facts in the present case? Why, that all these licenses were granted a dozen years ago, and if they were thought requisite when the population was only half what it was at present, surely they could not say they were not required now. Secondly, some of these houses had been objected to as not having been properly conducted. To meet that assertion the learned counsel adduced the fact that during the last twelvemonth not a single conviction had been recorded against any one of the tenants. Any previous conviction had been condoned by the renewal of the licence. That was common sense. The Bench admitted that it was so by subsequently deciding not to enquire into any laches that might have taken place previous to the last licensing meeting in 1892.

Mr. Bodkin followed briefly in the same vein, and Mr. Minter, on behalf of the occupiers, addressed himself to the requirements of the town, arguing, as we have ourselves pointed out in the List, that the very fact of their being supported by the public was a prima facie argument in favour of the existence of these houses.

The Magistrates, at the conclusion of the learned gentlemen's arguments, retired, and after an absence of about a quarter of an hour, on their return announced they would hear any complaints there were against any house since the last licensing meeting. This involved the calling of a large number of witnesses – owners, tenants, civil and military police, the examination of whom lasted well into the afternoon.

Royal George: The Superintendent withdrew the opposition except that it was not required. There are twelve licensed houses within 100 paces. Evidence was given showing the house was a most respectable one, and that Mrs. Tritton, the landlady, was doing excellent business.

Mr. Glyn having summed up his case, the Magistrates retired for an hour to consider their decision, and on their return the Chairman briefly announced that all the licenses would be renewed with the exception of the Tramway.

Mr. Glyn intimated that in all probability the owners of the house would appeal against the decision, and having thanked the Bench for the attention they had given the cases, and Superintendent Taylor for the fair manner in which he had conducted the opposition, the proceedings came to an end.

 
Folkestone Chronicle 30 December 1893

Local News

A point of interest to the licensed trade was raised in the Police Court, heard on Wednesday, when Agnes Jane Tritton, of the George Hotel, was summoned by the Inspector of Weights and Measures for having in her possession for use in trade a measure which was not stamped, as required by the Weights and Measures Act.

Mr. Haines appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. Hall for the defence.

It appeared from the evidence of Boat Inspector Brice that he was sent to the house by the Inspector of Weights and Measures. He asked for half a pint of stout and was served by Miss Tritton in a glass which was marked half-a-pint, but had no verification stamp upon it.

For the defence it was stated by Mr. Hall that Brice went into a private bar, in which a notice was exhibited “No half pints served here”. Miss Tritton told him they did not serve half pints in that compartment, and asked him id he would have a “glass” of best stout, and he replied that would do nicely.

This was contradicted by Brice, who in his evidence stated that when he asked for the half pint of stout Miss Tritton asked him whether he would have the best, and no further conversation took place between them.

Mr. Hall having called evidence in support of his statement contended that by decision of the Courts of Law a publican was entitled to sell a “glass” of liquor when asked for it, and it was a common custom throughout the county. He urged that in this case there was no sale of half-a-pint of stout, but that Brice being told by Miss Tritton that no half pints were sold in that bar, fell in with her suggestion that he should have a “glass” of stout.

The case was adjourned for a week to enable the Magistrates' Clerk to look into the point of law which had been raised.

 
Folkestone Express 30 December 1893

Wednesday, December 27th: Before The Mayor, Aldermen Pledge and Sherwood, and J. Fitness Esq.

Agnes Jane Tritton was summoned for having in her possession a glass measure not stamped according to the provisions of the Weights and Measures Act.

The Magistrates who were members of the Corporation could not adjudicate in this case, and Mr. J.R. Davy was sent for. Subsequently Surgeon General Gilbourne arrived and took part in the hearing of the summons.

Mr. Haines appeared for the prosecution and Mr. F. Hall for the defendant.

William Brice, Boat Inspector, said from instructions received he visited the Royal George on the 12th inst. at about a quarter to eight. He went into the bar and asked for half a pint of stout. Mrs. Tritton's daughter served him with a glass of stout. Mr. Welch, the Inspector of Weights and Measures, then went in. There was no stamp on the glass, and when the Inspector went in he pointed out the glass to him.

By Mr. Hall: I don't know if it is called a private bar, or that the words “Private Bar” are written on the door. I saw Mrs. Tritton there after I was served. Miss Tritton did not say “We don't serve half pints in this bar”. I did not see the card produced. She did not say “We don't serve half pints in here, will a glass of best stout do?” She did not draw the stout in the bar. Two soldiers and a girl were in the bar. It is the custom to sell pints and half pints of beer in glasses. The Inspector instructed me to go into the house. I am a police constable and was on duty. I did not receive any instructions from the Superintendent of Police to go there.

By Mr. Haines: The Inspector said it was my duty to assist him.

James S. Welch, Inspector of Weights and Measures, said he instructed Brice to go into the Royal George, and subsequently went in himself. Brice pointed out the glass he was using, which was not stamped. Next day, in the afternoon, he went again to the Royal George and examined the various measures. In Mrs. Tritton's presence, Mr. Tritton produced to him a glass and said it was the glass P.C. Brice had used the day before. He saw the words “Half Pint” on the bottom. Four dozen pint glasses and some half pint glasses had since been sent up to be stamped.

Mr. Haines: Under the Licensing Act it should have the words....

Mr. Bradley: You are not proceeding under the Licensing Act, but under the Weights and Measures Act. Show me the section under which you are proceeding.

The section was pointed out, and the witness described the design and number of the Folkestone stamp.

By Mr. Hall: I did not see the words “Private Bar” written up. I have no assistant, and I was ignorant of the fact that it was against Brice's duty. I saw Mr. Tritton, and told him Brice had asked for a half pint of stout and he was served on the glass produced. There was a notice up “No half pints served in this bar”. Miss Tritton, recognising me, said it was a glass of best stout. She asked Brice if he would have a glass of stout, and he said “Yes, that will do nicely”. If people ask for half a pint they usually get a stamped glass.

Annie Thorpe said she was in the Private Bar at the Royal George and saw Brice go in. He asked for half a pint of stout. Miss Tritton went to speak to her mother.

Mr. Bradley advised that the evidence was irrelevant. Brice did not see the notice exhibited.

Mr. Hall said Welch did see it.

Witness said Miss Tritton returned and told the Inspector they did not serve half pints in that bar, and asked if he would have a glass of the best stout.

Herbert Tritton was called to prove that the notice was up in the bar, but it was held he was not entitled to give evidence.

James Tunbridge, of the Guildhall Vaults, was called, and said it was the custom of the trade to sell stout by the lass – eighty percent of customers asked for glasses. If they asked for pints and half pints they were served in glasses which were not stamped.

Mr. Hall contended that the case was not made out. There was a saving clause in the Act under which publicans could sell beer or stout in glasses in less quantities than half a pint, and he urged that there was no sale in that case of half a pint, Brice having “made a mess of it”. Under Section 8 of the Licensing Act, Mrs. Tritton was entitled to sell as she had done in a glass. Publicans were subject to a good many burdens, but they were permitted this privilege.

Mr. Bradley: In point of fact you apply for exemption under Section 22?

Mr. Hall: Combined with Section 8 of the Licensing Act.

The Bench decided to reserve their decision for a week.

 
Folkestone Herald 30 December 1893

Police Court Notes

An interesting point of law in connection with the interpretation of the Weights and Measures Act has arisen in Folkestone, and is yet sub judice. It appears that on the 12th December inst., P.C. Wm. Brice, of the Borough Force, was acting for Mr. Stephen Welch, the local Inspector of Weights and Measures, and while engaged in that duty paid a visit to the Royal George Hotel, in Beach Street, kept by Mrs. A.J. Tritton. Acting under his instructions, Brice went to the bar at 8 p.m., and asked to be served with a half pint of stout. Miss Tritton, who was serving in that particular bar, asked if Brice wanted the best stout, to which he replied in the affirmative. Miss Tritton then drew the stout in a glass and handed it to the police officer, no further conversation having taken place between them. At this stage of proceedings, the Inspector of Weights and Measures entered the premises, and joining Brice at the bar, was shown the glass in which the stout had been served. The girl who had served Brice immediately addressed Mr. Welch, and pointing to the glass said “Mind, that is not a half pint; that is a glass”. On examination it was found by Inspector Welch that the glass was unstamped, but subsequently, in the presence of Mr. and Mrs. Tritton, it was perceived that the words “Half pint” were blown in the bottom of the glass, and the Inspector contended, therefore, that this glass constituted a measure within the meaning of the Weights and Measures Act and ought, therefore, to have been stamped I accordance with the provisions of that Statute. Such being the facts, the matter was brought to a test by summoning the landlord of the hotel for having in his possession a measure which was unstamped, and the case was before the Borough Bench on Wednesday morning, the sitting Justices being Mr. Fitness, Mr. Davy, and Surgeon General Gilborne.

Mr. G.W. Haines, solicitor, appeared in support of the prosecution, and the defendant was represented by Mr. Hall.

A material element in the facts was brought forward in the evidence of a girl who was sitting in the bar at the time Brice was served by Miss Tritton. According to this witness, when Brice asked for a half pint of stout, Miss Tritton replied “We do not sell half a pint here. If you want half a pint you must go to the next bar. We only serve glasses here”.

After the point of law had been ably put before the court by the learned advocates, the Justices reserved their decision on this novel, interesting, and rather important case.

 
Folkestone Chronicle 6 January 1894

Local News

Decision was given at the police court on Wednesday in the case in which Agnes Jane Tritton, of the Royal George Hotel, was summoned by the Inspector of Weights and Measures for having in her possession an unstamped glass measure. The decision was given in writing, and was read by the Chairman (Mr. J. Fitness). The Bench stated that it had not been made out to their satisfaction that there was a sale by measure in the case on which the proceedings had been taken. They therefore gave the defendant the benefit of the doubt, and dismissed the summons, making no order as to costs.

 
Folkestone Express 6 January 1894

Local News

The prosecution of Mrs. Tritton: Mr. Tunbridge asks us to say that in his evidence he stated that it is the custom of the trade to sell pints and half pints of ale and stout in glasses which are stamped – not unstamped.

 
Folkestone Herald 6 January 1894

Local Jottings

The point of law raised in the Tritton case, in which the defendant was summoned for having in possession for use in trade a measure which was not stamped in accordance with the weights and Measures Act, has been decided by the Justices in favour of the defendant. The particulars of the case were fully given in last week's Herald. The decision of the Justices was given last Wednesday.

 
Folkestone Express 10 January 1894

Wednesday, January 7th: Before J. Fitness, J.R. Davy and W.G. Herbert Esqs., and Surgeon General Gilborne

The case of Agnes Jane Tritton, who was summoned for having in her possession a glass measure not stamped according to the provisions of the Weights and Measures Act, was resumed for the purpose of hearing the decision of the Magistrates, which had been reserved for a week.

The Chairman then read the decision, which was as follows: The defendant is charged on the information of the Inspector of Weights and Measures with having on the 12th December unlawfully had in her possession for use, for trade, a measure not stamped as required by Section 29 of the weights and Measures Act, 1878. The object of the Act is to force uniformity of weights and measures, and the Scotch case of Craig v McPhee, cited to us by Mr. Hall, decided that the Act does not apply to sales of articles which, though capable of being sold by weight or measure, are not in fact so sold. In other words, the Act prohibits only sales by weight or measure other than Imperial weight or measure, but it does not prevent sales otherwise than by weight or measure. The material portions of the Weights and Measures Act, 1878, bearing upon the question which we have to decide are Sections 19, 22, 25, and 59, and the second schedule of the Act, which specifies the measure of capacity. Briefly stated, the effect of these sections appears to be (1) that if beer is sold by measure, i.e. pints, half pints, etc., it must be sold by Imperial measure; (2) the possession of an unjust measure for use for trade is forbidden under penalty, and if the trader is found in possession of an unjust measure, he is deemed to have it for use for trade until the contrary is proved; (3) sale of beer in any vessel is legal if such vessel is not represented as containing any amount of Imperial measure.

The result of what has been stated is this, that beer may be sold in glasses containing less than half a pint, if they are not represented as holding half a pint, a question of fact to be decided in each case. We have to decide upon the evidence given in this case (which is contradictory) whether there was a representation that the glass of stout sold to Brice contained any amount of Imperial measure; in other words whether there was a sale by measure. If there was, then the glasses would be a measure requiring to be stamped in conformity with the statute.

It has not been made out to our satisfaction that there was any such representation, and we therefore give the defendant the benefit of the doubt and dismiss the summons.

Mr. Hall asked that the summons might be dismissed with costs.

Mr. Minter desired that the costs of the adjournment be allowed the prosecution.

The Chairman: We make no order as to costs.

 
Folkestone Chronicle 17 February 1894

Saturday, February 10th: Before The Mayor, Messrs. Herbert, Poole, and Wightwick.

George Haynes, alias Whaley, was charged with breaking a window at the Royal George Hotel on the 10th inst. Damage £3.

Frederick Tritton, the landlord, said there was a disturbance in his bar on Saturday night. Prisoner wanted to bite another man. Witness tried to persuade him to leave, but he refused, and witness put him out. He tried to force his way back, threatened to blind witness, and eventually put his foot through the window. He then put his face through the hole and said “How do you like that?” The window was about three feet from the ground.

In reply to prisoner, Mr. Tritton said he had seen Haynes kick six feet high.

Private Fuller, of the Buffs, corroborated, and prisoner was fined 10s., costs 5s. 6d. and damage £3, or one month's hard labour.

 
Folkestone Express 17 February 1894

Monday, February 12th: Before The Mayor, Alderman Dunk, and J. Holden Esq.

George Haynes, alias Whaley, was charged with breaking a window in the Royal George Hotel, and doing damage to the extent of £3, on the 10th inst.

Frederick Tritton said about ten o'clock on Saturday night he was called to the public bar. There was a disturbance and prisoner wanted to bite another man. Witness went and tried to persuade him to leave the house, but he refused to go and witness put him out. He tried to force his way back again. He threatened to blind witness, and then put his foot through the plate glass. The glass was about three feet from the ground. He put his face in the hole he had made with his foot and asked “How do you like that?” The glass was not insured. It would cost £3 to replace.

By prisoner: I have seen you kick six feet high. You were perfectly sober.

Private Fuller, of the Buffs, said he saw the prisoner put his foot through the window of the door. Previous to his doing this, witness saw him try to force his way into the house. Prisoner was sober.

Prisoner said he was drunk. He had been in the house drinking nearly all day. He was shoved through the window.

Superintendent Taylor said the prisoner had been drinking when taken into custody.

Prisoner was fined 10s. and 5s. 6d. costs, and the value of the glass £3, and in default of payment one month's hard labour.

 
Folkestone Herald 17 February 1894

Local Jottings

George Haynes, otherwise Whaley, aged 30, who has been a visitor to Folkestone on and off since 1891, was convicted on Monday morning before the Borough Justices of a piece of wanton and malicious damage to property.

On Saturday night he was at the Royal George Hotel, Beach Street, and as he was connected with a disturbance that was started there he was ordered out by the landlord, Mr. Tritton. Refusing to go, he was ejected, and then took his revenge by kicking at and smashing a sheet of plate glass, doing damage to the extent of £3, which was not covered by insurance.

He was ordered to pay £3 15s. 6d., including damages, fine, and costs, or a month to prison. He was removed in custody to partake of the hospitality of the State at Canterbury.

 
Folkestone Chronicle 23 June 1894

Saturday, June 16th: before The Mayor, Alderman Pledge, Mr. J. Holden and Mr. G. Spurgen.

George Haynes and Maud Wells, two most disreputable looking characters, were the principals in a police scrimmage as related by P.C. Knowles.

Both prisoners the previous evening about 20 past 11 were outside the Royal George. The woman, using frightful language and refusing to go away, was taken into custody. As she was struggling on the ground the man stood on her dress and defied the constable to take her. Knowles blew his whistle, when P.C. Smoker came, and took Haynes with the assistance of P.C. Lemar, and the two prisoners were conveyed to the police station.

As previous appearance before the Bench were recorded against both prisoners, Haynes was sent to prison for one month, and Wells was sentenced to 14 days'.

 
Folkestone Chronicle 22 March 1895

Local News

At the Borough Police Court on Friday, a young man named William Lacy, aged 34, was brought up in custody charged with committing wilful damage and an assault.

It appears prisoner went to the Royal George Inn, Beach Street, at about half past six on the previous evening, and created a disturbance by refusing to quit after making use of filthy language to the barmaid, Agnes Tritton. He also threw two or three pint glasses at her head, and damaged a looking glass with them.

When P.C. Stannage took the prisoner into custody, he laid a charge against the barmaid of throwing a glass at him.

The Bench imposed a fine of 10s., with 16s. 4d. damage, and 5s. costs, or in default 14 days' imprisonment.

 
Folkestone Express 24 August 1895

Wednesday, August 21st: Before W. Wightwick and C.J. Pursey Esqs.

John Leary was charged with being drunk and disorderly and resisting the police.

P.C. Prebble said he was on duty at 7.30 in Beach Street. He saw prisoner, who was very drunk, and had been fighting. He asked him to go away, and prisoner replied “If you want anything, I can give it to you”. He was very rough on the way to the station – kicking and biting witness and P.C. Sharp.

Corporal Fuller, of the Military Police, said P.C. Prebble called on him to assist in taking prisoner to the station. Prisoner kicked, and had to be forced along. It took four to take him to the station.

P.C. Sharp gave evidence as to the conduct of the prisoner after he got to the top of High Street, where witness handcuffed him.

Mr. F. Tritton, of the Royal George Hotel, said he refused to serve the prisoner, as he was drunk. He was very violent, and they sent for a policeman to remove him. A great crowd assembled. Prisoner was very violent, but witness did not see him attempt to bite or kick anybody.

Superintendent Taylor said during the whole time he had been in the police force he had never seen such brutal conduct. They had to keep the prisoner handcuffed for some hours. Prisoner had been in the town two months.

Prisoner: Send somebody down to examine that cell and see the blood there is there. It would make you turn white.

The Bench sentenced the prisoner to 14 days' hard labour, and, for resisting the police, fined him £2 and 6s. 6d. costs, or one month's hard labour, the sentences to run consecutively.

 
Folkestone Herald 24 August 1895

Police Court Record

John Leary was charged with being drunk and disorderly on Monday evening, and with resisting the police.

P.C. Prebble said that on the evening in question he saw the prisoner in Beach Street, surrounded by a crowd of about 200 persons. He was challenging people to fight. As he refused to go away he was taken into custody, then he was very violent and kept kicking and biting. Witness had to get the assistance of one of the military police, a civilian, and P.C. Sharp, to take him to the station.

Corporal Fuller, of the military police, corroborated, and added that the prisoner was so violent that it was necessary for the four of them to hold him.

Frederick Tritton, landlord of the Royal George public house, said that the prisoner came in there about seven o'clock in the evening, and as he was drunk they did not serve him. He was told to go away, but he refused and wanted to fight. They managed at last to put him out. It was after this that P.C. Prebble took him into custody.

Superintendent Taylor said the prisoner, who had been about the town for two months, had a bad character. When he was brought up to the police station he behaved in a brutal and ruffianly manner. When he was put in the cell he was so violent they had to put the handcuffs on.

The Bench sentenced him to 14 days' hard labour for being drunk, and fined him for the other offence £2 and 6s. 6d. costs, or one month's hard labour.

 
Folkestone Chronicle 30 May 1896

Saturday, May 23rd : Before Messrs. J. Holden, T.J. Vaughan, J. Fitness and J. Pledge.

John Mackay was summoned for assaulting Agnes Tritton on the 19th inst.

Prosecutrix, landlady of the Royal George public house, said defendant came into the bar on Tuesday night, and called for a drink. He appeared to be sober. He then went into the “sing-song room” and created a slight disturbance, and was requested to leave. He refused, and was put out.

In reply to the Magistrates' Clerk, Mrs. Tritton said he gave her daughter a blow, but she believed it was an accident.

Mr. Bradley said that when prosecutrix came to his office to take out the summons she told a very different tale. Now she seemed to desire to gloss over the assault.

Defendant was fined 10s., costs 9s., or 14 days'.

The Chairman then called Mrs. Tritton into the box, and told her the case did not come out at all square, and in future she would have to be careful.

Mr. Bradley also told her to be very careful.

 
Folkestone Express 30 May 1896

Saturday, May 23rd: Before J. Fitness, T.J. Vaughan, J. Holden and J. Pledge Esqs.

Annie Williams, a lady with a black eye, pleaded Guilty to being drunk and disorderly in Beach Street on Friday on the previous evening.

P.C. Prebble said the defendant was using obscene language. She went into the Royal George, but was not served there.

Defendant said she was very sorry, and was going to leave Folkestone that day. Her husband was in the militia.

Superintendent Taylor said the defendant was a stranger.

On promising to leave the town she was discharged.

William M'Kay was summoned for refusing to quit licensed premises on the 18th of May.

Mrs. Agnes Tritton said the defendant went into her house on Tuesday night and called for a quart of beer. He appeared to be sober. He went into the “sing-song” room, and instead of drinking the beer, he poured out a glass and threw it on the piano. He was requested to leave, but refused, and was therefore put out. Defendant also struck her daughter in the mouth, but she did not think it was done intentionally.

Defendant was fined 10s. and 9s. costs, or 14 days'.

Mrs. Tritton was called up, and Mr. Holden said “This case does not come out very square”.

Mr. Bradley: You come here today and conceal things. You complained of the defendant's conduct to your daughter when you applied for the summons, and now you come here today and gloss it over. I suppose he is too good a customer to lose – that is about it.

Mrs. Tritton: He is not a customer of mine at all, sir.

Mr. Bradley: Well, you must be more careful.

 
Folkestone Herald 30 May 1896

Police Court Jottings

William McKay was summoned for refusing to quite licensed premises when asked to do so.

Mrs. Tritton, landlady of the Royal George, said on Tuesday night defendant went in sober at about half past ten. After having two or three glasses she asked him to leave. He would not do so, and she had to put him out with the assistance of her husband.

The Clerk to the Magistrates (Mr. H.B. Bradley) said that when the witness applied for the summons she told a different story. Now she left out or glossed over what she said then.

Defendant was fined 10s., 9s. costs, or 14 days'.

The Chairman said the witness came there and concealed things. She wished to have a summons against defendant for assaulting her daughter. She now told a different tale from when she got the summons. She should be more careful in the future.

 
Folkestone Express 19 June 1897

Saturday, June 12th: Before The Mayor, Alderman Pledge, S. Penfold, J. Holden, T.J. Vaughan, R.J. Fynmore, J. Fitness, W. Wightwick, and E.T. Ward Esqs.

Frederick Funnel and Harry Gatehouse were summoned for being drunk and disorderly on the 7th June in Beach Street.

P.C. Burniston said the defendants left the Royal George, and Gatehouse went and struck a navvy in the face, and a fight ensued.

They pleaded Guilty, and were fined 5s. and 9s. costs.

 
Folkestone Chronicle 14 August 1897

Monday, August 9th: Before The Mayor, and Messrs. J. Pledge, W. Salter, G. Spurgen, and T.J. Vaughan.

Joseph Fletcher was charged with burglary at the Royal George Hotel on the previous night.

P.C. Burniston said he was in Beach Street about midnight, and saw prisoner standing near the Royal George. He said he was waiting for the boat. Later witness noticed that the window of the smoking room was pulled down about three feet. He also saw footmarks on the sill. He roused the inmates, and a lodger named Gibson found the prisoner lying on the floor near the staircase. He said he fell in, but the window was four feet from the ground. Witness took him into custody. He was sober. On the way to the police station he said “Tell my mate, Skirm, I'm pinched”.

Wm. Gibson, a seaman, lodging at the Royal George, said he found the prisoner as described by the previous witness.

Mrs. Agnes Jane Tritton said she was the licence holder of the Royal George. She remembered the prisoner being put out of her house for using bad language and breaking glass. She had not seen him for a fortnight.

Sarah Peckham, servant at the Royal George Hotel, said she examined the windows and door of the house after closing time. They were all closed, including the smoking room.

The prisoner was committed to the Quarter Sessions.

 
Folkestone Express 14 August 1897

Monday, August 9th: Before The Mayor, Aldermen Pledge, Salter and Spurgen, and T.J. Vaughan and J. Holden Esqs.

Joseph Fletcher was charged with burglary at the Royal George Hotel.

P.C. Burniston said: At twelve this morning I was on duty in Beach Street, and saw the prisoner standing outside the Royal George Hotel on the side facing the Harbour. I said to him “What are you doing here?” He replied “Waiting for the boat”. I then went away. At 12.55 I returned, and noticed that the top sash of the smoking room window was pulled down three feet. I examined the window sill and found footmarks on the sill. I got a man who was passing to watch while I aroused the inmates. I was admitted by Mr. Tritton. I went into the passage, and a man named Gibson, a lodger, called out “Here he is”. Prisoner was lying on the floor near the staircase. I said to him “What are you doing here?” He replied “I don't know”. I asked “How did you get in?” and he said “Fell in”. The window sill is 4ft. 3in. from the ground, and anyone getting in by the window would have to climb up. He was sober. On the way to the police station he said “Tell Skinner to tell my mate I'm pinched”. He was charged at the police station by Sergeant Lilley and made no reply.

William Gibson, a seaman, lodging at the Royal George, said he was awoke about one o'clock and went downstairs. On reaching the second landing, he returned to get a light, and then went down to the ground floor. The constable and Mr. Tritton went into the smoking room, while he looked along the passage, where he found the prisoner lying on the floor near the staircase. He asked prisoner what he was doing there, and he replied “How did I get here?” He was sober.

Mrs. Agnes Jane Tritton, wife of Frederick S. Tritton, said she was the licensee of the Royal George, and the property in the hotel was her separate property. She went to bed about a quarter past ten. She was disturbed about one o'clock by the barking of the dog, and afterwards heard the bell ring. She went downstairs and saw the prisoner and the constable. She saw the prisoner about a fortnight ago, when he was put out of her house for using bad language and breaking glass, but had not seen him since.

Sarah Peckham, a domestic servant at the Royal George, said after the house was closed, she examined all the windows on the ground floor, including the windows of the smoking room, and they were all closed, but she could not say whether they were fastened.

Mr. Bradley advised the Magistrates that under the Act of the last session they had power to commit persons charged with burglary to the Quarter Sessions, providing there were no special circumstances which rendered it desirable to send them to the Assizes.

Prisoner was committed for trial at the Quarter Sessions.

 
Folkestone Herald 14 August 1897

Police Court Record

On Monday Joseph Fletcher was charged with burglariously breaking and entering the Royal George public house.

It appears that about 12.30 early on that morning P.C. Burniston saw the prisoner near the side of the Royal George nearest the harbour and asked what he was doing there, and he replied “Waiting for the boat”. The constable left and passed the place again at 12.55, and he found the top sash of one of the windows had been pushed down, but on the first occasion when he saw the prisoner that window was secure. He saw footmarks on the ledge of the window, and he asked a man who was passing to watch the window, and he rang the bell. He was admitted by the landlord, Mr. Tritton.

William Gibson, a seaman, lodging at the George, heard a noise at about 1 a.m., and got up and went downstairs, and saw the prisoner, who was awake and sober, in the passage on the ground floor. Gibson asked him what he was doing there, and he said “How did I get here?” The constable came to the passage, and found the prisoner and Gibson, and said to the former “What are you doing here?”, and he replied “I don't know”. In reply to the next question, “How did you get in?”, the prisoner said “Fell in”.

Sarah Packham, a domestic servant, proved that all the windows of the ground floor were closed, but she could not say whether they were fastened.

The Bench committed the prisoner to the Quarter Sessions.

 
Folkestone Up To Date 14 August 1897

Hall Of Justice

Saturday, August 7th: Before The Mayor and Justices.

Joseph Fletcher, charged with burglary at the Royal George Hotel, was committed for trial at the Quarter Sessions.

 
Folkestone Chronicle 4 September 1897

Saturday, August 28th: Before The Mayor and Mr. W.G. Herbert.

Peter Carroll, a private in the Royal Irish Rifles, was charged with assaulting Agnes Jane Tritton on the 22nd inst.

Complainant said she was the landlady of the Royal George Hotel, and on the previous Sunday was in the passage of the hotel at 10 o'clock at night. The meter, being an automatic one, the light then went out. Witness went into the bar and called “Time”. Asd witness was locking the half-door defendant attempted to indecently assault her. She pushed him back, and his hat fell on the floor. He then hit her in the eye, which was blackened. No words passed. He then left the house, and her daughter followed. She could not see his features, but went by his dress. He was in plain clothes.

Harriett Tritton, daughter of the complainant, said she saw defendant strike her mother. She ran after him as far as the Slope, but could not catch him as he was running. The defendant was the man. Witness identified him at the Camp.

For the defence, defendant called Joseph McCray, a private in the Royal Irish Rifles, who was at the Royal George on Sunday, but was not in company with the defendant. He saw Carroll go out of the door in front of witness. He did not touch the complainant. Complainant was in a critical state. He could not say if she was drunk or sober. All the soldiers were in civilian clothing.

Defendant said he had another witness, but could not call him as he was on guard.

The case was dismissed.

 
Folkestone Express 4 September 1897

Saturday, August 28th: Before The Mayor, W.G. Herbert, and H.D. Stock Esqs.

Peter Carroll, a private in the Royal Irish Rifles, was charged with assaulting Agnes Jane Tritton on the 22nd August.

Complainant, landlady of the Royal George Hotel, said at three minutes to ten on Sunday evening she shook hands with a gentleman standing in the passage. The clock struck ten, and the lights went out, the meter being an automatic one. She called “Time”. There were five or six people in the bar, and two of them were soldiers. While she was putting the bolt on the door, the defendant put his hand up her clothes. There was no light then, but her daughter put a penny in the meter and lit the gas again. Defendant's hat was on the floor. He picked it up and then struck her in the eye and went out. Her daughter went out after him. She had seen the defendant in the house before. He was not in uniform that night. She had no doubt as to his identity.

Harriett Tritton, complainant's daughter, said she saw defendant strike her mother, and she ran after him as far as the Slope, and then lost sight of him. She identified the man at the Camp.

Defendant called Joseph McCrae, a private in the same regiment, who said defendant did not strike the complainant. The defendant and himself were in “mufti”, or civilian clothing.

The Mayor said there was a doubt in the case, and they dismissed it.

 
Folkestone Herald 4 September 1897

Police Court Report

On Saturday – before the Mayor (Alderman Banks), Mr. W.G. Herbert and Mr. H.D. Stock – Peter Carroll, a private of the Royal Irish Rifles, was charged with assaulting Agnes Jane Tritton on the 22nd.

Complainant, the landlady of the Royal George, who had a black eye, gave evidence that on Saturday night she shook hands with a gentleman in the passage, the clock struck ten, and the lights went out, the gas being by automatic meter. She went into the public bar and called “Time”, and she went through the bar to close the door. Before, she saw five or six people in the bar, two besides the prisoner were soldiers, he being in civilian's clothes. She put the bolt into half the door. A man assaulted her and her daughter came upstairs. She pushed him back, and he struck her with his fist in the eye. She believed it was the prisoner by his clothes. She had known prisoner in the house as a customer. Afterwards she went to the Camp.

Harriett Tritton, complainant's daughter, gave evidence in effect that the prisoner was one of the men in the bar. When the lights went out she went downstairs and put a penny in the meter. She saw her mother hit in the eye, and ran after the man to the Slope, where she stopped, not having overtaken him. The prisoner was the man.

The prisoner called Joseph McCray, a private of the Royal Irish Rifles, who gave evidence to the effect that he was at the Royal George, and the landlady called “Time, gentlemen”. During the time she opened the door the prisoner passed out in front of him and went straight across the road to a convenience, and afterwards down the road. Witness was with another soldier, and there were two non-commissioned officers in there, all in civilian clothes.

The Bench dismissed the prisoner, having regard to his previous very good character.

 
Folkestone Chronicle 25 September 1897

Wednesday, September 22nd: Before Messrs. J. Fitness, W.G. Herbert, C.J. Pursey, H.D. Stock, and J. Pledge.

Lily Warne Brown, a well-dressed, educated woman, was charged with stealing a silver watch and chain, the property of Agnes Mary Tritton, on the 7th inst.

Prosecutrix stated that the prisoner lodged with her at the Royal George Hotel. On the date mentioned she missed the watch and chain from a bag in the bar, and reported the matter to the police. Those produced were the articles she missed. In reply to the prisoner, she denied that she gave her the watch and chain to mind.

The prisoner called Henry Steed, who said he was a cabman. The prisoner hailed him in Sandgate Road, and he drove her first to Sandgate, and afterwards to Dover. On arrival at the latter place she said she had no money, but gave him the watch and chain to pledge. He pledged it for 8s. 6d. His fare was 12s. He redeemed the articles on Monday, and handed them that morning to P.S. Harman.

By the prisoner: She sent him a note to come and see her on Saturday, but he did not.

P.S. Harman said he arrested the prisoner that morning at 7, Harvey Street. In reply to the charge, she said “Oh, dear, what shall I do? I took the watch from a bag to take care of it for safety, as she was not fit to take care of it. I've given it to a man named Steed. I should have returned it, only he won't give it up”. He took the prisoner to Steed's stable, and he said she was the woman who gave him the watch and chain.

Prisoner, who as much overcome, said she was not guilty, but would leave the case in the hands of the Bench.

The Chairman said the Bench considered the charge proved. As it was her first offence she would be fined 20s. or 14 days. Steed paid the money.

 
Folkestone Express 25 September 1897

Wednesday, September 22nd: Before J. Fitness, W.G. Herbert, C.J. Pursey, J. Pledge, and H.D. Stock Esqs.

Lily Warne Brown was charged with stealing a silver watch and chain, value £1, the property of Agnes Jane Tritton.

Prosecutrix said the prisoner went to lodge at her house, the Royal George, on the 4th September, and had a bedroom on the first floor. On the 7th she missed a silver watch and chain from a handbag in the bar and reported the loss to the police. That morning she was shown the watch and chain by Sergeant Harman. She had had them five years, and recognised them by certain figures and marks upon them.

Prisoner: Didn't you give me the watch to take charge of? – Certainly not. I told you I had lost it.

Prisoner: You were intoxicated and don't remember. I gave it to my coachman to take charge of.

Henry Steed, of 2, St. Peter Street, fly proprietor, said he knew the prisoner. He saw her on the 11th September, when he “picked her up” in Sandgate Road. She engaged him to drive her to Sandgate, and then to Dover. She did not give him anything. When she got to Dover she gave him the watch and chain to pledge, as she had no money to pay her fare. He pledged it for 8s. 6d. He then returned to the prisoner. His fare was 12s., and he told prisoner what he had pledged the watch and chain for. He took the watch out of pawn on Monday because he did not want to leave it there. He did not give it to the prisoner afterwards, but kept it up to that morning.

By prisoner: You sent for me, and asked me to come to the Royal George to see you. I could not say the day. I have not seen you since.

Witness added that Mrs. Tritton's daughter went to see him about the watch.

P.S. Harman said he went to 7,Harvey Street at a quarter past nine that (Wednesday) morning, and there found the prisoner, and charged her with stealing the watch on the 7th from Mrs. Tritton's. She replied “Oh, dear, what shall I do? I took the watch from a bag to take care of it. I have given it to a man named Steed. I should have returned it, only he won't give it to me”. They went together to see Steed at his stables, and he identified her as the woman who gave him the watch and chain. Steed had previously given him the watch, and handed him the chain in prisoner's presence.

Prisoner pleaded Not Guilty. She said she was the widow of Dr. Warne Brown, of the American Dentist Institute. She gave the watch to the man and told him to take care of it as it belonged to “Ms”. She always called Mrs. Tritton “Ms”. She and her husband lived at the Royal George for some time. Mrs. Tritton knew all about her. Her husband died in St. Bartholomew's Hospital.

It appears that the accused has an independent income.

The Bench imposed a fine of 20s., which Steed paid. They cautioned Steed not to take articles and pawn them in that way again, or it might be a serious matter for him.

 
Folkestone Herald 25 September 1897

Police Court Report

On Wednesday – Lily Warne Brown was charged with stealing a silver watch, the property of Agnes Jane Tritton.

Prosecutrix, the landlady of the Royal George, gave evidence that the defendant was lodging at her house. She came on Saturday, 4th, and had No. 13, first floor bedroom. She missed a small silver watch and chain on the 7th. It was in a little plush handbag in the bar, where she put it on the morning of the same day. She reported the loss to the police, and that morning was shown the watch and chain by P.S. Harman, which she now identified by the number, figures inside, and the general appearance. She had the articles five years, and valued that at £1. In answer to the defendant, witness said she did not give defendant the watch to take charge of. She did not at any time give her the watch. She was not intoxicated.

Defendant said she gave it to her coachman to take care of.

Henry Steed, 2, St. Peter's Street, fly proprietor, said that he knew the defendant. On the 11th September she engaged him in Sandgate Road to drive to Sandgate. He did so, and afterwards to Dover. She did not give him anything on the way. At Dover she told him she had no money, but she expected some, and she gave him the watch and chain to take charge of as pledge for her fare. He pledged it for 8s. 6d. and reported it to the defendant. His fare was 12s. He kept the 8s. 6d. and told her what he had pledged it for. He took the watch out on the Monday. He had no money when he put it in. He kept it in his pocket till he got home, but did not give the watch to defendant afterwards. He had kept it up to that day.

In reply to defendant, witness said that on Saturday morning she wrote a note asking him to see her, but he did not go.

P.S. Harman said that from inquiries made that morning he went to 7, Harvey Street at quarter past nine and found the prisoner. He said to her “I am Sergeant Harman, of the Folkestone Police. I shall charge you with stealing a silver watch and chain from Mrs. Tritton on the 7th September from the Royal George public house”. She said “Oh, dear, what shall I do? I took the watch from a bag to take care of for safety. She was not fit to take care of it. I have given it to a man named Steed. I should have returned it, only he won't give it to me”. He took her to Steed, the last witness, at his stables, and Steed said that was the woman who gave him the watch and chain. Steed had previously given him one of the articles, and handed him the other in her presence. She was brought to the police station, but added to her statement, the charge having been read to her.

Asked whether she would elect to be dealt with summarily or sent to the Quarter Sessions, defendant at lengths said she would leave it to the Bench.

The defendant, who was crying, said that she was not guilty. It was given to her in the passage, and she took care of it. Mrs. Tritton first introduced her to Dr. Warne Brown, her husband. There were two soldiers with the prosecutrix.

The Magistrates considered the case proved, but from all they could gather this was the first offence. Instead of sending her to prison, the Bench fined her 20s., or in default 14 days' imprisonment.

The witness Steed paid the fine.

The Chairman, addressing Steed, said that before he left the Court, the Magistrates wished to say he would have to be very careful how he took things in future in this way.

 
Folkestone Express 2 October 1897

Wednesday, September 29th: Before The Mayor, Aldermen J. Pledge, W.W. Salter and G. Spurgen, J. Fitness, T.J. Vaughan, and J. Holden Esqs.

An application was made by Mrs. Tritton, of the Royal George, for an extension of time on the 1st of October. There was a club of German waiters held once a week at this hotel, and as the President was leaving, the members wished to make him a presentation, and as they could not get away from their work at the Metrpole and Wampach's until 10.30, and it was a 15 minutes' walk to the hotel, they would not be able to finish the proceedings until 11.30. He asked for half an hour's extension, but no drinks would be served after 11 o'clock.

Superintendent Taylor said he thought it appeared to be a bona fide club, and it would be no harm to grant the necessary permission.

On the payment of 5s., the application was granted.

 
Folkestone Visitors' List 13 October 1897

Quarter Sessions

Monday, October 11th: Before J.C. Lewis Coward Esq.

The first case tried was that of Joseph Fletcher, who feloniously and burglariously broke into the Royal George Inn on the night of August 9th.

As the prisoner had pleaded Guilty, and had not actually stolen anything from the house, the Recorder sentenced him to only one month's hard labour.

 
Folkestone Chronicle 16 October 1897

Quarter Sessions

Monday, October 11th: Before J.C. Lewis Coward Esq.

The Grand Jury found a true bill in the case of Joseph Fletcher, 25, labourer, who was described as of imperfect education, and who was charged with feloniously and burglariously breaking and entering the dwelling house of Agnes Jane Tritton, with intent to commit a felony therein, on the 9th August, 1897. He pleaded Guilty.

Mr. Bowles briefly went over the circumstances of the case, which were fully reported at the time.

The Recorder asked if anything was known of the prisoner, and the Superintendent said there was not.

The Recorder said the calendar was marked for a previous conviction.

The warder in charge said the prisoner had admitted the conviction at the prison. He could not prove it.

The Superintendent said he knew nothing about it, and Mr. Bowles said he had no instructions as to it.

The Recorder said he could not decipher the signature of the gentleman on the calendar.

After some time it was decided to be “C. Eardley Wilmot”, although the Recorder remarked that no-one could have read it as such.

As the conviction had not been properly proved he should decline to consider it.

The prisoner said he had been working at the boats. The night of the 8th August was very stormy, and, as he was not employed, he wanted shelter. As he could not get it at his lodgings, he entered the room, which was only a “sing song” room, with nothing in it. He had no intention of stealing. He had been in the habit of coming to Folkestone for ten years. He had been in the Royal Navy, and he had never previously been in a Police Court.

The Recorder, addressing the prisoner, said he had pleaded Guilty to a serious crime, but, taking into consideration that he had been in prison for nine weeks, and entirely ignoring the previous conviction, he would sentence him to hard labour for one calendar month.

 
Folkestone Express 16 October 1897

Quarter Sessions

Monday, October 11th: Before J.C. Lewis Coward Esq.

The Grand Jury returned a true bill against Robert Fletcher, who was committed for burglary at the Royal George Hotel. The prisoner pleaded Guilty.

Mr. Bowles prosecuted, and briefly related the facts of the case, which were that P.C. Burniston saw the prisoner outside the hotel, and soon afterwards missed him, but noticed that one of the windows was open. He aroused the inmates, and prisoner was found in the passage.

The Recorder said there was no evidence of felonious intent. He supposed that must be presumed. He asked what was known about him.

Superintendent Taylor said nothing.

The Recorder's calendar was marked with a previous conviction.

The warder said the prisoner had been asked at Canterbury prison and admitted it.

The Recorder said he could not admit a record of prisoner's conviction to be proved in that way. “I certify that the above is true to the best of my knowledge and belief.” He asked who signed it.

The warder said he supposed it was one of the clerks, but it was subsequently found out to be “Eardley Wilmot”.

Superintendent Taylor said the prisoner had been working at night on the night boats.

Prisoner said he had been employed off and on in Folkestone for ten years, and it was the first time he had been in a police court in his life. He had been in the navy. He did not go into the house to commit a burglary.

The Recorder said there was a previous conviction against the prisoner, but it was not properly proved in Court, and therefore he must dismiss it. Prisoner would be sentenced to one month's hard labour.

 
Folkestone Herald 16 October 1897

Quarter Sessions

Monday, October 11th: Before J.C. Lewis Coward Esq.

Joseph Fletcher, aged 25, a labourer, of imperfect education, was indicted for feloniously and burglariously breaking and entering the dwelling house of Agnes Jane Tritton, with intent to commit a felony therein, on the 9th August. Accused pleaded Guilty.

Mr. Bowles appeared for the prosecution.

It will be remembered that on the night of the 8th August P.C. Burniston was passing the Royal George and noticed the prisoner standing against the wall. In answer to the constable, the prisoner said he was waiting for a fruit boat. As the constable came back on his beat half an hour later he saw the smoking room window was opened about 3 feet, and some footmarks. He rang up the people of the house, put someone to watch, and found prisoner lying in the passage on the floor. When spoken to he said he fell in. The window was over four feet from the ground, and the maid at the hotel said that all the windows were shut when she went to bed.

There was a previous conviction marked on the Recorder's sheet, but it was not proved in Court.

Superintendent Taylor stated that the prisoner had been employed by the hour.

The prisoner said that he had been working on the fruit boats at nights. He was down on the 8th August; he did not get on. That night it was stormy, and when he could not get in his lodgings, the window was open, and he thought he would go in for the night. He thought it was a sing-song room. He had no intention of stealing. It was the first time he was in a police court in his life.

In reply to the Recorder, he said he had been in the Navy.

The Recorder said that he had pleaded Guilty to burglary. There was a previous conviction against him, but that he would not take into consideration. It had not been proved. They must be properly proved in Court. He gave him the benefit of that doubt. He had been in gaol since the 9th August. He ordered him to be imprisoned with hard labour for one calendar month.

 
Folkestone Chronicle 20 November 1897

Monday, November 15th: Before Messrs. Wightwick and W.G. Herbert.

Charles Butler and Robert Johnson, privates in the 3rd Hussars, were charged with stealing two umbrellas, value 25s., from the Royal George Hotel, the property of Agnes Jane Tritton, on November 13th.

P.C. Scott said he saw the prisoners in High Street, Sandgate, on Saturday night with the umbrellas. They said they took them from the Royal George. He arrested them.

Prosecutrix said she knew the prisoners as customers. She did not miss the articles until the police came to her on Saturday morning. They were in the bar.

An officer of the regiment said that Butler bore a good character and had two good conduct stripes. He was witness's groom, and had behaved well during the six years he had been in the regiment. Johnson had an indifferent character, and had served only four months.

The Bench inflicted a fine of £1 each, or 14 days'.

The officer paid Butler's fine.

 
Folkestone Express 20 November 1897

Friday, November 12th: Before The Mayor, Alderman Banks, W. Wightwick, and W.G. Herbert Esqs.

Charles Butler and Robert Johnson, of the 3rd Hussars, were charged with stealing two umbrellas from the Royal George on the 13th inst.

P.C. Scott said he was on duty in High Street, Sandgate, at 11.55 on Saturday night, when he heard the sound of broken glass. He went in the direction of the sound, and saw prisoners walking down the road. Seeing that a window pane was broken, he said “You have broken the window”, and they answered “We did it accidentally, and will pay for the damage”. He then saw they were carrying two umbrellas, and asked them where they got them. One of them said “I got this from the Royal George”, and the other “I picked it up in the road”. He took the into custody with the aid of the military police, and when charged they made no reply.

Mrs. Tritton, landlady of the Royal George, said she saw one of the prisoners in the bar passage on Saturday night. The umbrellas were kept in the passage behind the bar. She last saw them there on Friday evening, and did not miss them until the constable called her up at half past two on Sunday morning. Both of the prisoners were customers. She identified the umbrellas as her property, and valued them at 25s. to 30s.

An officer of the 3rd Hussars said that Butler had been in the army six years. He had been his groom for a time, and had done his duty well. He bore a very good character in the regiment. Johnson bore only an indifferent character, and had served but four months.

Prisoners said the only took them for a “lark” and intended returning them the next evening.

The Bench fined them £1, and in default 14 days' hard labour. Butler's fine was paid.

 
Folkestone Herald 20 November 1897

Police Court Record

by the Bench.

Two Hussars, named Charles Butler and Robert Johnson were charged with stealing two umbrellas from the Royal George public house.

P.C. Scott deposed that while in Sandgate near the Royal Oak on Saturday night, 13th, shortly before midnight, he saw the two defendants, in company with another soldier, go down the street. Afterwards hearing a smash, he found a square of glass broken at the cottage, and he stopped the defendants further down. He saw each was carrying one of the umbrellas produced. He asked where they got the umbrellas from, and one said “I took it from the Royal George”, but the other said he found it in the road. They were brought to the police station with the assistance of the Military Police. They were sober.

The landlady of the Royal George, Agnes Jane Tritton, deposed that of the two umbrellas, one was hers and the other her daughter's. She last saw them on Friday evening in the passage. They were kept in a corner. The police communicated with her on Sunday, before which she did not miss them. She had seen the defendants as customers. On Saturday night she saw Butler in the bar and in the passage, and there were other Hussars in the bar. She could not swear the other defendant was there. There was a window from the bar into the passage, which they used as a bar.

The defendants' defence was that they took the umbrellas for a lark, and they would be brought back another night.

An officer informed the Bench that Butler had been in the regiment six years, had two good conduct badges, and a very good character, but Johnson had four months' service in the regiment, and had a bad character.

Fined £1, and in default 14 days'.

 
Folkestone Herald 31 December 1898

Police Court Report

On Tuesday morning last, before a full bench of Magistrates, William John Atkinson was charged with stealing a towel and other articles, value 6s.

Agnes Jane Tritton, the landlady of the Royal George, deposed that the defendant was not often a customer in the house, but she saw him on the afternoon in question. He gave her a water bottle, and she accused him of having a towel in his pocket. Defendant denied it, and said the towel was his own. Witness asked him to show it, and he took the towel out. She opened it and found five plated forks and a spoon. Witness ordered him out of the house, and followed to the Fishmarket. She sent for a constable and gave him in charge. Witness valued the articles at 6s.

The defendant pleaded Guilty and expressed his sorrow.

Fined £1, or 14 days' hard labour.

 
Folkestone Chronicle 21 January 1899

Wednesday, January 18th: Before Messrs. Willoughby Carter, Pledge, Vaughan and Holden.

Licence Transfer

The Royal George Hotel, from Mrs. Agnes Jane Tritton to Mr. George Kirby.


 
Folkestone Express 21 January 1899

Monday, January 16th: Before The Mayor, Captain Carter, T.J. Vaughan, J. Pledge, and J. Holden Esqs.

Arthur Victor Boxer and Clifford Thomas Ashley, two youths, were charged with stealing a quantity of lead, the property of Mr. F.S. Tritton.

Frederick Herbert Tritton, a lad, living at Garden Cottages, Chapel Street, Sandgate, identified the lead as the property of his father. He saw it on Friday in a shed in Beach Street, opposite the Royal George. He fastened the shed up on Fiday, but on going on Saturday morning he found that the lock lad been broken off. He missed six pewter pots and three teapots, and a lead washing basin. He knew the prisoners, and saw them on Friday in Warner's cookshop.

Albert Austin, who said he assisted his father, a marine store dealer, said that the prisoners went on Saturday morning to the store in Mill Bay to sell the lead produced. He asked them where they got it, and they said along the shore. He bought the lead for 1s. 1d. It weighed 16lbs. His father had told him not to buy anything from boys, but he thought that was all right.

Prisoners elected to be tried summarily, and pleaded Guilty.

Mr. Hill, police court missionary, said he would communicate with the Church Army to see if they would receive the lads in the labour home if the Bench would remand them.

Supt. Taylor said nothing was known about the boys, and they were remanded until Wednesday.

Wednesday, January 18th: Before Capt. Carter, James Pledge, John Holden, and T.J. Vaughan Esqs.

The licence of the Royal George Hotel was transferred to Mr. George Kirby, who held temporary authority.

The two lads, Ashley and Boxer, were brought up on remand. Mr. Hill said the Church Army had consented to receive them into the home at Brighton. They were then bound over to come up for judgement if called on, then discharged.

Boxer's father, who was bound over to produce him when called on, objected to his son going to the home, but was told the Magistrates would not alter their decision.

 
Folkestone Herald 21 January 1899

Folkestone Police Court

Two youths named Arthur Victor Boxer and Clement Thomas Ashley were charged with stealing a quantity of lead on the 14th January from a shed in Beach Street.

Frederick Arthur Tritton, son of Frederick Spencer Tritton, of Chapel Street, Sandgate, deposed that the lead produced was his father's property. On Friday last he saw it safe. The shed was opposite the Royal George. He went to the shed and saw a lead washing basin. It was whole. He left and fastened the door, locking it. On Saturday morning he again went to the shed, finding the chain on the link, and the lock broken off. He found several articles missing. He knew the defendants. He had seen them on Friday in a cook-shop.

Albert Austin, assistant to his father at the marine store, deposed that he knew the defendants. They came to the store, which was in Mill Bay, to sell some lead. He identified the lead produced as that they brought with them. He asked where they got it from. They said along the shore. The weight was 16lbs. Boxer was carrying it.

One of the defendants said he was sorry for what he had done; it would be the last time.

The Bench granted a remand until Wednesday, to enable Mr. owland Hill, C.E.T.S. Missionary, to ascertain if the boys could be taken into a home.

 
Folkestone Herald 21 January 1899

Folkestone Police Court

On Wednesday last transfer was granted to the following: Mr. George Kirby, Royal George.

The case of the youths Ashley and Boxer was again before the Bench, and Mr. Rowland Hill, of the C.E.T.S., undertook to find the boys a home. The Bench allowed this course to be taken, and the boys and Boxer's father were bound over.

 
Folkestone Up To Date 21 January 1899

Monday, January 16th: Before The Mayor, J. Pledge, Willoughby Carter, J. Holden, and T.J. Vaughan Esqs.

Clifford Thomas Ashley and Arthur Victor Boxer, two young men, were charged with stealing 16lb. of lead, the property of Frederick Spencer Tritton, late proprietor of the Royal George Hotel. Both prisoners pleaded Guilty.

It appeared from the evidence for the prosecution that a lead basin was left safe in a shed at the Royal George on the previous Friday, and was found missing afterwards. Amongst other property also missed were some tea pots.

Albert Austin said: I am a labourer, and assist my father, who is a marine store dealer. I know the defendants. They came into my father's store on Saturday last, in the morning. They brought some lead with them. One of them said they had found it along the shore. They asked 1s. 1d. for it. I gave that amount to them. The weight of the lead was 16lb.

Cross-examined by Boxer: I asked you where you got the lead from, and you said along the foreshore.

Mr. Rowland Hill, police court missionary, said that if the prisoners would try to lead a better life he would try to get them into a London Home.

The prisoners were remanded until Wednesday, Mr. Hill promising to inquire in London.

 
Folkestone Up To Date 21 January 1899

Wednesday, January 18th: Before Captain Willoughby Carter, J. Pledge, J. Holden, and T.J. Vaughan Esqs.

Transfer was granted for the Royal George to Mr. G. Kirby, formerly of the Chequers.

The Chairman said the Royal George had not been kept very well in the past, and he was cautioned, as the new landlord, to keep it better for the future.

Two young men named Ashley and Boxer were brought up on remand upon a charge of stealing a quantity of lead, the property of Mr. Tritton, from a shed at the Royal George Hotel, and were ordered to be sent in charge of the police court missionary (Mr. Rowland Hill) to the Church Army Labour Home at Brighton.

The Magistrates's Clerk said the defendants were liable to a penalty of £20, in default three months' imprisonment, so the Bench had adopted a very lenient course.

Boxer's father entered into a surety of £5 for his son's appearance for judgement, if he should be called upon.

 
Folkestone Express 11 February 1899

Saturday, February 4th: Before The Mayor, J. Banks, W.G. Herbert, and J. Fitness Esqs.

A few days ago two boys, named Boxer and Ashley, who were charged with petty theft, were sent to a Church Home at Brighton, after entering into their own recognisances to come up for judgement if called upon.

Mr. Hill now presented to the Magistrates letters he had received. One, from Ashley, was full of gratitude for the kindness he received. The other, from the manager, was to the effect that Boxer had left the home at the instigation of his father.

It was decided to summon the father, who was bound in the sum of £5 to produce his son when called on.

Wednesday, February 8th: Before J. Fitness, C.J. Pursey and W. Wightwick Esqs.

John Boxer was summoned to show cause why the recognisance of £5 he entered into a fortnight ago for the good behaviour of his son should not be estreated.

The boy, it will be remembered, was convicted with another lad named Ashley of stealing a quantity of old lead, and was sent to the Church Army Home at Brighton. He had since left at the instigation of his father.

Defendant commenced an explanation, but the Bench said the matter was fully explained to him at the time he entered into his recognisance, and there was no excuse. He was given distinctly to understand that the boy was to g into a home and remain there.

It transpired that defendant's wife was prosecuted some years ago for keeping a brothel, and he was now living in adultery with a married woman.

Mr. Bradley asked the defendant if that was a proper place for the boy to come to. He ought to be ashamed of himself. Te boy ought to return to the home immediately.

The Chairman asked the boy why he left the Home, and he replied that he did not care for it. He did not care to stop in a place where his back and head were always aching.

The Chairman: Boys are sometimes sent there in order that their backs should ache.

The lad said he would return to the Home and stay there, and Mr. Rowland Hill undertook to make the necessary arrangements.

The Chairman told the lad that the Bench could send him to prison for three months with hard labour, but if he would go back to the Home and remain there nothing more would come of it. Addressing defendant he said “Don't you interfere or you will get into trouble”.

The summons against defendant was adjourned sine die.

 
Folkestone Up To Date 18 February 1899

Wednesday, February 15th: Before The Mayor, Caprain Willoughby Carter, J. Hoad, J. Pledge, G. Spurgen, J. Holden, J. Fitness, T.J. Vaughan, J. Stainer and W. Medhurst Esqs., and Col. Westropp.

Mr. Kirby applied for an hour's extension for the dinner of a Folkestone Sick and Dividend Society at the Royal George on the following evening.

The application was granted.

 
Folkestone Express 22 April 1899

Saturday, April 15th: Before J. Holden, J. Stainer, T.J. Vaughan, and J. Pledge Esqs.

Mr. Kirby applied for an occasional licence for a smoking concert at the Town Hall on Monday evening in connection with the Gardeners' Society.

 
Folkestone Up To Date 3 June 1899

Saturday, May 27th: Before Col. Hamilton and J. Stainer Esq.

Mr. G. Kirby applied for an occasional licence for a smoking concert to be held on the following Thursday. The application was granted.

Folkestone Express 21 July 1900

Robert Duncan was charged on Thursday with stealing an Arabian cover, valued at 1s. 6d.

P.C. Thomas W. Allen deposed that about 10.20 p.m. on Wednesday he was standing near the Wonder Tavern in company with Sergt. Lawrence, when the prosecutor went up to him and said “I have had a cover stolen in the Royal George”. He pointed out to witness prisoner, who was leaving the Royal George, and when prisoner saw the constable he ran away, but witness followed, and near Beach Street he threw something away. He was caught and taken back, and witness saw the cushion cover produced. On the way to the police station prisoner told witness that “he only did it for a joke”. He was sober.

When prosecutor was asked if he wanted to press the charge, he answered “If you wish to give him a chance you can do as you like”.

The accused was discharged, and undertook to recompense the prosecutor.

 
Folkestone Express 4 May 1901

Wednesday, May 1st: Before J. Fitness, W.G. Herbert, W. Wightwick, C.J. Pursey, and G.I. Swoffer Esqs.

Mr. George Kirby, of the Royal George Hotel, was granted an extension of time on the occasion of the annual club dinner on Thursday evening.


 
Folkestone Express 31 January 1903

Saturday, January 24th: Before Aldermen Penfold and Vaughan, Lieut. Colonel Westropp, G. Peden and W.C. Carpenter Esqs.

Frederick Thomas Clark and John Keeling, aged 9 and 10 years respectively, were charged with stealing a contribution box from the Royal George Hotel.

George Kirby, proprietor of the Royal George Hotel, said he had a contribution box for the Waifs and Strays Fund standing on his saloon bar counter. The previous afternoon a boy named Mott gave him certain information, in consequence of which he looked for the box and found it was missing, and therefore accompanied him to 7, Norris Place, where he saw the boy Clark. When questioned by witness, Clark admitted stealing the box the previous evening and dividing the contents amongst several boys, and afterwards throwing the box among the shrubs at the Pavilion. He particularly named a boy Keeling as one of his accomplices.

Arthur George Mott, aged 11 years, said on Thursday afternoon he saw some boys near the Royal George. Clark said he was going to get some money. He then went in the bar while Keeling stood at the door, witness waiting outside. The boys then hid the box on a collier. On Friday afternoon he saw Keeling at the Dover Road Board School, and he then informed witness the box contained 3s. 9d.

Charles George Sheppard, steward at the Masonic Hall, said on Friday the 22nd inst. he missed a box containing chessmen from the club smoking room. In the evening he was shown some chessmen by Detective Burniston, which he identified as the missing set. They were valued at about 15s.

Detective Burniston said the previous evening, from information received, he went to the Pavilion Hotel, and among some bushes in the garden found the broken box produced. Witness then proceeded to Norris Place, where he saw the prisoner Clark and told him he would be charged with being concerned in stealing a contribution box. He said “I took the box and Keeling and Mott waited outside”. He then went to 52, The Bayle, and saw Keeling. He said Clark took the box and they broke it open and shared the money. When charged at the police station both boys said the box contained 3s. Clark then made a voluntary statement in the presence of Keeling to the following effect:- I and Keeling went into a house opposite the Wesleyan Chapel and took a box filled with chess. Clark said they were in his bedroom, where they were subsequently found. They were then identified by the witness Sheppard. When searched, Clark was found to have a pocket knife in his possession.

Clark's father stated that the boy went to school when he took him. He had continually to hunt the streets for him, and he had slept out three times since Christmas.

Keeling's father said only the previous Monday he had sent the lad to school, but saw nothing of him until a policeman brought him home at four o'clock on Wednesday morning. He was before the Bench two weeks previously for stealing a sledge.

The Superintendent said the knife found in Clark's possession had been identified that morning as stolen property.

The Bench sentenced Clark to 12 strokes of the birch (six for each offence), and Keeling to eight strokes.

 
Folkestone Herald 31 January 1903

Saturday, January 24th: Before Alderman Penfold, Alderman Spurgen, Councillor Peden, Lieut. Colonel Westropp, and Mr. Carpenter.

Frederick Thomas Clark, aged 9 years, and John Keeling, aged ten years, were summoned for stealing a contribution box from the Royal George Hotel, and also a box of chessmen from the Masonic Club.

George King (sic), landlord of the George Hotel, identified the contribution box produced as one which he missed from his counter. In consequence of a communication from a boy named Mott, witness saw Clark, who said that the box was broken open and the money shared between several boys, and the box thrown away among the flowers at the Pavilion Hotel. Witness estimated that there was between 5s. and 6s. in the box.

Arthur George Mott said that Clark went into the George Hotel on Thursday evening, while Keeling stood at the door and witness stood outside. Clark and Keeling went off with the box, and hid it on a collier at the harbour, but later in the evening witness saw defendants near the Pavilion Hotel. At Dover Road Board School, Keeling told him the box contained 3s. 9d.

Charles George Sheffer, Steward of the Masonic Club, identified the chessmen as the property o the Club. He last saw them in the Smoking Room of the Club about a fortnight ago.

P.C. Burniston deposed that he found the box in the grounds at the Pavilion Hotel. When he charged Clark, he said “I took the box while Keeling and Mott waited outside. We went to the Pavilion Hotel and broke open the box and shared the money”. Witness charged Keeling, who made a similar statement. Later on both said the box contained 3s. When at the police station Clark said that he hid the chessmen in his bedroom. Witness went to his house, and Clark's father handed him over the chessmen.

Both defendants pleaded Guilty to the first offence, and Clark also to the second. The fathers said the boys had been a great trouble to them.

The Bench sentenced Clark to receive twelve strokes of the birch rod, and Keeling to receive eight strokes.

 
Folkestone Express 27 February 1904

Monday, February 22nd: Before E.T. Ward Esq., Lieut Col. Westropp, and Lieut. Col. Fynmore.

Arthur Thomas Priest, a private of the York and Lancashire Regiment, was charged with being drunk and disorderly outside the Royal George Hotel on Saturday evening. Prisoner pleaded Guilty.

P.C. Wood proved the case.

An officer of the regiment said the prisoner bore a very good character.

The Bench imposed a fine of 2s. 6d. with 4s. 6d. costs, or seven days' hard labour.

The money was paid.

 
Folkestone Express 31 March 1906

Wednesday, March 28th: Before The Mayor, J. Stainer, G.I. Swoffer, and R.J. Linton Esqs.

Victor Whitworth Uniacke was charged with being drunk and incapable the previous night.

P.C. Ashby said at 6.45 the previous evening he was on duty in Beach Street, when he saw the prisoner, very drunk, reel from Harbour Street into Beach Street. He went into the Royal George Hotel, and witness followed him, afterwards taking him into custody.

Prisoner said he was very sorry. He was certainly the worse for liquor, but had been in bad health of late, and very little liquor affected him.

Fined 2s. 6d. and 4s. 6d. costs, or in default seven days' hard labour.

 
Folkestone Express 24 November 1906

Wednesday, November 21st: Before W.G. Herbert Esq., Lieut. Colonel Fynmore, and T. Ames Esq.

Thomas E. Powell, landlord of the Black Bull Hotel, was summoned for a breach of the Licensing Act. Mr. De Wet, instructed by the Licensed Victuallers' Association, appeared on behalf of the defendant, and pleaded Not Guilty.

George Kirby, landlord of the Royal George, was also summoned for being found on licensed premises – the Black Bull Hotel – during prohibited hours.

The Chief Constable said he was willing to take both cases together, but he understood Mr. De Wet objected.

Mr. De Wet objected to the summons, but the Magistrates overruled the objection.

Inspector Swift said about a quarter past eleven on the night of the 12th inst., accompanied by P.C. Cox, he was in Canterbury Road, opposite the Black Bull Hotel. He saw outside the public house a fly, in charge of Mr. Challis. Challis looked towards them, and then went into the porch which leads into the bar. He returned immediately with a man named George Brien, a butcher, of Black Bull Road. A few minutes later, Mr. Kirby, of the Royal George, followed. They stood talking some few seconds. Then Mr. Kirby came to where witness was standing. He reeled round and made some remark about the weather. Witness saw he was drunk. He returned to the house and went in. Witness, accompanied by Cox, went to the house. As they were going Challis entered the porch. He came out immediately. On witness arriving at the door he saw a man named Richard Hart, of Black Bull Road, in the porch. Witness went into the bar, and there saw Mr. Kirby with the barman, who was under the influence of drink. Mr. Kirby was leaning on the counter, drinking from a glass containing ale. Witness said to the barman, William Anderson, “What's the meaning of this?” He replied “I have just come up from the music hall with a friend. You haven't seen any money passed, have you?” On witness turning to the clock in the bar, which was pointing to twenty minutes past eleven, Mr. Kirby said “It is now twenty past eleven”. Anderson said “Yes, twenty past”. Witness asked for the landlord, and Anderson said he was in bed, and witness could not see him that night. Witness said he should make a report against him in respect to that matter, and also against Mr, Kirby. Mr. Kirby said he was a licensed victualler, and knew as much of the law as witness. Witness asked the barman for his name and he said “William Sandy”. Witness had since found it to be Anderson. Witness then left the bar, and Anderson and Kirby followed him out. Kirby said he hoped he was satisfied with his explanation and there would be no report, and pressed him to go and look at the Blue Book. Witness said he should report them. Kirby became abusive and requested witness to take all their names. Kirby subsequently drove away.

Examined by the Chief Constable, witness said he was quite sure about the time. It was between half past eleven and five and twenty minutes to twelve when Kirby drove away.

Cross-examined: He did not see the fly drive up. It was 11.15 approximately. Mr. Kirby did not say he was a guest of the landlord. He did not know “Sandy” was the nickname of Anderson.

P.C. Cox said on the night in question he met Inspector Swift at the bottom of Marshall Street. It was exactly a quarter past eleven. It was about one hundred yards from the Black Bull. The remainedr of the constable's evidence was corroborative of Inspector Swift's evidence.

This concluded the case for the prosecution.

Thomas Edward Powell said he was the licence holder of the Black Bull Hotel. Sometimes he slept at the hotel and sometimes in London. Anderson was witness's son-in-law and manager of the hotel. He knew Mr. Kirby; he was a friend of his.

George Kirby said he was the licence holder of the Royal George. On the 12th November, about eleven o'clock, he was at the Royal George with Mr. Anderson. Anderson asked him to come to the Black Bull to have supper. They called a cab, and were driven up there by Mr. Challis. When they got there the door was shut. They saw Mrs. Anderson, who opened the door, and a barman. Mrs. Anderson asked him to stay to supper. Witness went out to the cabman to tell him to stay a few minutes. He then went over to the policemen to show them who was there. When he went back he did not have any drink. When the Inspector came in he asked the meaning of it and said he should have to report it. He asked witness what he was doing there, and he (witness) said he was the guest of the landlord. Witness went out and asked for the constable's number. The Inspector subsequently gave it to witness. The police then went away. Witness was a friend of Mr. Powell.

Cross-examined: He was perfectly sober. He agreed with the evidence of the police as to going in, and coming out of the house for the constable's number. He did not have a glass of anything while the constables were there. He had a drink when the police were gone. There were some glasses on the counter.

Mark Challis, a fly proprietor, said he drove Mr. Kirby and Mr. Anderson on the 12th November from the Royal George to the Black Bull Hotel. Mr. Kirby was in there about twenty minutes. Witness did not go inside the Black Bull.

Mr. Anderson said he was son-in-law of the Black Bull Hotel and manager of the house. On the night in question, at a few minutes before eleven, he was in the Royal George. He invited Kirby to supper. When they arrived at the Black Bull the door was closed, and they rang the bell. Mrs. Anderson opened the door. When they got inside there was no-one in there except Mrs. Anderson and the barman. He did not see any drink served. He did not see Kirby drink any beer that had been left by anyone else. There was no drink consumed or sold on the premises after eleven o'clock.

Cross-examined: He and Mr. Kirby had been to a licensed victuallers' meeting at Hythe. They drove from Hythe to the Royal George.

Mr. De Wet then addressed the Bench. He said, to convict, the Magistrates must be satisfied that the premises were kept open so that people could get inside for the purpose of obtaining intoxicating liquors.

The Chairman, after a consultation with the other Magistrates, said they fully believed the evidence of the police, but at the same time they were of opinion there was not sufficient evidence to warrant a conviction. Therefore they were bound to give defendant the benefit of the doubt.

The Chief Constable thereupon withdrew the summons against Mr. Kirby.

Mr. De Wet asked that the summons should be dismissed.

The Magistrates said the summons was withdrawn.

 
Folkestone Herald 24 November 1906

Wednesday, November 21st: Before Alderman W.G. Herbert, Mr. T. Ames, and Councillor R.J. Fynmore.

Thomas E. Powell, landlord of the Black Bull Hotel, was summoned for keeping his house open during prohibited hours. Mr. De Wet, at the instance of the Licensed Victuallers' Association, represented defendant, and pleaded Not Guilty.

Inspector Swift said that at 11.15 on the 12th inst., accompanied by P.C. Cox, he was in Canterbury Road, opposite the Black Bull. Outside the public house he saw a horse and fly, in the charge of Mr. Challis. Challis looked towards them, and then went into the porch which led into the bar, returning immediately with a man named George Bryan, a butcher, of Black Bull Road. In four or five seconds Mr. Kirby (of the Royal George, Beach Street) came out. The three stood talking together for some seconds, when Kirby came over to where he (witness) was standing, reeled round, and made some remark about the weather. He saw that Kirby was drunk. Kirby returned to the house and re-entered. He accompanied P.C. Cox to the house, and on going towards it Challis entered the porch again and came out immediately. On arriving at the door he (witness) saw a man named Hart step into the porch from the public house door. He (witness) went into the bar, and there saw Mr. Kirby with the barman, who was drunk. Kirby was leaning on the counter drinking from a glass containing ale. He (witness) said to the barman (Mr. Anderson) “What is the meaning of this?” He replied “I have just come up from the Music Hall with a friend. You have not seen any money pass, have you?” On pointing to the clock in the bar, Kirby said “It is now twenty minutes past eleven”. Anderson said “Yes, twenty past”. He (witness) said “Where is the landlord?” Anderson said “He is in bed. You cannot see him tonight”. He (witness) said “I shall lay a report against him in respect to this matter, and also against you, Mr. Kirby”. Kirby said “I am a licensed victualler, and I know as much of the law as you do”. He asked the barman for his correct name, and he said “William Sandy”. He had since ascertained that the name given was a false one, and that the barman's name was Anderson. He (witness) left the bar, and Anderson and Kirby followed him out. Anderson said “I hope you are satisfied with my explanation, and there will be no report”, and pressed him to do back indoors and look at the blue book. He said he should report things as he had found them. Kirby then became abusive, and catching hold of his arm, said “I demand you to come back and take all”. On witness threatening to lock him up, Kirby desisted.

Examined by the Chief Constable, Inspector Swift said it was in the public bar that he saw Kirby. Kirby went away in the fly between half past eleven and twenty five minutes to twelve.

Mr. De Wet: Was it not the private bar where Mr. Kirby was? – No, the public bar. There are no private bars in public houses.

Mr. De Wet: Don't quibble with words, Inspector. Are there not public house doors marked “Private” and “Bottle and Jug Department”? – Yes, that is a notion of the trade.

Mr. De Wet: Was this bar marked “Private”? – No, I think it was marked “Saloon Bar”.

Further cross-examined: Kirby asked the constable for his number. He did not know that Anderson's nickname was Sandy.

P.C. Cox gave corroborative evidence.

Defendant deposed that he was landlord of the Black Bull Hotel. Anderson, his son-in-law, was manager of the hotel, and was in complete control.

Mr. Kirby stated that at 11 o'clock on the night of the 12th November, he drove from the Royal George, Beach street, to the Black Bull, with Mr. Anderson, who had invited him home to supper. They arrived at the Black Bull about 11.10, and Anderson rang the bell. The door was opened by Mrs. Anderson, and inside the hotel he also saw the barman. He went out to tell the cabman to wait a minute, and seeing the policemen on the other side of the road, he went across and made a remark about the weather, thinking they would then see who it was in the hotel. He went inside again, and soon Inspector Swift entered, and said he should report the matter. He had no drink in the house while the Inspector was there.

Cross-examined by the Chief Constable, witness said he was perfectly sober. He had some drink after the Inspector left the premises. He would solemnly swear that when the Inspector went in he had not a glass of drink in his hand at all.

Mr. Challis deposed to driving Kirby and Anderson to the Black Bull.

Mr. Anderson also gave evidence, repeating the statement as to Kirby having no drink while the Inspector was there.

The Chief Constable: Do you think Inspector Swift and P.C. Cox have gone into the box and sworn what they know to be flase? – Yes.

That is your candid opinion? – Yes.

Mr. De Wet contended that no offence had been committed, Mr. Kirby being in the house as the guest of the manager.

The Bench having deliberated for a minute or two, Alderman Herbert said they fully believed the evidence of the police, but they felt that there was not sufficient evidence to secure a conviction. Therefore they would give defendant the benefit of the doubt, and dismiss the case.

A summons had been issued against George Kirby for being found on licensed premises during prohibited hours, but this the Chief Inspector wished to withdraw.

Mr. De Wet asked that the latter summons should also be dismissed, but the Bench refused his application, and allowed the Chief Inspector to withdraw it.

 
Folkestone Daily News 8 April 1908

Wednesday, April 8th: Before Messrs. Ward, Fynmore, Wood, and Leggett.

George Robert Clark was summoned for being drunk on licensed premises. He pleaded Not Guilty.

P.C. Sales said he saw the defendant in Beach Street, very drunk. He went into the Wellington, and also into the Royal George. Witness followed him, and told him he should report him for being drunk on licensed premises.

P.C. Styles corroborated.

Defendant said he never went into the Wellington, nor into the Princess Royal, and when he went into the Royal George they served him.

He was fined 5s. and 10s. costs, or seven days'.

 
Folkestone Express 10 September 1910

Local News

News has just reached Folkestone of the sad death of Fred Tritton, a native of the town, and son of the late Mr. F. Tritton, who some years ago was the landlord of the Royal George Hotel, Seagate Street. Young Tritton, who was with the Royal Irish Regiment, Kailana Camp, Chakrata, India, was cruelly murdered by one of his comrades on August 7th. It appears that the previous night the two had had a few words, and when the ammunition was served out the following morning, Tritton's comrade loaded his rifle and deliberately shot him dead on the spot. The unfortunate young fellow, whose father has only been dead a few weeks, was well known in the town and respected by a large circle of friends. The greatest sympathy is felt with the members of his family, and especially so by reason of such a dastardly act being responsible for his death.

 
Folkestone Daily News 17 July 1912

Monday, July 15th: Before Messrs. Swoffer and Boyd.

Michael O'Brien, a powerful, rough-looking man, pleaded Not guilty to breaking a plate glass window, value 50s., at the Royal George on Saturday night.

William Milton, a fisherman, residing at 32, Peter Street, said on Saturday about 6.30 he was near the Royal George, when he saw prisoner approach carrying a hand barrow. The prisoner deliberately thrust the hand barrow through the window of the Royal George, and then (apparently addressing the landlord) said “That's what I'll do for you, you ----“. Mr. Kirby, the landlord, came out and said “Who did that?” and witness pointed out the prisoner. A policeman came up and took prisoner into custody. Prisoner was not right down drunk, and he was not sober.

Mr. G. Kirby, the landlord of the Royal George Hotel, said about 6.30 on Saturday evening he was in the public bar, and hearing a smash he went outside, and the last witness said “That chap did that”. Witness had ejected the prisoner from the bar a few minutes previously for misconduct.

P.C. Stevens deposed to arresting the prisoner. Witness said to him “Why did you break the window?”, and prisoner said something about being ejected. Prisoner was not sober, but not very drunk.

Prisoner did not ask any questions, but said he did not blame the landlord for not serving him. Mr. Kirby handled him like a sack of sawdust. He retaliated, but did not remember breaking the window. If he did, he was very sorry.

Prisoner was sentenced to one month's hard labour without the option.

 
Folkestone Express 20 July 1912

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

Michael O'Brien was charged with wilfully damaging a window to the extent of 50s. on Saturday.

William Milton, of 32, Peter Street, a fisherman, said on Saturday at 6.30 he was near the Royal George Hotel, and saw the prisoner carrying a handbarrow. When near the hotel, witness heard a blow and a smash of glass, and saw prisoner coming away. He said to someone “That's what I'll do for you”. He did not know who he was addressing. No-one else was near. The landlord came out and asked who broke the window, and he pointed prisoner out to Mr. Kirby. A policeman came up and prisoner was given into custody. Prisoner was not sober.

Mr. George Kirby, the landlord of the George Hotel, said he was in the public bar at 6.30 on Saturday evening and heard a crash. He did not realise for the moment that the window was broken. When he did so he went outside and saw the prisoner and Milton, and the latter said prisoner did it. He had previously ejected prisoner from the house. The barrow was lying in the bar. Prisoner said “That's what I'll do to you”. The value of the window was 50s.

P.C. Stevens, who took the prisoner into custody, asked why he broke the window, and he said something about having been ejected from the house. With assistance he took the prisoner into custody. He had been drinking, but was not drunk.

Prisoner said he did not at all blame the landlord for not serving him, but in putting him out he “handled” him like he would handle a sack of sawdust, and threw him out, regardless of consequences. He was sorry he broke the window, and had no intention of doing it.

The Clerk: The landlord says he ejected you because you were disorderly.

Prisoner: Yes, I know he did. I suppose it upset me a little.

The Bench sentenced prisoner to a month's hard labour, remarking that they were determined to protect licensed victuallers in carrying on their business in a proper manner.

 
Folkestone Herald 20 July 1912

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

Michael O'Brien was charged with wilfully smashing a plate glass window, value 50s. Prisoner pleaded Not Guilty.

William Milton, a fisherman, of 32, Peter Street, deposed that on Saturday evening he was in Beach Street, near the Royal George, when he saw the prisoner come from the Fishmarket, carrying a hand barrow. Witness heard a smash of glass, and turning round saw the barrow through the window, and prisoner coming away from the window. He said “That's what I'll do to you, you ----“. Defendant was not sober.

Geo. Kirby, landlord of the Royal George Hotel, said he was in the public bar when he heard a crash. For a moment or so he did not take much notice, but he afterwards went in another bar and saw the window smashed. He went outside and saw prisoner standing in the road. He had been ejected from the other bar previously. The barrow was through the window in the bar. Witness asked prisoner what he had done it for, and he replied something to the effect that he had done it because he was turned out.

P.C. Stevens deposed to arresting prisoner, who, he said, was the worse for drink.

Accused said he went into the house to have a drink. He had had a little to drink before. However, instead of asking him to go out properly, the landlord had handled him like a sack of sawdust, and had thrown him out on to the pavement, totally disregarding the danger to his limbs. Naturally he (prisoner) retaliated.

The Chairman said there had been several of these cases lately. Some people seemed to think that they could go into licensed premises and do just as they liked. The owners of licences had to be very particular, and the Bench felt they must put a stop to it. Prisoner would be sent to gaol for one month with hard labour.

 
Folkestone Express 12 September 1914

Tuesday, September 8th: Before J. Stainer, R.J. Linton, G.I. Swoffer, W.J. Harrison, G. Boyd, A. Stace, E.T. Morrison, and C.E. Momford Esqs.

The licence of the Royal George Hotel, in Beach Street, was temporarily transferred from Mr. G. Kirby to Mr. G.H. Balson (sic), of Deal.

 
Folkestone Herald 12 September 1914

Local News

At the Petty Sessions on Tuesday, on the application of Mr. George Kirby, the licensee of the Royal George, Beach Street, a protection order was granted to Mr. George Henry Dalton, pending the transfer of the licence.

 
Folkestone Express 5 June 1915

Tuesday, June 1st: Before E.T. Ward Esq., and other Magistrates.

George Henry Dowson, of the Royal George Hotel, was summoned for failing to obscure a light so as to prevent it shedding rays of light outside, and pleaded Guilty.

P.C. Johnson said at 8.55 p.m. on May 18th he saw a bright light burning from the Royal George Hotel, Beach Street, and it was showing across the road. He saw the defendant and told him he had a bright light showing on the north east side of the house, and he said “---- the light. One called the other night”. When asked for his name he said “Find out”. The light was on the second floor.

Defendant denied that he swore when the constable saw him. He further said he was sure that he had no light burning when the constable called, so he asked him to show him where the light was. He went round the corner, and he then saw it was in a room occupied by a commercial.

A fine of 10/- was imposed.

 
Folkestone Express 9 October 1920

Inquest

Quite a sensation was caused in the town on Friday when it became known that Mr. Frederick William Hurley, the manager for the Swift Beef Company, Grace Hill, had been found dead with his throat cut at No. 34, Surrenden Road. He was well-known in the town, particularly amongst the butchers and other traders, and his death was received with great regret. He leaves a widow and four children, with whom every sympathy is felt.

Mr. G.W. Haines (Borough Coroner) conducted an enquiry into the tragic circumstances on Monday afternoon at the Town Hall, a jury of seven being sworn in. A good number of the public were present.

Mrs. Edith Rebecca Hurley, 3, Coolinge Road, the wife of the deceased, said her husband was 42 years of age. There were four children, the eldest being 12 years of age. Her husband worked for the Swift Beef Company, and had been in Folkestone eight years. She last saw her husband on Thursday at breakfast time, and he scarcely touched his breakfast. She said to him “Why don't you get on with it?”, and he replied that he did not feel up to it. He left for work about ten o'clock. He usually arrived home about 2.30 for dinner, and though she was usually there to meet him at that time, she was not there on Thursday, as she had arranged to go out. She told her husband of this, and left his dinner for him. He usually went in to tea at 5.30 or 6. She returned home on Thursday about 6.15. Deceased's dinner was untouched, but the children told her her husband had been home. She did not see him again that day. She was at home the whole of the evening, and deceased did not return that night. He had stayed out once or twice all night some months ago, but she had never asked for any reason. They had never had a quarrel, and they parted on the best of terms. The razor and case produced were in the breakfast room, and so far as she knew there were two razors in the case. Deceased had been rather worried last week about his business, as he could not sell so much meat as he wished. As a rule he was a man of cheerful habits, and he was a temperate man.

Mr. Thomas John Mabbitt said he was cashier to the Swift Beef Company, and resided at 87, Dover Road. Deceased was manager of the local branch, Grace Hill. Witness had been at the branch for nine years, and had known Hurley for some years. On Thursday deceased would probably arrive at 6.30, and he was there when witness arrived at eight o'clock. He last saw him between 10 and 11 a.m., when deceased left and said he was going round the town. He was in cheerful spirits and not depressed. They had some meat in the shop. Deceased was generally there at closing time, but was not there on Thursday, and did not return that day. Deceased's accounts were correct so far as they knew. The accounts were being audited at the present time, but the audit had not started on Thursday last.

Mr. George Dowson, landlord of the Royal George, Beach Street, said he had not known deceased previous to Thursday last. About 8.30 deceased went into the saloon bar, and there were four or five other people in the bar. He joined in the conversation with the people there, and appeared to be normal. He left about 9.45. Mrs. Baker went into the bar after deceased had gone in. Deceased was drinking bitter beer, and was far from being drunk.

Mrs. Mary Baker, 34, Surrenden Road, said she was a married woman, the wife of Harry Baker, but she had not lived with him for the past two years. On Thursday evening last she went to the Royal George Hotel about 8.30 or 8.45, and had a small Guinness before returning home. Hurley spoke to her first, entering into a general conversation with others as to some conjuring tricks, which had been performed by someone in the bar. After a little while she said she must be going to catch her car, and deceased asked her if she could put him up. She said “Do you want rooms?” and he said “Yes”. She said “I will give you my address” and she gave it to him. She thought deceased was going the next morning to see the rooms, and a little later he said “Can I see them tonight?” She replied “It is rather late; I would sooner you come in the morning”. He said he would like to see them that night, and she said “Very well”. She caught a bus near the Harbour, and deceased went with her. That would be about 9.40 or 9.45, and they both took the bus to Surrenden Road. She showed him the rooms, and about the same time there was a bad storm, and he said “Can I stay?” She consented owing to the storm. She offered to make deceased a cup of tea, and he said “No” She had no drink in the house. About a quarter to eleven she showed him his room, and he went to bed. She had two bedrooms in the house, and she let deceased have her bedroom, and she slept on the chair-bed, with blankets, in the other room. There was no key in the door of his bedroom. During the night she did not hear a sound, and she did not lock her door, as she was rather superstitious about locking it. Deceased said he would like to be called between 9 and 10. She got up about 9.30, and heard deceased coughing and reaching. She went to the door and said “Aren't you well? May I come in?” When she went into the bedroom his remark was “I was out all day yesterday”. Deceased was then in bed. She said “I will make you a cup of tea, perhaps you will feel better”. He agreed to this, and she went downstairs to make the tea, leaving the bedroom door open. She was downstairs ten minutes or a quarter of an hour, and did not hear a sound. On going upstairs with the tea and a few biscuits, she asked him if he felt better, and got no reply. She put the tray down and looked into the room. As she could not see the deceased, she called out “Where are you?” She found deceased lying on his face on the floor in front of the fireplace. When she saw him there she touched him, and said “What's the matter?”, and then saw the blood and the razor. The razor was lying on the floor, and deceased was quite still. She put her hat on and ran for Mr. Harris, Morehall Avenue, and they went for Dr. Gore, but he was out. She went to Dr. Pridmore and said “A man has cut his throat and may bleed to death”. Dr. Pridmore was in Folkestone, and Mrs. Pridmore telephoned for other doctors and the police. She went back to the house, and Mr. Harris went back with her. There was no-one else sleeping in the house on the night in question.

Mr. R.L. Hurley, the deceased's father said he would like to ask if anything in the nature of immorality was spoken of on the journey. He would like his son to be cleared. This woman was either speaking the truth or not. If he did not go away for the purpose of immorality, what did he go away for?

The Coroner: It will be for the jury to deduce their own inferences. I don't feel inclined to ask the question.

Mr. Hurley: I ask the jury to take notice of it.

Mr. John James Harris, 53, Morehall Avenue, lodging house keeper, said he had known Mrs. Baker for 2½ years. During that time she had lived at Surrenden Road. On Friday morning last, about 10.10 or 10.15, Mrs. Baker called at his house, and she appeared to be very excited, and said “Mr. Baker, put your hat and coat on, and come with me to the doctor; there's a man at my house who has cut his throat”. Mrs. Baker was properly attired. They went to Drs. Gore and Pridmore, and on going to 34, Surrenden Road, he went into the bedroom, and saw the body of a man lying on his face. The deceased was not dressed. There was a lot of blood on the carpet, and an open razor with blood on it. His hands appeared to be underneath the body. He touched deceased's neck, and the body was warm. Subsequently the police arrived.

P.C. Cox said that on Friday morning last he went to 34, Surrenden Road, and was admitted by Mr. Harris. He saw the body of the deceased. There was a large pool of blood, and the razor was lying on the right hand side of the body. Over the mantelpiece there was a mirror, and there were several spots of blood on it, and there was a lot of blood in the fireplace. He found several business documents on deceased, and 8s. 6d. in money. The razor produced was the one he found on the floor. A cup of tea was standing outside the bedroom. In his opinion it was a single bed, and only one person had slept in the bed, and someone had slept in the other bedroom.

Dr. Pridmore said that on Friday morning last, about 11 o'clock, he went to 34, Surrenden Road, and saw the body of the deceased, and he had apparently been dead about an hour. There was a deep gash in the throat, starting from the left, and completely severing the windpipe and the jugular vein on the right. Some very considerable force must have been used.

Mr. E.J. Chadwick (Coroner's Officer) said that on Friday morning he went to 34, Surrenden Road, and subsequently saw the widow at 3, Coolinge Road. She produced a case containing one razor, which she said was her husband's. He had compared the two razors, and they bore the name of the same maker, Stuart Apps, Folkestone, and were identical in appearance. The body was identified by Mrs. Hurley as that of her husband.

Mrs. Baker was re-called, and in reply to the Coroner, said she had a private income, and it was not necessary for her to let a room for the night. She had let several times lately. Nothing was said about the charge for the room for the night.

Mr. Richard L. Hurley, 84, Oxford Avenue, Southampton, said deceased was his son. He heard from him on the 21st September, it being quite a normal letter between son and father, ebclosing photographs of his family. He knew of nothing that had been troubling him, and had never heard a complaint. He never said he required any money, and had said “I will bring little Fred down for my holiday”. Deceased had never made a complaint about his home affairs, and would never have committed this act if he had been in his right senses.

The Coroner said that although a search had been made, it could not be found that deceased had taken any shaving soap. He had simply taken a razor with him. There was very little to show the state of deceased's mind. Even in his pocket book he carried about with him a phtoo of his wife and children. For a man to stand in front of a glass and, looking into it, cut his throat, he did not think the man's mind could be properly balanced.

The foreman said the jury found that deceased committed suicide, and that he was temporarily insane at the time.

 
Folkestone Herald 9 October 1920

Inquest

An inquest was held to the Town Hall on Monday afternoon by the Borough Coroner (Mr. G.W. Haines) on Frederick William Hurley, of 3, Coolinge Road, who, as stated in our last issue, was found dead with his throat cut at 34, Surrenden Road on Friday of last week. Considerable interest was manifested in the proceedings, the court being crowded.

Mrs. Edith Rebecca Hurley, wife of the deceased, stated that she resided with her family at 3, Coolinge Road. There were four children in the family, the eldest being twelve years of age. Her husband had been local manager for the Swift Beef Company, a position he held for eight years. Witness last saw her husband at breakfast time on Thursday morning. He did not complain about anything, but scarcely touched his breakfast. He left his home for business about ten a.m. Deceased usually had his dinner about 2.30 p.m. On this particular afternoon witness went out, and had previously intimated to her husband that she intended to do so. She left the dinner on the table for him, but on returning at 6.15 p.m. she found it was untouched. Witness was in the whole evening, but did not see her husband again. He did not come home all night. Some months ago deceased had stayed out once or twice, but not recently. On those occasions witness did not enquire the reason, nor did he enlighten her on the matter. They had had no quarrels, and on the Thursday they parted on the best of terms. The razor and case (produced) she identified as her husband's property. As far as she knew there were generally two razors in the case. Of late deceased had seemed a little worried about his business, and complained that he could not sell so much meat as he would like to. As a rule deceased was of a cheerful disposition.

Mr. Thomas James Mabbett, cashier to the Swift Beef Company, living at 87, Dover Road, said deceased was local manager of the branch. Thursday would be a busy morning, and deceased would have been due at the office about 6 a.m. Witness saw deceased at his work at 8 a.m. The business varied. On some days his presence would not be required until between ten and eleven a.m. Later on Thursday morning deceased left the office, remarking that he was going round the town. He appeared to be in his usual spirits, and not depressed in any way. His accounts, so far as they knew at present, were perfectly in order. They were being audited at the present time.

Mr. George Dowson, proprietor of the Royal George Hotel, Beach Street, said he did not know deceased until Thursday last, when he visited his premises about 8.30 p.m. Deceased came into the saloon bar and entered into general conversation with other people there. He appeared to be quite normal, and perfectly sober. Mrs. Baker was one of those present. Deceased was drinking bitter beer.

Mrs. Mary Baker, a well-dressed woman, living at 34, Surrenden Road, said she was the wife of Harry Baker, but had been living apart from him for two years. On Thursday evening witness visited the Royal George, and asked for a small Guinness before taking the bus home to Cheriton. There were several people there. A conjuror came in and performed some tricks. There was general conversation, and deceased (whom she had never spoken to before) spoke to her. Subsequently witness said “I must go and catch my car”. Deceased then said “Could you put me up?” Witness replied “Do you want rooms?”, and deceased replied “Yes”. Witness gave deceased her address. He said “I will come next morning”, but added “No, I will come tonight”. Witness, remarking on the time, said “It's rather late”. Deceased replied “I would like to see them” (the rooms). Witness answered “Very well”. She then “picked up” a bus at the Harbour, deceased accompanying her. This was about 9.45 p.m. They arrived at witness's home, and there she showed deceased the room, which he engaged. As there was a storm raging at the time, deceased asked “Can I stay?”, and witness said “Yes”. After this she said “Shall I make you a cup of tea or coffee?”, but he replied “No”. There were no intoxicants of any sort in the house. Deceased went up to bed about 11 p.m. Witness gave up her own bedroom to deceased. It had no key in the door. She slept in an adjoining room, placing a chair at the door to secure it. Witness was rather superstitious about locking bedroom doors. There being a stranger in the house she slept lightly, and did not hear a sound all through the night. Before retiring to rest witness asked defendant what time he would like to be called in the morning, and he replied “Between 9 and 10”. Witness went to call him about 9.30, and heard deceased vomiting terribly. She knocked at his bedroom door and asked “Aren't you well? May I come in?” Deceased replied “I was out all day yesterday”. Witness then said “I will make you a cup of tea. It may make you feel better”. Witness went downstairs to prepare the tea, and in about ten minutes went upstairs with it, calling out “Are you ready for the tea?” There was no reply. She knocked and then entered the room. For the moment she could not see deceased and enquired “Where are you?” Then she saw him lying on his face on the floor in front of the fireplace and near the bed. Witness approached deceased and said “What is the matter?” She looked down close, and then saw blood trickling on the floor and an open razor close at hand. Deceased did not utter a sound. Witness rushed for her hat, and at once called on Mr. Harris, an acquaintance, who lived at 53, Morehall Avenue, informing him of what had occurred, and asking for his assistance. He went at once for medical assistance and the police were communicated with immediately. Mr. Harris came back to the house with her. Witness repeated she had never seen deceased before, and knew nothing about him. There was no-one else asleep in the house on the night of the occurrence but herself and the deceased.

The aged father of deceased here arose, and, with much emotion, said “I would like to know if there are any evidences of immorality. Was anything said about immoral conduct on the journey to the house? Why did my son go home with her? (meaning the previous witness).

The Coroner: I don't feel inclined to ask the witness the questions. We are here to find out the cause of death. In any case you will hear the evidence.

The Father: I would like my son cleared.

John James Harris, lodging house keeper, of 53, Morehall Avenue, said he had known the previous witness for two and a half years. On Friday morning she gave a sharp rap at his door, and on witness opening it Mrs. Baker said “Put your coat on. There is a man in my house with his throat cut”. After seeking medical assistance, witness accompanied Mrs. Baker back to her house. He went upstairs and into the bedroom, where he found deceased lying on the floor with only his shirt on. There was blood on the carpet, and there was an open razor with blood on it. Deceased's hands appeared to be under him. Witness touched deceased, who was still warm, and looked to see if there was any movement of the muscles or nerves.

P.C. Cox said he went to 34, Surrenden Road on Friday morning, and on entering the bedroom saw deceased lying on the floor. There was a mirror over the fireplace, and on this were several spots of blood. Witness examined deceased's clothes, and found several business letters in the pockets. There was nothing in any of them to throw any light on the occurrence. Witness found 8s. 6d. in deceased's pockets. There was a cup of tea on a small tray standing in the bedroom. In witness's opinion the single bed in which deceased slept had only been occupied by one person, and he was further of opinion that the single chair-bed in an adjoining room had only been occupied by one person.

Dr. E.L.N. Pridmore said he was called to see deceased on Friday morning. He was quite dead, and the body was nearly cold. Deceased's throat was cut, the windpipe being completely severed, and the jugular vein also on the right hand side. Some very considerable force must have been used to have made such a deep cut. The cause of death was haemorrhage.

Mr. E.J. Chadwick, Coroner's Officer, produced a razor, which he had shown to the widow of deceased, who identified it as the property of her husband. It was one of a pair contained in a case. Witness had compared the two razors. They were of the same make, and bore the name of the same manufacturer. Witness produced other personal articles and correspondence, but there was nothing in any of these to throw any light on the occurrence.

Mrs. Baker (re-called) said she was of no occupation. She possessed a separate income of her own, and had no need to let lodgings. She had done so recently, however, because of the demands on her income.

Mr. Richard Lewis Hurley, father of deceased, living at 84, Oxford Avenue, Southampton, produced a letter, dated September 21st.

The Coroner read the letter, which was accompanied by photos of the deceased's children, and said it was quite a normal letter, one that would be usual for a son to write to his father.

Witness, continuing, said he had no reason to believe his son was abnormal about anything, either in his home life or anywhere. About twelve weeks ago his son wrote in quite cheerful terms that he would come down and see witness and bring little Fred and the other child with him. When deceased was a lad he suffered very badly from St. Vitus Dance. He had, however, never made a complaint to witness, either good, bad or indifferent. He looked upon his son as being the last in the world to have taken his life.

The witness, who was deeply affected, was gently led to his seat.

The Coroner said so far as the evidence showed the actual cause of death was not in doubt.. They had the evidence before them of the chance meeting at the Royal George. There might be a suggestion of immorality in the case, but that did not come within their province. They had heard from Mrs. Baker about the separate single beds, and that she was not obliged to let lodgings. There was very little to show the state of mind of deceased at the time. They had heard an affectionate letter read, telling of attachment to his wife and children, which on the face of it was quite normal and a letter one would have expected from a dutiful son to a father. They had evidence that deceased's appetite was “off”. It was not a question of depression. There might be some little imaginary thing – which would possibly appear unaccountable to others – that would worry him. Yet beyond this deceased appeared to be quite normal. He (the Coroner) had said on similar occasions, and he repeated it now, that in the perfectly sane man the preservation of life was the first law of nature, but in a case such as this the mind must be unbalanced.

The jury, after a brief consultation, returned a verdict of “Suicide whilst temporarily insane”.

 
Folkestone Express 7 April 1923

Tuesday, April 3rd: Before Mr. G.I. Swoffer and other Magistrates.

Pte. Sidney George Hibberd, of the King's Own Royal Regiment, was charged with stealing two 10s. Treasury notes on the previous day from the Royal George Hotel.

George Henry Dowson, landlord of the Royal George Hotel, Beach Street, said the previous day he closed his bar at half past two, and left the bar empty about a quarter to three. An iron lattice gate separated the bar from the passage of the house, and he closed and locked that. He then went upstairs. About half past four he heard one of the bells of the till, so he ran downstairs and saw the soldier in the private entrance to the hotel from South Street. From where he was standing he could touch the 10s. key of the cash register, and he noticed that the drawer was open. He asked prisoner how he had rung the till, and he replied he had not touched it. Witness told him he should send for the police, and the prisoner asked him not to send for the civil police. He sent for the police, and P.C. Allen arrived shortly afterwards. He unlockd the bar door, and on going in he found the two 10s. notes produced screwed up on the floor, as though they had been thrown through the lattice work. Previous to going upstairs, he saw there were two 10s. notes in the till, but they had gone when he came down. The main door of the hotel was left on the ordinary spring for the convenience of visitors staying in the hotel.

In reply to the prisoner, witness said he told him he would have let him go if he had owned up to the theft instead of denying it.

P.C. Allen said at 4.35 p.m. the previous day he was called to the hotel, where he saw Mr. Dowson and the prisoner. The former told him what had occurred, and the prisoner said “I have not touched the till. I thought this was a restaurant and came in to have a cup of tea”. He (witness) then noticed some crumpled paper near the till in the bar, and on the landlord picking it up found it consisted of two 10s. Treasury notes. Witness showed them to the prisoner, who said nothing. At the police station, when charged, prisoner said “I do not wish to say anything”.

Prisoner pleaded Not Guilty. He went into the witness box and said he saw the door of the hotel open and went inside. When he got inside the passage he heard someone coming along the landing. He then saw Mr. Dowson hurrying down the stairs, and he asked him what he wanted. Before he could give him an answer he looked into the bar, and finding the till open he asked him if he had touched it, and he said he had not. He opened the iron gate, and after locking the till accused him of stealing straight away. He got in such a temper as he told him he had not touched it that he got hold of his throat. He then sent for the police. He went into the hotel as he was looking for a place to get a cup of tea. He never heard the till bell ring at all, and he did not take the two notes.

An officer from the Regiment said the man only joined the Regiment on Thursday, coming from the Depot. His conduct sheet was quite clean.

The Bench bound the prisoner over to be of good behaviour for six months.

 
Folkestone Herald 7 April 1923

Tuesday, April 3rd: Before Mr. G.I. Swoffer, Mr. G. Boyd, Mr. C. Ed. Mumford, and Colonel P. Broome-Giles.

Private Sidney George Mibberd (18), of the King's Own Royal regiment, was charged with stealing two ten shilling Treasury notes from the Royal George, Beach Street, the previous day.

George Henry Dowson, licensee of the Royal George, said that on the previous day he closed the bar at 2.30, and left about ten minutes later. He closed and locked an iron lattice door between the bar and a passage and went upstairs. About 4.30 he heard one of the bells of the till sound, and on running downstairs he found the defendant in the private passage. From where he was standing defendant could reach over to the till and touch the 10s. key. He asked him how it was he had rung the bell, and he said he had not touched it. Witness then said he would send for the police, and defendant asked him not to do so. He detained the accused, and sent a man for the police. Shortly afterwards P.C. Allen arrived. Witness then entered the bar and found two 10s. notes screwed up on the floor, as though they had been thrown through the lattice work. Two ten shilling notes he had left in the till were missing. The main hotel door was left unfastened so that visitors might enter. In reply to defendant, Mr. Dowson said he would have let him go if he had owned up to taking the money, but he did not admit it.

P.C. Allen said that he was called to the Royal George about 4.35 p.m. the previous day, and on entering he found the last witness and the prisoner. There was some conversation with regard to the till, whereupon the latter stated “I have not touched the till; I thought this was a restaurant, so I came in for a cup of tea”. Witness noticed some crumpled papers lying on the floor in the bar and the landlord, picking them up, he found them to be two 10s. notes. Prisoner, when shown them, said nothing. When charged at the police station he replied “I do not wish to say anything”.

Defendant elected to be dealt with summarily, and pleaded Not Guilty. Giving evidence on oath, he said that about 3.30 the previous day he saw the door of the hotel open. He walked inside and let the door bang. When he got to the passage he heard someone coming along the landing, and saw the landlord coming down the stairs. Mr. Dowson asked what he wanted, but before he could reply the landlord looked in the bar. He found the till open, and asked if witness had touched it. He said he had not. The landlord opened the door, looked in the till, and straightway accused him of theft. The landlord flew into a temper because witness said he had not touched it, and got hold of his throat. He told someone to go for the police, and witness told him to get the Military Police.

By the Clerk: He entered the hotel because he thought he could get a cup of tea. He did not hear the till bell ring. He did not reach over to the till, nor did he take the two notes. He remained in the passage for two or three minutes so as to tell the people he was sorry for having come to the wrong place.

An officer stated that the defendant only joined the regiment the previous Thursday, so they had had very little opportunity of forming an estimate of his character. While he had been in the army there had been no charge against him.

The Bench bound defendant over to be of good behaviour for six months.

 
Folkestone Express 29 November 1930

Local News

On Wednesday the licence of the Royal George Hotel, Beach Street, was transferred from Mr. S. Dowson to Mr. W. Oberman, who a short time ago was the licensee of the Clarendon Hotel.

 
Folkestone Express 18 July 1931

Monday, July 13th: Before The Mayor, Mr. W. Smith, and Mr. F. Seager.

John Jay, an elderly man, who was stated to be on the tramp, was charged with being drunk and disorderly in Harbour Street at 9.35 the previous evening. Prisoner pleaded Guilty.

P.C. Bates said at 9.35 on the previous evening he was on duty in Harbour Street, where he saw the prisoner drunk and making use of obscene language. He told him to go away, and he went a short distance, when he commenced to abuse passers-by. Prisoner then went into the George Hotel, and was promptly ejected. He brought him to the police station and charged him, and he made no reply. Prisoner had been shouting in a loud voice, and had a stick in his hand, which he waved in people's faces.

Prisoner said he came from Rye, had a drop of drink given him, and got drunk. He used to be a bricklayer's labourer, and did hay-making now. He did a day and a half last week.

The Chief Constable (Mr. A.S. Beesley) said prisoner had given him no information about himself, and he believed him to tramp from place to place.

The Chairman said if prisoner undertook to leave the town the Magistrates would dismiss the case.

Prisoner agreed to leave the town.

The Clerk (Mr. C. Rootes): You had better go and do some more hay-making.

 
Folkestone Herald 2 April 1932

Local News

A small fire, confined to the flue, occurred in the bar room at the Royal George Hotel, Beach Street, on Tuesday evening. The Fire Brigade was called by telephone and the fire was extinguished with nominal damage.

 
Folkestone Herald 27 August 1932

Obituary

We regret to record the death on August 29th, at 29, Mount Pleasant Road, of Mrs. Kirby, the wife of Mr. George Kirby.

Mrs. Kirby, who was 69 years of age, although not much in the public eye of later years, was well known in other days when her husband was the proprietor of the old coaching inn, The Chequers, Seagate Street, and the Royal George Hotel, Beach Street. Mrs. Kirby possessed a kindly heart and this was often well illustrated when in the cold and wintry days she thought of many an empty cupboard in the poorer quarters of the town. Indeed, she did much good by stealth. Much sympathy is accorded to the husband, who during the time of the Mayoralty of the late Alderman Daniel Baker, was a member of the Folkestone Town Council. Some years ago Mr. and Mrs. Kirby left Folkestone for London, but after residing there for a few years came back to Folkestone.

The funeral took place on August 12th at the Cheriton Road Cemetery.

 
Folkestone Herald 3 November 1934

Local News

The Folkestone Magistrates on Tuesday granted a protection order in connection with the Royal George, the licence of which is being transferred from Mr. W.R. Oberman to Mr. A.G.A. Whelan (sic), of Hanwell.

 
Folkestone Express 7 January 1939

Local News

A Boxing Day night brawl in the Fish Market had a sequel at Folkestone Police Court on Tuesday when William John Cloke, a fisherman, of 4, Radnor Street, Folkestone, summoned Alfred Waller, of 16, Great Fenchurch Street, Folkestone, for assault.

The magistrates were Mr. L.G.A. Collins, Rear-Admiral L.J. Stephens, Alderman J.W. Stainer, Miss G. Broome-Giles and Mrs. A.M. Saunders.

The plaintiff, giving evidence, said at about 6.55 p.m. on December 26th he went to the Royal George public house in Beach Street, when the defendant came into the bar. Witness told him that he did not think it was much of a trick that afternoon to hit an old man. The defendant started to argue, and witness told him that it was not the place to argue, and suggested they should go outside. When they did so the defendant took off his coat, Witness said “If you are going to fight I will take my teeth out”. While he was taking out his teeth Waller hit him and he fell to the ground with his teeth half in and half out. While he was on the ground Waller kicked him in the mouth. Afterwards he closed with the defendant, who butted him with his head. “In fact it was not a fight,” continued plaintiff. “I thought he was out to kill me the way he was going on”.

Cloke said he fought back in self-defence. At dinner-time Waller had threatened him with what he was going to do that, night. He said “All right, Cloke, I will get you tonight”. As a result of the fight witness had been to the Hospital twice for X-ray examinations, once for his right ribs and once for his nose.

In reply to Waller, plaintiff denied inviting him to go outside and fight. He said he asked Waller to go outside and finish the argument.

William Bridgland, of 34, Wood Avenue, Folkestone, said he was in the Royal George at 6.45 p.m., when the defendant came in and called for half a beer, which Cloke paid for. Later Cloke and Waller walked out, and when witness went out he saw the two men fighting. Waller had Cloke against the wall of Mr. Milton’s whelk store and butting him with his head. He saw Waller kick Cloke on the leg.

Cross-examined, witness said he heard Waller say “Stand back” so that he could pull his trousers up.

P.C. Langford said at 11.30 p.m. he went to 4, Radnor Street, where he saw Cloke, who was suffering from wounds on his face and head. There were two severe bruises on the back of his head. Witness suspected that Cloke’s nose was fractured, so he took him in the police van to the Hospital.

Giving evidence, Waller said earlier in the day he had been knocked down, and when he went to the public house in the evening Cloke bought him a beer and said “After you have drunk that I will beat you up and down the road again”. They went out into the Fish Market and the fight started. Continuing, Waller said Cloke pulled his jersey off and he asked him to stand back while he pulled his trousers up. Cloke refused, so he kept him off with his foot while he pulled his trousers up as he did not want people to look at him without his trousers.

Questioned by the plaintiff, Waller denied that he kicked him in the face, and said Cloke struck him first, on the side of the face.

The Chairman (Mr. L.G.A. Collins) said both men would be bound over for twelve months, and they would each have to pay 4/- costs.

 
Folkestone Herald 7 January 1939

Local News

A Boxing Day fight in the Fishmarket had a sequel at Folkestone Police Court on Tuesday when Alfred Waller, of Great Fenchurch Street, Folkestone, was summoned with assaulting William J. Cloke by striking him with his fist and with kicking him in the face. Waller pleaded not guilty. After hearing the evidence the Magistrates bound over both defendant and complainant to be of good behaviour,

William J. Cloke, 4, Radnor, Street, Folkestone, a fisherman, said on Boxing Day, December 26th, he went to the Royal George Hotel, Beach Street, just before 7 p.m. A little later defendant came into the bar, walked to the counter and asked for a “half of beer”. Complainant said to Waller, “I don’t think that was much of a trick you were going to do this afternoon with regard to that old man”. Waller then started arguing, and he (witness) told defendant that that was not the place to argue and; added that he had better go outside. They then went outside. By that time Waller had got his coat off. Complainant said, “If you are going to fight I will take my teeth out”. While witness was doing so Waller hit him on the side of the face, and as he went to the ground with his teeth half out and half in his hand; defendant kicked him in the face.
Complainant said they closed for a bit, but when defendant was not kicking him he was hitting him. It was not a fight; he thought defendant was out to kill him.

The Clerk (Mr. C. Rootes): Did you strike back?

Complainant: I had to fight back to a certain extent in self-defence.

Cloke added that defendant said “All right, Cloke, I will get you tonight”. Witness said he pad been to the hospital for an X-ray of his ribs and nose.

The Clerk: Did you invite him to come out and fight?

Cloke: No, I invited him to go outside and finish the argument.

William Bridgland, 34, Wood Avenue, Folkestone, said Cloke paid for defendant’s “half of beer”, after Waller had come in. A little later witness saw Cloke and Waller fighting. Waller had complainant up against a wall and he was butting him. He saw Waller kick Cloke in the leg.

Defendant: Where were my hands when I kicked?

Witness: Holding your trousers up.

Waller: I said “Get back” so I could pull my trousers up.

P.C. Langford said at 11.30 p.m. on Boxing Day he saw Cloke his home. He was suffering from wounds on his face and head. There were two bad bruises on the back of his head. Suspecting a fracture of the bridge of his nose, he took Cloke to the hospital.

Waller, giving evidence, said when he went into the Royal George he asked for half a pint of beer. Cloke paid for it, and he said “Thanks Ginger”. They went outside afterwards and the fight started in the Fishmarket. Complainant tore his braces off and he said “Get back” so that he could pull up his trousers. He denied kicking Cloke in the face.

The Clerk: Who started this fight?

Waller: Mr. Cloke.

The Chairman (Mr. L.G.A. Collins) said the Magistrates had decided to bind both men over to be of good behaviour for 12 months. Each would have to pay 4s. costs.

 
Folkestone Herald 30 September 1939

Local News

There was sequel at the Folkestone Police Court on Monday to a Saturday night scene outside a Folkestone hotel, when Sapper John Stanford appeared before the Magistrates on two charges, the first of committing wilful damage to a plate glass window at the Royal George Hotel, Beach Street, and the second of being drunk and disorderly.

In regard to the«first charge Stanford said “I can't remember doing that". He admitted the charge of drunkenness.

Albert G. Rolen, licensee of the Royal George Hotel, Beach Street, said he saw defendant on his premises on Saturday night about 10 o'clock and refused to serve him. When he tried to get defendant out he attempted to return. The next minute there was a shower of glass. The glass panel of one of the doors had been broken, the damage amounting to 50s.

Replying to Stanford, witness said accused went out quietly.

P.C. Seamer said at 10.05 p.m. on Saturday he was informed that there was a disturbance outside the Royal George Hotel. Witness saw a number of soldiers attempting to restrain defendant, but he suddenly broke away and swung his gas mask at the window in the right hand side of the saloon bar. Accused was attempting to break the other window when witness got hold of him. Stanford wanted to fight everybody and he took him into custody.

Giving evidence, Stanford said he heard the shattering of glass but had no recollection of breaking the window. He was not told on Saturday night at the police station that he had been taken in for smashing the window.

An officer gave accused a good character.

The Magistrates fined Stanford 5s. and also ordered him to pay the damage amounting to £2 10s.

 
Folkestone Express 22 June 1940

Lighting Order

The Folkestone magistrates are still hearing, ad nauseum, cases where the Lighting Regulations are defied. During an air raid alarm the offence assumes serious proportions, and although the present penalty is £1, there is likelihood that in future a much heavier fine will be inflicted. The justices have great discretionary powers, but there is evidence that their patience is becoming exhausted. It is pointed out that the police in these times have far more serious work to do than to watch for lights; and, in any case, people might give a thought to their own safety, even if they don’t care about the safety of others. All the time of the Police Court on, Friday was occupied by these cases, the defendants appearing before Dr. W.W. Nuttall, Alderman J.W. Stainer and Mr. J.P. Fuller.

Charles Stubbington was summoned in respect of a light at the Royal George Hotel on June 9th.

A visitor at the Pavilion Hotel noticed a light at 11.40 and went out and saw a crowd of people. He went back to his hotel and sent for a police officer who, after making enquiries, located the light in a bedroom on the third floor of the Royal George Hotel. The bedroom was occupied by the defendant, who was an under-barman. He said he went to bed at 11.15 and put the light out. The next he knew was being aroused by the constable.

 
Folkestone Herald 22 June 1940

Local News

A light seen by a visitor staying at a hotel was the subject of a summons against Charles Stubbington, a barman at the Royal George Hotel, Beach Street, at the Folkestone Police Court on Friday last week.

Stubbington pleaded not guilty to a breach of the black-out regulations.

Henry Farjeon, staying at the Royal Pavilion Hotel on June 8th, said at 11.40 that night he saw a light showing a short distance away. Leaving the hotel he went to Harbour Street where he saw a group of people looking at the light. Witness sent for a police 'officer and afterwards accompanied him to the Royal George Hotel.

P.C. Hardy said at 12.15 a.m. on June 9th he received a complaint from the first witness about a light showing from a third floor window.
Witness went to the Royal George Hotel and saw defendant, who was the occupier of the room. Stubbington denied that the light came from his room.
. , .
Stubbington, giving evidence, said he entered the room at 11.15 p.m. and was in bed by 11.25 p.m., when he put out the light. It could not have been his light that was on at 11.40.

The Chairman (Dr. W.W. Nuttall) said the Magistrates considered the case proved. Defendant would be fined £1.

 
Folkestone Herald 15 February 1941

Local News

The licences of all bombed licensed premises in Folkestone were renewed at the annual Licensing Sessions, held at the Town Hall, on Wednesday.

The Chief Constable (Mr. A.S. Beesley) reported that .nine premises had been destroyed or damaged by enemy action and 35 others had been closed owing to lack of business.

The Mayor (Alderman G.A. Gurr) presided with Alderman R.G. Wood and Mr. P. Fuller.

The Clerk (Mr. C. Rootes) said in regard to two houses which had been rather badly damaged, he understood they were going to carry on their business when repairs had been made.

Mr. W.J. Mason, appearing for the Railway Bell, damaged three times by bombs, said the upper part was being pulled down, but it was proposed to use the business part of the premises. Col. Hayward, the architect, would tell them that it was proposed to put a roof over the ground floor.

Col. Hayward presented plans to the Bench.

Plans were also presented in regard to the Royal George, the upper part of which had also been removed.

The Mayor announced that all the publicans' licences would be renewed without prejudice to the question of redundancy, when the time came for it to be considered.

 
Folkestone Herald 3 April 1943

Local News

At Folkestone Police Court yesterday the Magistrates agreed to the adjournment until next Tuesday of the hearing of a number of summonses under the Licensing Act in connection with the Royal George Hotel.

Mr. B.H. Bonniface, who stated that he was prosecuting, asked that the summonses should be adjourned until next Tuesday as Mr. Rutley Mowll, for the defence, was unable to appear that day.

The Magistrates agreed to the adjournment.

 
Folkestone Herald 10 April 1943

Local News

Hearing voices coming from a licensed hotel after closing time, police officers investigated and on entering the premises later found the manager and seven men in the bar.

There was a sequel at the Folkestone Police Court on Tuesday when Albert John Relen, the manager, was summoned for supplying intoxicating liquor after permitted hours, and Alfred Lewis Baxton Lee, The Stade, Cecil Brickell, The Durlocks, Alfred Waller, Dyke Road, Pte. John Richard Stephens, Gnr. William George Dunham, John Saunders, Segrave Crescent, and Cyril Fitch, Shaftesbury Avenue, were each summoned for consuming after permitted hours. There were seven summonses against Relen. Defendants, represented by Mr. Rutley Mowll, pleaded guilty. Mr. B.H. Botiniface prosecuted.

Alderman R.G. Wood presided with Miss G. Broome-Giles, Alderman J.W. Stainer. Mr. P.V. Gurr and Mr. C.A. Wilde.

Outlining the case for the prosecution, Mr. Bonniface said on the night of Saturday, March 20th P.c. Duke was on duty in Beach Street, where the Royal Georges Hotel was situated. The hotel had been the subject of enemy attack and today consisted only df two bars on the ground floor. The two bars were really one bar, because they were only divided by a curtain. The police officer heard voices inside the public house, which caused him to be suspicious, and he contacted P. Sergt. Tully and P.W.R. Hearnden. Sergt. Tully had checked his watch before coming on duty. The officers kept observation on the hotel and heard subdued talking all the time, the ring of the cash register and also a certain amount of clinking of glasses. They found they were unable to get into the premises, however, until at 10.50 when the defendant Waller came to the door, apparently to go home. This gave the officers an opportunity of entering, and on going inside they found that apparently no attempt had been made to clean down the counter. On the counter was one glass containing a complete half-pint of beer, two glasses three-quarter full, another half full with what was apparently whisky and soda. There were also three empty glasses and also on the counter was 6d. in silver and 5d. in coppers. In the bar were seven of the defendants, and in the other bar there was a woman, whose name did not appear in these proceedings. Mr. Bonniface, drawing attention to the number of glasses on the counter, said there could be no doubt defendants were consuming on the premises between 10 and 10.50. When Relen was asked why the people were on the premises he said that he and his wife were rather nervous since they had been bombed out, and the other people were waiting to go home with them. Sergt. Tully pointed out that that did not entitle them to consume after hours, and Relen said he was aware of that and was very sorry. No-one claimed the money on the counter; Relen said it wasn't his, and none of the other defendants claimed it, so the police took the money. Neither would any of them acknowledge which was his drink. Mr. Bonniface said Relen was not the licensee; he was the father of the licensee, who was in the Services, and it was perhaps extraordinary that he should hold the licence when he could not give any supervision to the place. “There’s no suggestion”, concluded Mr. Bonniface, “that any of the defendants was under the influence of drink”.

Mr. Mowll said he had advised defendants to plead Guilty and he accepted Mr. Bonniface’s version as to what took place. He wanted to address a few words, not by way of excusing defendants, but with regard to the sad circumstances which had prevailed in the history of the hotel. Relen was the father of the licensee, who was serving in the Forces. The father was a retired Post Office servant, who came to the rescue when his son was called up. The hotel had been dogged by misfortune. It was a very substantial place when the son became licensee in 1934. He paid a valuation of £1,600 to come in. In October, 1940, the premises were badly damaged by a heavy bomb. They were re-opened in the following March, but were only habitable on the ground floor; consequently the father had to treat the place as a lock-up and reside in his private house. In January last the father's residence was blown up by a delayed action bomb, and Relen went to live with Saunders, one of the defendants, who had promised to take care of the licensee’s father and escort him home at nights. After six or seven weeks the father secured another place which was on the way to Saunders's home and he (Saunders) continued to see him home. On this night Saunders got talking to Fitch and two soldiers. Fitch spent his weekends with Saunders, so they had two men who were going to accompany Relen home. Saunders and Fitch were keen dart players, and they were discussing the possibility of a match. Brickell and Lee joined in the conversation. Mr. Mowll said he was not justifying the drinking out of hours, but the circumstances showed how these people came to be on the premises after licensed hours. “It might be called a place of multiple sorrows”, went on Mr. Mowll. “These towns on the South-East coast, whether they be Folkestone, Dover, or Deal, are all passing through very bad times, and one can’t help but admire the bravery of people carrying on under these conditions. The nerves of some might become frayed and then their judgment might become a little faulty. I just ask you to consider how this man was trying to carry on his son’s' business, which had already suffered very severely”.

After retiring, the Chairman announced that Relen would be fined a total of £3 10s. (10s. in respect of each summons) with five guineas costs, and each of the ether defendants would be fined 10s.

 
Folkestone Herald 30 September 1944

Obituary

Mr. Albert John Relen, a well-known and highly esteemed licensee was killed by enemy action on Saturday. He was digging in his garden at his residence, 11, Radnor Bridge Road, Folkestone, when his death occurred. Mrs. Relen was seriously injured, and at one time it was feared that she might lose her sight, but it is now expected that in time she will make a complete recovery.

Mr. Relen had been residing in Folkestone since 1934. He was proprietor of the Royal George Hotel, Beach Street. His popularity was widespread and the news of his death came as a severe shock to numerous friends and acquaintances.

Mr. Relen and his family have been involved in no fewer than nine incidents caused by enemy action during the war, and in each case have been provided with accommodation by Mr. and Mrs Jack Saunders, of 13, Segrave Crescent, Folkestone. In 1940, when a land-mine fell in the Folkestone Harbour district, the Royal George was badly damaged and Mr. Relen's barman was killed. Much sympathy has been expressed with Mrs. Relen and her son and two daughters in the loss they have suffered. The son is a sergeant in the Army.

The funeral took place at the Folkestone Borough Cemetery, Hawkinge, on Thursday.

 
Folkestone Herald 14 March 1953

Local News

At Folkestone Magistrates' Court on Tuesday, Mr. Arthur George Darby, of Ramsgate, was granted a protection order in respect of the Royal George Hotel, Folkestone. Mr. Darby said there would be a manager on the premises.

Note: This does not appear in More Bastions.

 
Folkestone Herald 3 April 1954

Local News

Sir Harry Mackeson has been asked to help persuade the Ministry of Transport to give a decision about the provision for a car park in the Harbour area. (Yesterday afternoon Sir Harry visited the area with officials of the Ministry and British Railways.)

Delay in obtaining approval from the Ministry is delaying the completion of the scheme for the redevelopment of the area, the Borough Engineer, Mr. E. L. Allman, told members of Folkestone Chamber of Trade on Monday evening.

Mr. Allman said in redeveloping the area they had not only to contend with natural difficulties but man-made difficulties. In the area they had no less than 13 public-houses, of which six were to remain. They had agreed with the brewers that a site adjacent to the Harbour Hotel should be made available to improve their premises. The existence of the railway line to the Harbour, and trunk sewers, which had to remain, added to the difficulties of planning the area. Then there were awkward levels. It seemed that some type of housing was required and also a car park. The Tram Road would be brought into Harbour Street to keep traffic away from the railway arches, leaving a space free for pedestrians using the arches. Seagate Street and a small length of Beach Street would be disposed of, and Dover Street would be brought round in a bold curve into the Tram Road above the arch. The Borough Engineer said he thought the scheme for South Street would be pleasing, reproducing as far as possible the conditions that existed before the shops were built 300 or 400 years ago.

The Royal George public house would remain in an altered form, but there was difficulty about the site adjoining the Ark Cafe. The Ministry seemed to think that a cafe would do well there. During the scheme they had moved some 10,000 cubic yards of earth, quite an achievement on a restricted site.

He said the units of accommodation being built would accommodate 120 - 130 people. The Lifeboat public house would remain but the corner from North Street into the Durlocks would be improved by utilising a site adjoining the public house.

Mr. G. Balfour asked whether the new development would blend with the houses built before the war.

Mr. Allman said he was afraid the present-day restriction on money made it impossible to follow the type of building in Radnor Street, but as far as their limited resources allowed they would select tiles and bricks to blend. Referring to Dover Street, he said there were still some substandard houses there which should come down. In future, when the street was widened, there would be no necessity to interfere with the Quakers’ Meeting House, an old building which was set well back.

 
Folkestone Gazette 7 April 1954

Local News

It is reported by the Housing and Town Planning Committee that at their last meeting the Borough Engineer submitted a sketch plan and drawing received from the architects acting for the owners of the licensed premises, the Royal George, Beach Street. The plan illustrated the new premises proposed to be erected on the site and the area of land which the owners desired to acquire from the Corporation in connection with the rebuilding proposals. The Committee resolved (1) that the plan and drawing be approved in principle (2) that the Borough Engineer investigate and report to the Committee upon the possibility of erecting a shelter between the boundary of the licensed premises and Harbour Street.

 
Folkestone Gazette 20 February 1957
Local News

The war-damaged Royal George Hotel, near the Harbour, which was named at last week’s local annual Licensing Sessions as one of three public houses “not a credit to the town” because of delay in repairs or rebuilding it, has a link with Charles Dickens, for we find the great novelist mentioned it in one of his short stories.

Today only a small part of the Royal George remains; that part, in fact, which survived the enemy air attack in the early hours of November 18th, 1940, when land mines were dropped on the area and caused casualties and great damage.

But let’s see what Dickens said about the hostelry. It appears in one of his “Re-printed Pieces” in which the novelist is describing a journey by one of the old South Eastern Railway’s boat expresses from London Bridge to Folkestone Harbour on his way to Paris. The train has reached our town and Dickens writes: “Now fresher air, now glimpses of unenclosed Downland with flapping crows flying over it whom we soon outfly, now the sea, now Folkestone at a quarter after ten. “Tickets ready, gentlemen!” “For Paris, sir? No hurry”. We are dropped slowly down to the Port, and sidle to and fro (the whole train) before the insensible Royal George Hotel, for some ten minutes. The Royal George takes no more heed of us than its namesake under water at Spithead, or under earth at Windsor, does. The Royal George’s dog lies winking and blinking at us, without taking the trouble to sit up; and the Royal George’s “wedding party” at the open window (who seem, I must say, rather tired of bliss) don’t bestow a solitary glance upon us, flying thus to Paris in eleven hours.” They were Dickens' fleeting impressions of the Royal George a century or so ago.

At that time the Roval George Hotel advertised “The immediate proximity of this hotel to the railway and harbour render it peculiarly adapted to the convenience of the Continental tourist”, adding “There are also private apartments for families, with extensive and beautiful views of the sea and the coast of France, fitted up and furnished in the most elegant style, with every accommodation for their comfort and convenience”. Then as a final recommendation “Omnibuses pass the door to and from every train”.

 
Folkestone Herald 10 August 1957

Local News

Because they allege continuous bad behaviour by soldiers patronising their houses, the licensees of three public houses on the Folkestone fishmarket, at their own request, have had their premises placed out of bounds to all troops at Shorncliffe Camp. The licensees of the Jubilee Inn, the Oddfellows Arms and the Ship Inn discussed the position and on Friday each of them sent a telegram to the Adjutant at Shomcliffe informing him of their decision. Since the ban was announced, a fourth licensee, Mr. George Prior, of the Royal George, near the Fishmarket, has also placed his premises unofficially out of bounds.

Apparently the main trouble has been caused at the Jubilee Inn, where the landlord is Mr. Donald A. Mayne, who was formerly a Second Officer in the Merchant Navy. He has been at the house for three years. His wife, Mrs. Mary Mayne, told the Herald this week that the trouble had been caused by troops of a certain regiment who arrived back from Malaya about three months ago. “They are so badly behaved, brawling, fighting and shouting”, she said. “If we try to reason with them all they say is “You ought to have been where we have been”, and don't take any notice. Many times we have sent for the Military Police to deal with them. We have told them time and time again that if they do not behave themselves we would put the premises out of bounds. They just turn round and tell us we can't turn them away because they spend too much money here”, said Mrs. Mayne. “The fact is that we are losing money because when the troops come in, the holidaymakers walk out rather than sit and listen to continuous shouting and singing. Even our regulars have been keeping away from the premises”. Mrs. Mayne said the houses had to make their money at this time of year from the visitors, but their holiday trade had been greatly affected. She said there was a noticeable improvement in trade following the ban. “We have talked and talked, and tried to reason with these men, but it has only been interpreted as fear. They have been in Folkestone for some time and we have stood it long enough. We have got to put our foot down. We do not like this action, but we have been forced into it. We realise that the good ones must suffer because of the bad. We do not condemn them all by any manner of means”, she stated.

The other two licensees, Mrs. D. Bentley, who has been in charge of the Ship Inn for 25 years, and Mr. George Skinner, of the Oddfellows Arms, said they had not experienced any real trouble from troops, but they had heard them shouting and singing outside. Mr. Skinner and Mrs. Bentley decided to combine with Mr. Mayne and place their premises out of bounds. They said “We have got to do the same thing and stick together. We do not want to catch the overflow if only one of us bans the troops”.

A notice “Out of bounds to troops” is displayed on the doors of the three houses.

On Wednesday morning an officer from the Camp interviewed the licensees and took down details of alleged incidents of fighting and smashing glasses in the Fishmarket during the past few months.

Asked for his views, Major R. Smith, Garrison Adjutant, Shorncliffe, agreed there had been a little touble with one of the regiments on the Camp; he was doing his best to find out what it was all about. “As far as I can make out there has been some shouting, but there are no civil charges pending against any troops at Shorncliffe Camp”, he said. Major Smith said if the licensees wished to put their premises out of bounds it might possibly be a good thing. There had been complaints, but it was always difficult to trace specific instances. On Saturday night, he said, they had heard that troops were rioting in the town, but when patrols were sent out to investigate the matter they found absolutely nothing.

 
Folkestone Gazette 1 January 1958
Local News

The owners of the Royal George Hotel, Beach Street, Folkestone, have informed the Corporation that it is their intention as soon as the existing restrictions upon capital expenditure are removed to make the building of the new premises their first major capital investment.
In the meantime the brewers propose that a skin should be provided around the existing building, badly damaged by a land mine in 1940, to improve its appearance until the new permanent building can be constructed.

 
Folkestone Herald 15 May 1971

Local News

When 1,400 continentals visit Folkestone next Thursday the doors of local pubs will be open to them all afternoon. On Tuesday local Magistrates decided in favour of a second application to allow 17 pubs to remain open especially for the visitors. They had vetoed a previous application. The second made by publicans was amended to allow for a half-hour break at 5.30 p.m. before their premises opened for the evening session.

Mr. J. Medlicott, for the publicans, told the Magistrates that the visitors were delegates attending a conference in Bruges. One of its highlights was to be a visit to England. He referred to a letter received by Folkestone Corporation from the British Tourist Authority supporting the publicans' application. The visit – by Dutch, Swiss, Belgians and Germans – was a special occasion, not just a shopping expedition, said Mr. Medlicott. It had been arranged by a Bruges tourist organisation which had particularly asked that pubs should be open in the afternoon.

Police Inspector R. Sanders made no formal objection to the application – but doubted whether the visit was a special occasion.

The Chairman of Folkestone Chamber of Trade, Mr. Alan Stephenson, said later “The cross-Channel visitors' committee of this Chamber is very pleased that this has been seen as a special occasion by the Justices. When one is reminded that this extension is no more than happens in many market towns every week of the year, it seems a fair request, especially as Folkestone’s image abroad could be much influenced by the original decision not to allow the pubs to open”.

The pubs which will stay open are; Jubilee, Ship, Oddfellows, Royal George, London and Paris, True Briton, Harbour Inn, Princess Royal, Clarendon, Brewery Tap, Earl Grey, Prince Albert, George, Globe, East Kent Arms, Guildhall and Shakespeare.

 
South Kent Gazette 19 September 1979

Local News

Thieves who broke into the Royal George pub at Folkestone harbour on Friday night made off with £65 in cash after forcing open a fruit machine and a juke box.

 
Folkestone Herald 10 November 1979

Canterbury Crown Court

A teenager who attacked another man with a flick knife and tried to mug him was jailed for three years on Friday.

Eighteen-year-old Allan Glass slashed Mr. Frederick McMorran across the head during a scuffle in Folkestone on August 2. He laid in wait in Harbour Way, and at 9.30 p.m. Glass jumped out in front of Mr. McMorran, Canterbury Crown Court heard on Friday. Glass, of no fixed address, admitted assault with intent to rob.

Mr. Anthony Webb, prosecuting, said Mr. McMorran was at a family party at the Royal George pub, and had decided to fetch two of his sons from a nearby club. Glass confronted him as he turned into Harbour Way. He flicked the knife open and demanded Mr. McMorran's wallet. “Mr. McMorran grabbed Glass's wrists and pushed him to the ground. But another man, Brian Flynn, a friend of the defendant, appeared and shouted, causing Mr. McMorran to lose his grip”, Mr. Webb said. Glass slashed the man's head, but was caught soon after by two members of the party and was arrested. Glass told police he had intended to mug someone.

Mr Charles George, for Glass, said he had a bad record and it would be unrealistic to suggest any penalty other than prison. “He came to Folkestone and fell in with Flynn, an older man with a far worse criminal record, and fell under his influence. That day, they had been drinking almost constantly, and although this is no defence, it is something to bear in mind. Also in his past there are no incidents of violence so this offence was out of character. When he comes out of prison he hopes to get a catering job and agrees with his probation officer that he would be better living in a hostel. He also hopes to get some qualifications while inside”.

 
South Kent Gazette 1 July 1981

Local News

On Saturday night burglars broke into a Folkestone pub, the Royal George in Beach Street. They escaped with £150 and some cigarettes.

 
South Kent Gazette 17 February 1982

Annual Licensing Sessions

Publicans' applications for transfer agreed by the Bench include: The Black Bull, Folkestone (music and dancing); Bouverie Arms, Folkestone; Honest Lawyer, Folkestone; Old Harbour Crab and Oyster House (extension to cover restaurant area); Royal George, Folkestone. Approval of plans to alter Folkestone's Pullman Wine Bar was given.

 
Folkestone Herald 9 December 1983

Local News

An application for planning permission to turn the empty Royal George pub at Beach Street, Folkestone, into a restaurant has been made by Mr. Jimmy Godden, owner of the Rotunda amusement complex. Representations should be made to Shepway District Council by December 16.

 
Folkestone Herald 6 January 1984

Local News

Amusement boss Jimmy Godden is planning to bring a derelict pub back to life as a restaurant. Mr. Godden, owner of The Rotunda, Marine Parade, Folkestone is seeking planning permission to do up the Royal George pub at Beach Street. He has put in a planning application to Shepway District Council for the refurbishment of the building to form a restaurant with staff rooms and toilets on the ground floor. The pub has stood empty for a number of years and is up for sale along with the former Ark Cafe and other land in Beach Street.

 
Folkestone Herald 13 January 1984

Local News

Speculator and amusement boss Jimmy Godden is having talks with Shepway District Council over the future of the Ark cafe on Folkestone’s seafront. Mr. Godden, owner of the Rotunda amusement complex in Marine Parade, is already seeking permission to do up the old Royal George pub in Beach Street and hopes to open it as a restaurant, to be in operation by Easter. Mr. Godden refused to reveal what his plans were for the nearby Ark cafe site, other than saying it was likely that plans would be before the council by May. Asked if licensed premises were envisaged for the site, all he would say was that any development would be multi-purpose. “I always like to find out what I am allowed to do, and then go ahead and see if I can do it. I haven't decided yet what to do with the site. This will be a matter for discussion with the council”.

The old Ark cafe was the subject of some local debate in the '70s when it earned the nickname The Grotty Cafe. Despite the general condemnation of the state of the building from councillors, the building, painted in an uninviting shade of Admiralty grey, still had its loyal fans. As the debate raged in council chambers, one customer wrote to the Herald to say he and scores of others who used the Ark regularly were extremely upset about its closure. The food was excellent, he said, the service area clean and tidy, and the atmosphere was happy and relaxed.

 
Folkestone Herald 20 January 1984

Local News

Plans by amusement arcade boss Jimmy Godden to transform the derelict Royal George pub at Folkestone harbour into a restaurant were given the green light last week. Mr. Godden, who owns the Rotunda, Marine Parade, Folkestone, is doing up the single-storey building at Beach Street, to provide a kitchen, servery, restaurant area and toilets on the ground floor. There will be seating facilities on the first floor.

Shepway District Council has been looking at development plans for the whole of the Beach Street area, including the former Ark cafe and surrounding land, which Mr. Godden owns. The arcade boss has said further proposals are to be made to develop the Ark, but he wants to get the Royal George sorted out first. Work has already started to do up the old pub, which has stood empty for a number of years. Members of Shepway's Plans Sub-Committee passed an application for the changes at a meeting last Tuesday.

 
Folkestone Herald 8 August 1986

Advertising Feature

A room with a view is to be one of the welcome attractions for drinkers in Folkestone.

A new bar above The Old Royal George Restaurant gives a panoramic view of Folkestone harbour. It will be named the Skylight Bar, which refers to the breezy attic surroundings in which it is situated. Husband and wife owners Danny and Tina Jordan have been running the restaurant since last September. They felt that the attic was going to waste and converted it into a pleasant drinking place which will open officially this Saturday. A light buffet and punch will welcome the first customers across the threshold. The bar will have an intimate atmosphere with subdued lighting, relaxing armchairs and bows and blinds adorning the windows. Bar meals will be an added attraction, with a tasty varied menu composed of chicken in a basket, sea foods, salads and fresh sandwiches. As well as the normal bar service„ drinkers and light diners will have a waitress service if they eat on the patio outside the restaurant. So on those cool summer days, a meal or snack outdoors will be just the tonic! Drinkers' taste buds are well catered for as the new bar is a free house, with a wide range of beers, lagers and spirits. The Skylight Bar and Old George Restaurant are a boon for motorists as they offer easy road access and car parking facilities are opposite. Shoppers, tourists and young trendies will all find themselves at ease in these plush yet discreet surroundings. Its opening will bring a breath of fresh air to Folkestone’s sea front.

 
Folkestone Herald 11 September 1992

Local News

Pubs are shutting down tomorrow (Saturday) for fear of violence after an Anti-Nazi demo. Campaigners say they will demonstrate at Folkestone Central railway station against an expected rally there by Nazi skinheads. And some publicans, particularly in the Harbour area, are taking no chances with their property and staff.

The assistant manager of the Royal George in Beach Street, who did not want to be named, said “We could be in a prime area for trouble and we are shutting all day. It is not worth staying open, even if only a few hundred pounds worth of damage is caused”.

Landlady Sue Welch said her pub, the London and Paris in Harbour Street, would certainly close during the day and possibly in the evening. She said “The place could get wrecked. We can't risk that”. Her son, barman Alan, 19, said “There could be real danger. This is the area where there is most likely to be trouble because Fascists from Europe may travel here by Seacat”.

Some pubs and bars, such as Jolson's in Tontine Street, are definitely staying open. A member of staff, who did not want to be named, said “We didn't close when the bombs and shells came down during the war. Why should we close now for a bunch of skinhead idiots?”

Other pubs are taking advice from the police and may make their decisions tomorrow morning.

A spokesman at the Park Inn, next to Folkestone Central Station, said “A lot of people are frightened by this. I know of some people who say they won't go into work at the town centre tomorrow. But we don't know if we will shut because we are not certain the rally will go ahead”.

Last Saturday anti-fascist activists leafleted the town asking people to attend the demonstration. Anti-Nazi League member Kelvin Williams told the Herald 4,000 flyers were handed out and 500 names taken on a petition. He said “I've done a few of these in my time and I have never known such a favourable response. My guess is there will be 400 people turning up”.

Last week a spokesman for the far-right Blood and Honour organisation, which had hoped to stage a concert in Folkestone, said nothing was now planned.

But Mr. Williams countered this week; “Our information is that they will be mobilising in London to come down here”.

Jon Steel, a spokesman for Kent Police, said “People ought not to be panicking because if there is any disturbance it will be quashed very quickly. We will have whatever resources are necessary to deal with whatever happens”.

 

Folkestone Herald 29 July 1999

Local News

The landlady of the Royal George pub in Folkestone harbour is concerned that a recent Eco Day in the High Street has portrayed her premises in a bad light. In an exhibit featuring the “blackspots” of Folkestone, environmental group Friends of the Earth showed a picture of wasteland next to the pub, highlighting the problem in an effort to clean up the town.

However, according to Sharon Collins, who co-owns the pub with her partner Gary Moffatt, the poster was misleading and gave the impression that the wasteland belonged to the Royal George, when in fact it didn't. “We have a well-tended terrace outside on our property, but the wasteland is nothing to do with us. People have got the impression that it is our land and that we are responsible for the mess. Friends of the Earth are quite right to list the wasteland as a blackspot. We have been campaigning for years to get the area cleaned up”.

Efforts are being made in other quarters to tackle the problem. Phillippe Esclasse, the town centre manager, said “We realise that this is an area of concern. The issue is complicated as the land is privately owned. However, we have contacted the property owner and hope to see positive developments”.

 

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

TOP Valid CSS Valid XTHML

 

LINK to Even More Tales From The Tap Room