Folkestone Express 4 April 1868.

Transfer of License.

Wednesday, April 1st: Before The Mayor, Capt. Leith, and Alderman Boarer.

The Shakespeare, from Mr. Poole to Mr. Whybourne.

Folkestone Express 16 October 1869.

Transfer of license.

Wednesday, October 13th: Before J. Gambrill, R.W. Boarer, J. Clark and C. Dashwood Esqs.

Shakespeare Tavern, from Edward Wyburn to Thomas F. Taylor.

Folkestone Express 22 April 1871.

County Court.

Saturday, April 15th: Before W.C. Scott Esq.

William Tite, brewer v Henry Payne, publican: Mr. Minter appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Towne, of Margate, for the defendant.

Mr. Minter said the action was brought to recover money due for beer supplied by plaintiff to defendant, who occupied the Shakespeare Inn. The summons was originally taken out for £26 10s. 6d. The total amount of the bill was £50 14. 9d., of that £24 4s. 3d. had been paid, leaving the amount mentioned in the summons. In addition there should have been cash credited, amounting to £7 paid on the 13th February last. This reduced the claim to £19 10s. 6d., which was the amount now sued for. Plaintiff had paid into Court £12 9s. 3d., leaving £7 1s. 3d. as the amount in dispute. Against that another question arose of £6 5s. 3d. In November, 1870, plaintiff applied to defendant for the settlement of a bill. Defendant asked him to allow him a sum of £6 5s. 3d., being the amount of a bill for timber, which plaintiff was indebted to a Mr. Maycock, because Maycock owed him a smaller amount. Plaintiff agreed to this if defendant paid the amount of the bill. He made out the bill and receipted it. A little time after Tite saw Maycock and asked him if he had been paid for the timber. He said he had not, and also said the amount charged was larger than that credited to Tite. In consequence of this, plaintiff wrote to Payne, who too no notice of the letter. The plaintiff was still responsible for this debt by Maycock, but if the defendant produced the receipt of payment to Maycock it would be as good as cash for the amount. Perhaps defendant's counsel would say what part of the account was disputed.

Mr. Towne: You charge us on the 11th of January £2 8s. for one hogshead of porter, which we have not had.

Mr. Minter: With regard to the question of 36 gallons of beer, he was fortunately in a position to prove the delivery of the articles.

He called Mr. William Henry Tite, who said: I am a brewer, of Folkestone, and have supplied defendant from time to time with beer. I always make an entry on my book from time to time of the number on the cask. I remember in January last defendant's little girl coming to the brewery and giving me an order for 18 gallons of porter. It was immediately put in his cellar. He came to me directly after and said “Why did you not put in the barrel the same as the little girl ordered?”. I said “I must have made a mistake, but I will send a barrel”. He said “If you think it will keep, you may put in a barrel and leave the eighteen there”. I sent in the barrel, and that made the hogshead, as charged. The number of the barrel was 2, and the 18 gallon, 501.

By Mr. Towne: I am in the habit of entering the beer in a book kept by defendant. (Book produced) That is my handwriting.

Thomas Darrell, a man employed by plaintiff, remembered delivering 18 galls, and afterward putting in 36 galls. I was in the brewhouse when Payne came in, and heard the conversation.

By Mr. Towne: I take the number of the casks and make an entry of them.

Re-examined by Mr. Minter: I took the number of each cask on this occasion.

Mr. Towne, for the defence, contended that the beer book of the defendant ought to be conclusive, and in that book the defendant was charged with one barrel, not one hogshead. The book was made up on the 27th on January by the plaintiff. If the book was not conclusive, the defendant was quite at the mercy of plaintiff.

His Honour thought the book ought to be relied on very strongly, but he could not admit it as positively conclusive.

Mr. Towne: The next point, the question of timber, was this: Tite employed Payne to buy him some timber. The price of the timber was £5 14s. 6d.., and Payne charged 9s. 10d. more for commission and working it up. It was no difference to plaintiff whether defendant had paid for the timber of not. Defendant did not certainly give Maycock the money for it because he had a counter charge against him of something like £10.

Mr. Payne, the defendant, was then called. He said: I have been in the habit of dealing with Tite. The book produced is the one kept between us, and it is in Mr. Tite's writing. On the 11th of January I was charged £1 12s; that charge is altered into £2 8s. in the bill for one hogshead. I recollect sending for a barrel; am certain no more came in that day. On the 11th of January I had a barrel. I have done about half a barrel of porter per week; that is my average all through the year. I did not have any bill prior to the summons. Tite gave me some work, to supply oak timber to a well. I bought the stuff of Maycock. When one of our accounts was balanced I put in a bill of £6 5s. 3d. That included my charge of 9s. 10d. Maycock owns that this is an account between him and me.

By Mr. Minter: I gave the dimensions for the timber. I ordered goods for myself too. I never received a barrel on the 11th of January. I told the child to go and order a barrel; he sent 18 gallons. I went to him and asked him how it was he did not execute the order. I said to him “If you think the porter will keep, you can send in the remainder in a few days”.

Mr. Minter: But your book says that he sent in 36 gallons on that day.

Re-examined by Mr. Towne: I do not remember receiving any more on that day. Should say from the book the beer came in a barrel. I know the book is right.

Mr. Maycock was called and deposed to receiving an order from Payne. It was his son's business. They had no claim against Mr. Tite for this timber.

Mr. Minter replied on the whole case, and showed that the evidence of the defendant entirely confirmed that of Mr. Tite.

His Honour believed that a mistake had occurred, and the mistake was on Payne's part. Judgement for 16s. beyond the money paid into Court, and costs.

George Ham Tite, gentleman v Henry Payne, publican: Mr. Minter appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Towne for defendant.

Mr. Minter said the action was brought to recover possession of the Shakespeare Inn, against the defendant, who neglected to give up possession. Plaintiff for many years had carried on the business of the Gun Brewery, and he also owned the Shakespeare Inn. He let the brewery to his son, and also the Shakespeare Inn from the 25th of March, 1870 to the 25th of March, 1871; the Inn was to be £40 per year. The son underlet to the defendant for a sum of about £24 per year, subject to some arrangement. A dispute arose between W. Tite and Payne, and although the present plaintiff did try to settle matters, he was unsuccessful, and Payne was informed that if he did not come to some terms he would have to leave the house at the end of the year (25th March). William Tite, the actual tenant, gave up possession at that date, but Henry Payne, the defendant, alleging that he had received no notice from W. Tite, refused to give up possession.

Mr. George Tite said he let the premises to his son for one year, at £40. He saw Mr. Payne, and told him he should require possession on the 25th of March. He demanded possession on that day, and Payne replied by saying there was no legal notice.

By Mr. Towne: I let it to my son as an ordinary tenant for one year. He was to try it for one year only; that and the brewery. I think I was present when my son let it to Payne. I did not make any objection at the time to Payne having it. My son would not have the Shakespeare any longer as Payne refused to have his beer of him.

Mr. Towne submitted that the plaintiff was out of Court, as he was here to recover on his own title. He said the property was his and he let it to his son, and he admits he was present at the time when the son let it to Payne. Payne was not the tenant of the plaintiff; he was the tenant of the plaintiff's son. Plaintiff came to Court on his own title, but he had not made out that title. Before he could proceed he must establish that title. Defendant never admitted him to be the landlord. Plaintiff ought to have told his son that he could not let Payne have it.

Mr. Payne said: I took the Shakespeare at a rental of £24 10s. per year, and £2 per year for the use of fixtures in the house. I took it as a yearly tenant. I know Tite's father; he was present at the time. He took the greater part in the letting; they wanted £65; this was afterwards reduced to £40. Nothing was said about the son letting it.

By Mr. Minter: He let me have it for £24 10s. per year, but he did not say what he was paying. He did not make a statement to anyone. Tite agreed to let the house without beer. Did not say I was to pay £40 per year and 30s. per barrel for beer, or £24 10s. per year and 32s. per barrel for beer. I refused to have any more of Tite's beer.

Re-examined by Mr. Towne: I never had any notice to quit.

Mr. Minter contended that the dispute was entirely the fault of the defendant. Plaintiff let the house for a year, and a year only, to his son. The son declined to go on with the tenancy after the year had expired. It was on the evidence that Mr. Tite jun. paid his father £40 and sub-let it at £24 10s. There must have been some reason for this, and that was that the defendant should have his beer of William Tite. A dispute had arisen about this beer, and defendant refused to have any more. What the plaintiff required was £40 per year for the premises, or possession.

His Honour thought in this case the house had been let to defendant with the acquiescence of the plaintiff. There must, therefore, be a judgement for the defendant. As to it's being a quarterly or yearly tenancy, that was another question.

Folkestone Express 20 May 1871.

County Court.

Saturday, May 13th: Before W.C. Scott Esq.

George H. Tite v Henry Payne: Mr. Minter appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. Towne, of Margate, for the defendant. It will be remembered that at the last sitting of His Honour an action was brought by the plaintiff to recover possession of the Shakespeare Inn, held by the defendant, which was decided in favour of the defendant.

Mr. Minter now rose to apply for a new trial and recapitulated the facts of the case. The plaintiff let the Shakespeare Inn on the 25th March, 1870 to his son, William Tite, at a rental of £40 per annum, and his son sub-let it to defendant. It was evident that an agreement was made between William Tite and the defendant to take the house as a yearly tenant at £24 10s. per annum. At the trial defendant said that Mr. George H. Tite stood by and heard this agreement made, therefore they contended that there was acquiescence on his part, which precluded him from bringing this action. This evidence took the plaintiff by surprise, and he now applied for a new trial. His friend, Mr. Towne, in a very ingenious manner asked the plaintiff the question – “Were you present when your son let the house to defendant?”. Mr. Tite answered “I think I was”. Mr. Towne went on cross-examining very ingeniously, but he did not ask one word as to the terms of the letting. Defendant was then brought before His Honour and swore that the house was let to him as a yearly tenant. These two pieces of evidence dovetailed together showed acquiescence on the part of plaintiff to the letting. Plaintiff did not know at the time such a defence would be set up. The affidavit of the defendant would show that.

Mr. Towne objected to the affidavit. It was filed only the previous night, and he was as surprised at the affidavit as his friend was at the evidence.

His Honour: The affidavits are very short.

Mr. Towne: But the rules of the Court say they should be filed before.

Mr. Minter, while admitting that the affidavit should have been filed before, said there was nothing in the rules of Court that they should be filed.

Mr. Minter said they were not applying for a rule nisi. It would be seen from paragraph 3 of the affidavit that plaintiff understood from plaintiff and his son that a quarterly tenancy had been entered into and he went to the Shakespeare Inn for the purpose of negotiating with the defendant for some fixtures. From the affidavit of William Tite he let the premises to defendant at £24 10s. per year on the condition that defendant paid 32s. per barrel for his beer, and he goes on further to say that no other person was present at the time the agreement was made. After it had been entered into defendant requested him to obtain the presence of his father to see about the fixtures, and they did meet the next evening, after the agreement had been entered into. If his friend had examined the plaintiff as to the terms of the agreement it would have enabled him (Mr. Minter) to have called Mr. William Tite, who would have explained the matter. If plaintiff is bound by the agreement between his son and defendant, how is he to recover £40 per year rent? Is he to be debarred from recovering his rent? Who is the landlord of the defendant Payne? Is Mr. George Ham Tite? If the defendant considered Mr. G.H. Tire his landlord he would have paid plaintiff the rent. Instead of that he pays the plaintiff's under-tenant, William Tite. And there was direct evidence of this, as in October last he paid him half a year's rent. If the plaintiff had been treating with Payne, why should he stand by and let it at less rent than he was actually paying himself, for he believed that George Ham Tite was only a yearly tenant of the premises at £40 per year? There must have been some motive actuating him to let it at a smaller rent.

His Honour: If the affidavits are true, then the evidence by which I came to my decision must be untrue.

Mr. Towne said this was one of the most vague applications he had ever heard. Although his friend said on the last occasion he was taken by surprise, he had not ventured to being on affidavit of that fact. The plaintiff now comes forward and swears distinctly the opposite to which he did before. A legal surprise was something that could not reasonably come into his head, but plaintiff swore distinctly that he was present at the time the agreement was made; if he had denied that he was present, they had witnesses present to prove that he was there.

Mr. Minter pointed out that the plaintiff could if he liked brought the action against Mr. W. Tite, and an order of ejection by default would have turned Payne out without any trouble whatever. But the plaintiff did not wish to act harshly, and he had done all he could to make up the dispute between Payne and his son. He had no desire to get rid of Payne; all he wanted was the rent of the house.

His Honour could not help thinking that the evidence given by the defendant Payne must have amounted to a surprise. The two affidavits showed that the plaintiff was not present at the time the agreement was made. He thought there was just sufficient to say there was surprise, and he therefore granted the application.

Folkestone Express 24 June 1871.

County Court.

Saturday, June 17th: Before W.C. Scott Esq.

The Shakespeare Inn, George Ham Tite v Henry Payne: This action was brought to recover possession of the above inn. The case had been previously heard, when His Honour gave judgement for the defendant. The plaintiff applied for a new trial at the last Court; this application was granted by His Honour. As on the previous occasions Mr. J. Minter appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Towne, of Margate, for the defendant. By the request of the last gentleman all witnesses were ordered out of Court.

Mr. Minter recapitulated the facts of the case – That the plaintiff let the house to his son on March 25th, 1870 for one year only; the latter sub-let it to the defendant in April of the same year. The tenancy between plaintiff and son expired on the 25th of March last and the defendant refused to give up possession. Whether the plaintiff was present or not at the time the agreement was made it would not have the effect of binding him to it's terms. If the defendant was aggrieved he would have his remedy against the plaintiff's son.

Plaintiff was then sworn, and said: I am a maltster, living at Folkestone, and I am the tenant of the Shakespeare Inn. In 1870 I made an agreement with my son and let the inn to him for one year, from the 25th of March, 1870, to the 25th of March, 1871, at £40 per year. I was not present when he let the premises to Payne, the defendant. I had some fixtures in the house. I went to the Shakespeare and saw Payne with reference to the fixtures. I heard there was a dispute between Payne and my son, and I tried to make peace between them. I went to the house and demanded possession. I found Payne there, but he refused to give it up.

By Mr. Towne: I let it to my son, William, at £40 per year. He was to take the house alone for £40; the fixtures were mine. I went to the house before Payne took it to settle about the fixtures. Payne met me there by appointment; he asked how much I wanted; the most I asked was £50, and the lowest £40. He did not buy them of me; he went home and consulted and came back again the next night. He did not propose to pay £2 a year more rent instead of paying for the fixtures. He agreed to pay £2 a year more for the use of the fixtures. He held them on those terms. I remember your asking me if I was present when the agreement was made. I heard certain conversation between them about it.

Re-examined by Mr. Minter: I made him an offer to accept £40. Afterwards I said I would be satisfied with £5 per cent of that amount.

His Honour said his judgement on the previous occasion was based on the plaintiff being present at the time the agreement for letting was made.

Mr. Towne said he had the shorthand writers' notes to prove that the plaintiff said at the previous trial that he was present. The Folkestone Chronicle said in cross-examination it was elicited that the plaintiff was present.

Mr. Minter: That is not a report of what he said, that is merely a reporter's observation. The Folkestone Express contains the correct report.

Mr. William Tite was here called, and Mr. Towne created a sensation in Court by asserting that he saw the witness listening at the door of the Court. This was emphatically denied both by the witness and the door keeper. Ultimately, as witnesses were about to be called in support of Mr. Tite's statement, Mr. Towne withdrew his accusation. The examination of the witness was then proceeded with. He said: I hired the Shakespeare from my father for one year, from March, 1870, to March, 1871, at £40 per year. My father was not present at the letting of the house to Payne. The fixtures belonged to my father. I have received rent from Payne for the house and for fixtures.

By Mr. Towne: I let the house to Payne the Saturday after Good Friday. I did not let the fixtures at the same time. My father let the fixtures. Payne could not afford to take them, and they were let at £5 per cent, or £2 per year. We agreed on a rent of £24 10s. per year and £2 for the fixtures. That receipt is mine. It is the only one he ever had of me. It says “Received £13 5s. for rent of Shakespeare Inn from April 22nd to October 22nd”. I did not let the Shakespeare at £26 10s. per year rent. He took possession and the rent commenced from the 22nd of April.

Mr. Minter: Does the receipt include rent for fixtures?

Witness: It includes £1 for the fixtures.

This concluded the plaintiff's case.

Mr. Towne said the plaintiff now utterly contradicted the evidence given by him on the previous occasion. It was excessively probable that the plaintiff was present at the time the agreement was made, and now by some “hocus pocus” he hoped to turn him out without notice to quit because the younger Tite has given up possession. He was fortunately in a position to place the matter beyond any doubt whatever as to the presence of the plaintiff. He was really the man who let the house and the fixtures; he arranged about the whole affair. It would be a cruel thing if the father and son were allowed to combine to turn him out.

The defendant was then called and said: I am the landlord of the Shakespeare Inn. I took it on the 22nd of April, 1870. I took the house on the Monday or Tuesday evening. I made an appointment to meet old Mr. Tite. I had not taken the house up to that time. I met him in the evening at the Shakespeare. Mr. Button was there, and Mr. Tite jun. was out in the room. Old Mr. Tite was particularly active in the letting; he negotiated about the letting of the house. We had a talk about the house, and after the rent was named at £24 10s. Mr. Tite went on to negotiate about the fixtures. He wanted £40 for them, and I said it was too much money; they were not worth it. He then said I should have them at £5 per cent on £40. It was then settled that I should take the business at £24 10s. rent and £2 for fixtures. (Receipt produced) This is a receipt I received from Tite; it says received for rent, but it was for rent and fixtures. Old Mr. Tite has never asked me anything for the fixtures.

By Mr. Minter: The half year's rent was paid to William Tite, my landlord. Nothing was said to William Tite on Good Friday about taking the house. Nothing was said until the following Monday or Tuesday by either one or the other of us. Nothing was said about the beer or anything of the kind. I was to have the house at that rent. I have beer from other people. I have paid 30s. a barrel for beer. I paid William Tite 32s. There was a dispute about the beer. Mr. G.H. Tite tried to reconcile the difference.

Re-examined by Mr. Towne: Mr. Button was present when the terms were agreed upon. He was asked to draw up an agreement by Mr. George Ham Tite. He did draw up an agreement and I had a copy and they had one. It was never signed, as Mr. Tite said I could do as well without. I ceased to have the beer because I did not like it.

Mr. Button said: I am a carpenter. I know Mr. Ham Tite and Payne. I met Payne and he asked me to come and have a look at the Shakespeare as he had some thoughts of taking it. I said to Payne “There are not many fixtures”. We then went into the parlour. Mr. Ham Tite came in and he and Payne talked about the fittings and the rent. Mr. Tite said he considered the fittings were worth £40, but if he did not care to pay the money down he could pay £2 a year for the fixtures and £24 10s. as rent, making the rent altogether £26 10s. I am quite positive this took place. Young Tite was not present; he was about the bar. I don't think he said a word about the case. It was the father who negotiated about this house. I was asked to draw up a memorandum, and I drew up two copies. Mr. Tite sen. asked me to make the agreement. I wrote just as I heard them agree. (Agreement read) Those terms were agreed upon.

Cross-examined by Mr. Minter: Did you say that an agreement had better be drawn up?

Witness: I might have said so. I cannot tell the day I was there. Do not know the reply given when I took the agreement. I will not swear it was not signed.

Re-examined: It was Mr. Tite senior that proposed an agreement should be drawn up and I prepared one.

Mr. William Tite, re-called, said: When Mr. Button handed me the agreement I read it and told him it was of no use as it did not contain the price of the beer. He said “I will put anything you require on the back of it”.

Mr. Towne contended that the evidence of his witness had not been contradicted.

Mr. Minter, in reply, again contended that if the defendant was in any way injured by his eviction he would have his remedy against Mr. Tite jun.

His Honour said on the previous occasion he based his judgement on the one ground of acquiescence on the part of the plaintiff in the letting; that had now been disproved, and there was no further evidence of his acquiescence with regard to the letting of the house. There was acquiescence with regard to the letting of the fixtures. Plaintiff was present at the time when the fixtures were let but not when the house was let. He was therefore entitled to what he asked. If defendant was aggrieved on that account, his remedy is against Tite jun. Possession to be given in seven days.

Folkestone Express 8 July 1871.

Transfer Of License.

At the Petty Sessions on Wednesday morning Louis Herwigg applied for a license for the Shakespeare, the late tenant, Mr. John Payne, having left without surrendering the old license. It was granted.

Note: It appears that the names at the Shakespeare are wrong, Herwigg being Henry Augustus, and Payne being Henry.

Folkestone Express 22 July 1871.

County Court.

Saturday, July 15th: Before W.C. Scott Esq.

Henry Payne v George Ham Tite: This was a plaint out in for the recovery of £13 6s., which was paid by the plaintiff, under protest, to the defendant on the 20th June.

Mr. Towne, of Margate, appeared for the plaintiff, as on a former occasion when an action was brought against him by the defendant for the recovery of the Shakespeare Inn. Mr. Minter again appeared for Mr. Tite.

Mr. Towne opened the case in a lengthy speech, and stated that a distress had been taken out by the defendant against his client, and £13 6s. had been paid under protest. He thought there would be no difficulty with that as he held the receipt given for the money. He then proceeded to recapitulate the circumstances of the late action against the plaintiff, and denounced it as a conspiracy against him. On the 31st of arch a summons was issued against the plaintiff calling on him to quit possession of the Shakespeare Inn, the tenancy of the defendant's son having expired on the 25th. Mr. Towne contended that the very issue of that summons was an admission that the person was a mere trespasser, and that the tenancy between the father and son (Tites) had expired. And if that tenancy had expired, why, the, of course, the power to make a distraint had expired and the defendant had no right to make it.The question was whether the distress was issued on Henry Payne during the possession of George Ham Tite. The latter, having admitted the tenancy between his son and himself to have ceased on the 25th of March, and having issued a summons in the shape of an ejectment against the present plaintiff, and got possession under that summons, the question was whether Henry Payne was the tenant. He never was the tenant of George Ham Tite. The son of the latter was, and that tenancy having ceased, he had the audacity to do that, and they now simply wanted back the money. The right to make a distress was determined by the issue of the summons, which amounted to an eviction. He contended that after an eviction the landlord loses his power of a distress, that power existing only during the tenancy of the person from whom the arrears of rent become due. The rent does not become due from the sub-tenant, and here the sub-tenant was treated as a trespasser.

Mr. Towne quoted authorities on these points, and then called the plaintiff, who deposed to having been served with a summons from George Ham Tite to quit possession of the Shakespeare. At the last County Court he was ordered out of possession.

Mr. Minter said no oral testimony could be given as evidence of the acts of the Court.

Mr. Towne said he produced the order.

Mr. Minter said it was entered in the proper Court book – that was merely a minute from the book.

His Honour (to Mr. Minter): What do you want?

Mr. Minter: I want him to prove it in the proper way.

Mr. Towne said the minutes of the Registrar were the best evidence.

Mr. Minter said the proper way was by the office copy.

Mr. Towne said he could not submit to such ill-bound technicalities.

Mr. Minter said he was there on behalf of his clients and to make all the objections he could.

Mr. Towne: You must not take your objections for law.

Mr. Minter said it was not a proper thing for the Court to send for the copy.

Mr. Towne: We have been led away; the summons put in is evidence. (Summons put in)

Examination of the witness continued: I left the premises on the 24th of June. Before that day the distraint was made upon me by Mr. George Ham Tite. I paid, under protest, to his agent.

By Mr. Minter: I entered into possession on the 22nd April, 1870, at a yearly rental of £26 10s., payable half-yearly. I paid the first half year's rent. I have not paid the second half-year's rent. Kept possession from April till June without paying rent. Have been in for eight months without paying rent at all. I paid Mr. Pledge a cheque for £13 6s. under protest.

By Mr. Towne: The cheque is paid.

Mr. Minter: He can't tell that.

Witness: I have not had it back.

Mr. James Pledge deposed he was agent for the defendant. He was called upon to make a distress on the plaintiff. Acting for Mr. Tite he gave the plaintiff a receipt, and received from him a cheque, which he gave to Mr. Tite. He had not had the cheque back.

By Mr. Minter: I distrained on the Shakespeare. The plaintiff forcibly ejected my man from the house as soon as I had gone out, and then locked the door. The plaintiff afterwards told me he should see his solicitor to know if the distraint was right or not. He afterwards said he had communicated with Mr. Towne and should pay under protest. He then gave me a cheque for £18, and I gave him the difference.

Mr. Towne: If the Judge is satisfied that the protest was made, that is my case.

Mr. Minter then addressed the Court. After alluding to the fact that the attorney for the plaintiff had used some harsh words, he submitted that the action had been brought in a wrong form, and that there was no case for His Honour. The illegality of the distress had not been proved, neither had the actual payment of the money. It might be the cheque had not been paid. No doubt ordinary businessmen would assume it had been, but that was not what they had got to decide there today.

Mr. Minter then made voluminous quotations in support of his case to which Mr. Towne objected in warm terms.

His Honour (to Mr. Towne): You bring books to show the illegality of the distress. He objects to your method of bringing forward the case.

Mr. Towne: Something in the shape of a distress was made, and without .......

His Honour: He has his remedy. An action could have been entered into for illegal distress.

Mr. Towne: Because we have not brought forward an action for illegal distress, we are not to bring this action for the recovery of money paid under protest?

His Honour: I have no doubt that was the proper way to recover this money. Whether the distress was good or bad, this is not the proper way to bring your claim.

Mr. Towne: I deny a man a right to enter my premises at all; he puts in a distraint, and we afterwards pay him under protest. The facts are before us in evidence. Under these circumstances I should like to have a case for a higher Court.

His Honour: I am not in the slightest doubt on this occasion, and therefore I do not think I ought to grant a case.

Mr. Towne said he would ask His Honour to adjourn the case until the next County Court, and give them an opportunity to satisfy His Honour.

His Honour: I am satisfied.

Mr. Towne: Then you would be more satisfied. I must trouble Your Honour seriously with a notice to apply for a new trial.

His Honour: I can't prevent you doing that.

Judgement was given for the defendant.

Folkestone Express 16 August 1873.

Friday, August 15th: Before The Mayor, J. Clarke and J. Tolputt Esqs.

Charles Lott, Bathchair man, was charged with being drunk and of indecent conduct in Guildhall Street.

Mr. Andrews, Guildhall Tavern, proved the case, and said prisoner was drunk in front of his house, and was guilty of indecent conduct in front of a number of children and ladies who were passing. As he would not go away, witness sent for the police, and prisoner was locked up.

A previous conviction for drunkenness in June was proved.

Prisoner was fined 10s. and 5s. 6d. costs for the first offence, of 14 days' hard labour. For the second offence, 14 days' hard labour without the option of a fine, and the addition of a few strokes of the lash would not have been out of place for such a besotted offender against morality and decency.

Note: This will actually be Shakespeare Inn.

Folkestone Express 23 August 1873.

Erratum.

In the report of the Police Court on Friday 15th instant Mr. Andrews, Guildhall Tavern, was stated to have proved a case. It should have been Mr. Herwigg, Shakespeare Inn.

Folkestone Express 23 June 1877.

Monday, June 18th: Before J. Kelcey Esq., and Alderman Caister.

Thomas Hogan was charged with being drunk and disorderly in Guildhall Street on Sunday evening.

P.C. Knowles deposed that he was on duty in the police station on Sunday evening shortly before eight o'clock, when he was sent for from the Shakespeare Hotel, and on proceeding there he found the prisoner, who refused to leave. When he got the prisoner outside he commenced helloing and throwing a spade which he was carrying about in the street. Witness advised him to go away, but he refused. The prisoner was very drunk and caused a great disturbance.

The Bench sentenced the prisoner, who was an old offender, having often been before them on similar charges, to twenty one days' hard labour, and promised if he came before them again to send him for trial at the Quarter Sessions, the Recorder being able to deal more severely with him than they could.

Folkestone Express 20 May 1882.

County Court.

Saturday, May 13th: Before G. Russell Esq.

John Scott v Horace Heath: Claim, £50 damages for an assault in the Shakespeare on the 13th March.

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

Mr. Minter said that the action was brought by Scott, a retired warrant officer and brewer's agent, who was at that time in the employ of Messrs. Hammerton and Co., of the Stockwell Brewery, as their agent in Folkestone, against the defendant, the clerk of the works at the new Grammar School, to recover damages for a most unjustifiable assault committed by defendant on the 13th March in the Shakespeare Hotel.

John Scott, the plaintiff, said he was a retired warrant officer, and at the time the assault was committed he was in the employ of Messrs. Hammerton and Co., of the Stockwell Brewery, as their agent at Folkestone. On the 13th March he was going to Dover, and on his way called in at the Shakespeare and asked for some refreshment. He was sitting in a compartment of the bar by himself, and did not know the defendant was there until he went round and struck him (plaintiff) in the face, knocking him down, and he then kicked him in the side, and threw his drink in his face. It was a very serious affair, and defendant might have killed him. He went to Dr. Perry, who ordered him to rest for some time. He was indoors for three weeks from the effects of the assault. He had not given the defendant any provocation at the time. They were previously acquainted, and had had a dispute about three months before.

Cross-examined by Mr. Mowll: He never threatened to knock defendant's brains out at any time. He did not strike the first blow on the 13th March. Through that occurrence he partly lost his situation, which was worth about £4 a week to him.

Superintendent Taylor said that on the 13th March the plaintiff complained to him about the assault. He went to his house, and saw him lying on a sofa. He appeared to be very ill, as if suffering from violence.

Cross-examined by Mr. Mowll: He had seen a number of persons after fighting, but they did not all show their marks the same. Plaintiff was an elderly man and appeared very much shaken.

Horece Heath, the defendant, who is clerk of the works at the Grammar School, in the employ of the Trustees, said that he had been in the town since the 18th August, 1881. On the 31st December the plaintiff insulted him, and he then told him that he would have to answer for it some day when he met him alone. On the day in question, he went round into the compartment where plaintiff was and asked him what he meant on the 31st December, and if he was prepared to defend himself. The plaintiff immediately struck out and hit him right and left. He did not strike the first blow. He had never heard anything about kicking the plaintiff until that morning.

Cross-examined by Mr. Minter: He could not swear that the barmaid at the Shakespeare had never visited him at his lodgings. He was intimate with her. He had been trying for some time, but had never got hold of plaintiff.

Fanny Hewson, the barmaid at the Shakespeare, said that she remembered the assault taking place. Mr. Heath asked Scott if he was prepared to defend himself. Plaintiff then struck out and the defendant hit him back.

Cross-examined by Mr. Minter: When Heath asked Scott if he was prepared to defend himself, Scott put up his hand and pushed defendant, and he knocked over the form. She did not visit the defendant at his lodgings. She walked out with him.

His Honour, in giving judgement, said that there was no doubt but that the defendant nourished a deliberate intention to punish the plaintiff for the insult in December. The defendant was a man in the prime of life, while the plaintiff was much older, and certainly not competent to defend himself against a man like the defendant. It was perfectly immaterial who struck the first blow, as the defendant had expressed his intention to commit the assault. He would give judgement for the plaintiff, with £5 damages, and costs.

Folkestone Express 28 July 1883.

Saturday, July 21st: Before R.W. Boarer and F. Boykett Esqs., and Alderman Banks.

Henry Webb was charged with being drunk while in charge of a horse, and George Sider with being drunk. Sider pleaded Guilty.

P.C. Knowles said on the 12th inst. he saw the two defendants in a pony and trap at the bottom of Shellons Street. They were both drunk. They drove on to Rendezvous Street and stopped opposite the Prince Albert. He followed them with Sergeant Pay. Sider either got out or fell out of the cart. He took him into custody, and afterwards went back to help Sergt. Pay bring Webb to the station. He had received complaints previously about them. They were both incapable of taking care of a horse and cart.

Sergt. Pay said he saw Sider come out of the Gun Inn, get into a cart, and drive up the Bouverie Road, and afterwards return. He stayed about five minutes, and then went to the Shakespeare Inn, leaving his cart outside the Gun. He saw the two defendants afterwards, about nine o'clock, in the cart, coming up Grace Hill. They were both drunk.

Sider was fined 5s. and 8s. costs, and Webb 10s. and 10s. costs.

Folkestone Express 17 June 1899.

Friday, June 9th: Before J. Hoad, T.J. Vaughan, and J. Stainer Esqs., and Col. Westropp.

Charles Hall and Timothy Reardon, privates in the Royal West Kent Militia, were charged with being drunk and disorderly in Guildhall Street on Thursday.

P.C. Frank Lawrence said he saw the two defendants turned out of the Shakespeare Hotel, and the landlord complained to him of their conduct. He followed them and saw them go into Mr. Franklin's shop. He spoke to them, and Reardon struck a civilian and used very bad language. He was very violent all the way to the station. He thought Reardon was the vilest and foulest-mouthed man he had ever met. At the Shakespeare they were refused to be served. He requested them to go away several times.

Mr. Bradley: Do you know where they got drunk? – I have heard at Cheriton.

An officer of the regiment gave Reardon a good and Hall a fair character.

They were each fined 5s. and 4s. 6d. costs, or seven days' in default.

They had no goods, and the officer said he was instructed not to pay any fine.

Folkestone Express 5 May 1900.

Saturday, April 28th: Before J. Pledge, J. Stainer, and T.J. Vaughan Esqs., and Lieut. Col. Westropp.

Mr. Sparrow, landlord of the Shakespeare Hotel, was granted, after a long discussion, permission to build a shed in his yard adjoining his licensed premises.

Folkestone Express 25 July 1903.

Saturday, July 18th: Before E.T. Ward Esq., Lieut. Col Westropp, Alderman Vaughan, and J. Stainer Esq.

Joseph Griggs was summoned for causing an obstruction by means of an out-porter's truck.

P.C. Butter stated that on the 16th inst. he was in Guildhall Street, when he saw an out porter's truck standing outside the Shakespeare Hotel, and partly obstructing the crossing. Witness kept observation for 20 minutes, and on defendant coming out took his name and address.

Defendant admitted that the barrow was standing in the street for ten minutes.

Fined 2s. 6d., costs being remitted.

Folkestone Express 29 August 1903.

Saturday, August 22nd: Before Alderman Banks, W. Wightwick, and G.I. Swoffer Esqs.

Thomas Sullivan was charged with being drunk and disorderly.

P.C. Simpson deposed that the previous evening about 8 p.m. he was on duty outside the Town Hall when he saw prisoner, who was drunk, acting in a disorderly manner and flashing a bundle of song papers into people's faces. He went into the Shakespeare Hotel, but was immediately ejected. Prisoner the commenced to use obscene language and witness arrested him. Several complaints had been received by the police respecting prisoner's conduct.

P.S. Dunster corroborated as to the prisoner's condition when brought to the police station.

The Bench imposed a fine of 5s. and 5s. 6d. costs, or seven days' hard labour.

Folkestone Express 2 December 1905.

Friday, November 24th: Before W.C. Carpenter Esq., and Major Leggatt.

John Brien was charged with being drunk and disorderly in Guildhall Street the previous night. Prisoner pleaded Guilty.

P.C. Stevens said about 10.45 he was on duty in Guildhall Street, where he saw the prisoner outside the Shakespeare Hotel, fighting with a man named Waller. As he went towards them, Waller ran away, but he caught Brien, who had his shirt off. With the assistance of P.C. Bourn he brought the prisoner, who was drunk, to the police station.

Prisoner said he had a discussion with Waller and they had a dispute. Waller struck him, so he retaliated.

The Chief Constable said there were 10 or 12 convictions against the prisoner, but not for drunkenness, during the last five years.

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

Folkestone Express 9 November 1907.

Friday, November 2nd: Before The Mayor, Lieut. Col. Fynmore, and E.T. Ward Esq.

William John McElroy, a young man, was charged with being drunk and disorderly in Guildhall Street. He pleaded Guilty.

It appeared that shortly after ten his condition was such that he was asked to leave the Shakespeare Hotel. He refused to do so and P.C. Stiles had to be called to eject him. Shortly after he again went into the house, and the constable had again to see him out. When in the street he became very disorderly, and caused a large crowd to assemble. He was therefore taken into custody.

McElroy informed the Magistrates the reason that he went into the house the second time was to obtain some onions which he had left behind him.

There were two or three previous convictions against him, and he was fined 5s. and 4s. 6d. costs, a week being allowed for payment.

Folkestone Express 19 November 1910.

Wednesday, November 16th: Before E.T. Ward Esq., Alderman Spurgen, and Lieut. Colonel Fynmore.

Edward Stapley was charged with being drunk and disorderly in Guildhall Street the previous evening. He was further charged with assaulting P.C. Bourne. He denied both charges.

P.C. Bourne said at five minutes past seven he saw the prisoner in Guildhall Street, near the Town Hall, rolling from one side of the path to the other. He went into the Shakespeare Hotel, and witness heard the barmaid refuse to serve him. She ordered him to leave, but he said he would not go until he had a drink. Witness also told him to get outside. When in the street Stapley commenced to shout, and said he would have some drink from somewhere. As he would not be quiet, witness took him into custody, when prisoner became very violent and struck him a severe blow on the right eye. With the assistance of P.C. Pittock he handcuffed him and brought him to the police station. On the way Stapley kicked and struggled a great deal. Witness, previous to the prisoner going into the Shakespeare Hotel, followed him into the Guildhall Vaults and told the barmaid not to serve him.

P.C. Pittock said he saw P.C. Bourne follow the prisoner into the Shakespeare, and saw both of them come out. He then saw the prisoner strike Bourne in the eye. Witness went to the other constable's assistance, and when they took him into custody he struggled violently.

P.S. Sharpe said when Stapley was brought into the police station he was drunk and very violent.

Prisoner denied being drunk and assaulting the constable.

Inspt. Swift said there were eight convictions against the prisoner, but only two for being drunk and disorderly, the last being four years ago.

A fine of 5s. and 4s. 6d. costs was imposed for being drunk and disorderly, or seven days' hard labour in default; and for the assault a fine of 10s. and 4s. 6d. costs, or a further seven days'.

Prisoner said he had no money, so the Magistrates ordered him below, the Chairman stating that the sentences would run consecutively.

Folkestone Express 17 February 1912.

Tuesday, February 13th: Before E.T. Ward Esq., and Lieut. Col. Fynmore.

Andrew Frederick Mather, a well dressed man, was charged with being drunk and disorderly the previous evening. He pleaded Guilty.

P.C. Ashley said about 7.15 the previous evening he was on duty in Guildhall Street, where he saw the defendant, who was drunk, cross the road and go into the Shakespeare Hotel. He (witness) heard him refused drink. The defendant came out into the street and went into the saloon bar, from which he was ejected. He tried to get the defendant to go home in a cab, but he refused, and as he continued to shout a crowd began to collect. He eventually had to take him into custody.

Defendant said he was not in the habit of taking too much to drink. He admitted he overstepped the traces and he regretted such an occurrence.

Fined 10s. and 4s. 6d. costs.

Folkestone Express 11 January 1913.

Friday, January 3rd: Before W.G. Herbert, J. Stainer, R.J. Linton, G.I. Swoffer, G. Boyd, W.J. Harrison, and E.T. Morrison Esqs., and Major Leggett.

Maud Thorne was charged with being drunk and disorderly the previous night in Guildhall Street. She pleaded Guilty.

P.C. Taylor said about 8.40 p.m. the previous evening he was near the Shakespeare Hotel, when he saw the defendant fighting, with a large crowd of people round her. She was drunk, so he took her into custody for being drunk and disorderly.

Prisoner said she was only defending herself from a woman who struck her.

The constable said the prisoner and another woman were ejected from the Shakespeare Hotel because they were having an altercation.

Mrs. Thorne expressed her sorrow.

Fined 5s. and 4s. 6d. costs.

Folkestone Express 24 May 1913.

Local News.

At a special licensing sessions on Wednesday the following licence was transferred: The Shakespeare Hotel was temporarily transferred from Mr. C. Sparrow to Mr. J.S. Smiles.

Note: NOT J.G. Smiles as listed in More Bastions, but his son.

Folkestone Express 21 June 1913.

Obituary.

The death took place early on Saturday morning of Mr. Joseph S. Smiles at the residence of his father, Mr. J.G. Smiles, of Briorlea, Ashley Avenue, Cheriton. The late Mr. Smiles, who until recently had assisted his father at the White Lion Hotel, Cheriton, had been ill for several weeks. He had even left his bed of sickness a few weeks ago to attend a sitting of the Folkestone Magistrates to apply for the transfer of the licence of the Shakespeare Hotel, Guildhall Street, from Mr. C. Sparrow. At the time of his death he was really the licence holder of that hotel. He died at the early age of 30 years, and his demise will be regretted by a large circle of friends. He was a thorough all-round sportsman. He frequently appeared for the Hockey Club in their matches, and he was an oarsman of much ability. He was also a member of the East Kent Yeomanry. Sympathy will be extended to Mr. J.G. and Mrs. Smiles in their sad bereavement.

Folkestone Express 23 August 1913.

Local News.

At the Police Court on Wednesday the following licence was transferred, temporary authority having been sanctioned previously by the Magistrates: The Shakespeare Hotel, from Mr. C.L. Sparrow to Mr. J.G. Smiles.

Folkestone Express 2 May 1914.

Monday, April 27th: Before E.T. Ward Esq. and Colonel Owen.

Robert Higgins was charged with begging in Guildhall Street on Saturday night. He pleaded Guilty.

P.C. Butcher said at 9.30 on Saturday evening he was in Guildhall Street when he saw the prisoner begging from customers at public houses and soldiers in the street. He went into the Shakespeare Hotel, where he begged in the bar, and also went into the Guildhall Vaults, where he did the same thing. He (witness) went up to him and told him he should arrest him for begging. On being searched 11½d. in bronze and two insurance cards were found upon him.

Prisoner, who spoke with a strong Scotch accent, said he only begged from soldiers who were countrymen of his own. One of them gave him sixpence. He was a fitter by trade, but he was 51 years of age and could not get any work as he was too old. He came to London to get a job in the East India Docks, but his eyesight failed him. He had done no work since last November.

The insurance cards, which were for sickness and unemployment, showed that prisoner last worked in November.

The prisoner, on promising to leave the town, he explaining that he would make his way north again, was discharged by the Magistrates.

Folkestone Express 26 June 1915.

Monday, June 21st: Before Lieut. Col. Fynmore and Colonel Owen.

Rhoda Rowley was charged with being drunk and disorderly on Sunday evening. She denied the offence.

P.C. Whitehead spoke to having to eject the prisoner from the Shakespeare Hotel at 7.50, and to seeing her twice again and cautioning her about her conduct. He told her to go home. At 8.50 he found her being ejected from a restaurant in Cheriton Road, so he took her into custody, as she was very noisy.

Special Constable Kearns gave evidence as to being called to the restaurant to eject the prisoner.

P.S. Prebble said when the prisoner was brought into the police station she was very drunk.

Prisoner strenuously denied being drunk, and asked the Magistrates how she should be drunk on two cups of tea.

Inspector Simpson said Rowley had been convicted three times since April 15th, the last being at Hythe, when she was sentenced to seven days' hard labour on June 7th. The woman had been a pest since she had been there.

Rowley: I was very excitable, and was not drunk.

Sent to prison for 14 days' hard labour.

Folkestone Express 8 January 1916.

Saturday, January 1st: Before G.I. Swoffer Esq., Alderman Dunk, Councillor Stace, and Councillor G. Boyd.

John James Keith was charged with supplying whisky to a soldier.

Corpl. Burr, of the Military Foot Police said he was in Guildhall Street on the pervious evening when he saw the prisoner enter a wine and spirit stores, No. 5, and come out with what appeared to be a bottle of whisky. He went to a soldier, and they walked in the direction of the Playhouse. He then saw the accused hand the soldier the parcel. Witness went up and took it away, finding it to be a bottle of whisky.

Private G. Joyce, of the 6th Howitzer Brigade, said he met the man in the Shakespeare Hotel, and asked him if he could get him a bottle of whisky, giving him a 10s. note. Later prisoner gave him a bottle, and then the Corporal came up and took it away.

Mr. F.J.W. Harris, manager to Mr. Birch,, wine and spirit merchant, 5, Guildhall Street, said he believed the prisoner was the man to whom he sold two bottles of whisky on the previous evening. He asked him whether the spirit was for a soldier, and he said “No”. He had not known him previously as a customer.

Prisoner said he only came out of the infirmary a week ago. He had got consumption, having been laid up for two years He had two or three drinks, or he would not have done what he did.

The Chief Constable said the man had been several times before the Court, there being nine convictions, the last three years ago.

Asked by the Clerk why he elected to come out of the Infirmary, prisoner said because it was Christmas time.

In consideration of his state of health, the Magistrates sentenced prisoner to three months' imprisonment without hard labour, the Chairman remarking “You come out of the Union and extort money by buying liquor for soldiers. It is a very serious thing, and if it had not been for your health you would have had a very heavy sentence”.

To Mr. Harris, the Chairman said: The Magsitrates think that you ought to have taken more care.

Mr. Harris protested.

Councillor Boyd: The look of that man ought to have been sufficient for you.

The Bench congtaulated Corpl. Burr on the way he had given evidence, and also the manner in which he dealt with the case.

Folkestone Express 24 February 1917.

Friday, 16th February: Before Mr. G.I. Swoffer, Councillor G. Boyd, Councillor Stace, and the Rev. Epworth Thompson.

Mr. J.G. Smiles, proprietor of the Shakespeare Hotel, was summoned for permitting drunkenness on his licensed premises. Mr. Rutley Mowll appeared for the defence and pleaded Not Guilty.

Lieut. Albert C. Holmes, of the Military Police, said on Saturday, February 3rd, at 7.40 p.m. he and Sergt. Major May visited the bar of the Shakespeare. The bar at the time was full of soldiers. One of the soldiers, Private Warman, was very drunk. He was staggering, and was very noisy. Another soldier, O'Connor, was leaning across the counter. Witness heard Private Warman call for three “Gold Tops” and saw Private O'Connor put down some money on the counter and receive change from the barmaid. Almost immediately three glasses of beer were put in front of O'Connor, one of which was passed to Warman. Witness sent Sergt. Major May for the picket, and the two men, Warman and O'Connor, were taken in charge, both of them being drunk.

Cross-examined by Mr. Mowll: Witness thought he remembered saying to the constable “These two men are drunk”. Witness did not invite the civil police to prefer a charge of drunkenness against the men. He did not hear the manageress ask Warman to leave the house. Warman could use his feet. Nor did he remember calling the attention of the manageress to O'Connor.

Sergt. Major William May also declared that the two soldiers, Warman and O'Connor, were drunk. Warman called to the barmaid for three “Gold Tops”, and three glasses of ale were placed in front of O'Connor One was handed to Warman by O'Connor. O'Connor took the other, and a Corporal who was standing by had the third. Witness called the barmaid and asked to see the landlord, but no notice was taken. He was sure she heard him. Witness went for the picket, and on returning saw Warman with a glass of beer in his hand. He then called P.C. Whitehead, and drew his attention to O'Connor and Warman. The constable asked to see the landlady, and the manageress came behind the bar. Whitehead drew her attention to the condition of the soldiers, ho were ordered by the manageress to leave the bar. The men were then arrested by military police and picket and taken to the guard room.

Cross-examined: There were not above 30 soldiers in the bar. Warman's speech was very thick. Witness did not hear Warman ask for “his pals”. The police cinstable said to him “They have had sufficient”.

Did the constable say that Warman had not had enough to drink for him to prefer a charge of drunkenness against him? – That was afterwards.

But did the constable say that? – Yes.

Witness did not know that the constable refused to charge the landlord with permitting drunkenness.

P.C. Whitehead said at 7.50 p.m. on the 3rd he was on point duty at the Shakespeare, when he noticed a crowd outside one of the doors. He saw the witness May, who called him inside and pointed out to him a soldier who had been drinking, but was not drunk. Witness sent for the manageress, and said to her “I should advise you to get this man off the premises”. She requested him to go out, and he went as far as the door and then attempted to return. She said “Now, don't be silly”. The soldier then said “I want my pals I came in with”. The manageress said “Come along you men who are with this man, he wants you”. Five or six soldiers then went out. Lieut. Holmes and Sergt. Major May left, and in consequence of what he was told he returned to the manageress and said Lieut. Holmes was going to report her for permitting drunkenness. She said “I knew nothing was wrong till you sent for me”. Witness asked the barmaid, Lena Sharp, if she had served Warman, and she replied “No, I have not seen him before”.

By the Chief Constable: There were from 20 to 25 men in the bar, which was fairly full. The man was “just on the swing”. His speech appeared to be very clear. Witness saw the man drinking from a glass.

You did not think the man was in a fit state to be on licensed premises? – No, sir, he was not.
Why? – Because he had had sufficient to drink, and I considered if he was got off the premises it would prevent him getting into further trouble.

Although you saw him drinking, you did not think he was a fit person to be on licensed premises? – No, sir.

By the Clerk: Witness did not see a second man in the bar showing signs of drink. The man referred to walked without assistance.

Now, was this man drunk? – He was not drunk.

The Chief Constable: Was he sober? – The man was quite capable of taking care of himself.

Sergt. Carpenter, who was with the picket, said a soldier named Warman was placed in his charge. He came out of the door of the Shakespeare as though he was under the influence of drink.

A Corporal who was in the guard room said the two men, when brought in by the picket, were both obviously drunk.

Cross-examined: Later on the civil policeman came in and was asked to sign the charge sheet, as a witness, but he said he could not without the permission of the Chief Constable.

Sergt. Allen, who was in charge of the guard room, aid the two men were “very drunk”. Lieut. Holmes and Sergt. Major May preferred the charge. Warman had to be held while he was being searched.

Mr. Mowll, in addressing the Bench, referred to the evidence of P.C. Whitehead and said if the Magistrates believed him there was nothing more to be said. What effect the fresh air had on the men after they came out of the house did not alter the point which the Bench had to decide – whether there was, in fact, drunkenness on these premises. His submission was that the prosecution had proved the defence.

The Bench held, however, that the case must go on.

Miss Lena Sharpe, barmaid in charge of the private bar at the Shakespeare, said on Saturday, February 3rd the bar was full. The first she knew about “this affair” was when the manageress (Mrs. Herrington) was asked for by P.C. Whitehead. Witness was asked if she had served the man in question, and she said she had not. The man was very quiet indeed; she did not knew he was in the bar until her attention was called to him. He had no difficulty in walking when asked by Mrs. Herrington to leave the bar. The man was not drunk.

Cross-examined: Her attention was not called to a second man in the bar. If the first man had a glass in his hand, it must have been handed to him. She did not serve three “Gold Tops” at once. The man was sober, and if he had called for a drink she would have served him.

Mrs. Maud Herrington, manageress of the Shakespeare, said her husband was manager until he was called up. On the evening of the 3rd the last witness asked her to go into the private bar, and there she saw P.C. Whitehead, who asked her to come to the public side of the bar. Here, Lieut. Holmes drew her attention to a man, and witness spoke to Miss Sharp about him. There was nothing wrong in the man's appearance to lead anyone to think he was drunk. Witness was requested to ask the man to leave, and she asked him if he would go for a walk. He walked to the door, but came back and lighted a cigarette against the cigarette of another soldier. The man asked for his chums, who went out at the same time. Witness's attention was not drawn to any other man.

Cross-examined: There was nothing to prevent a drunken person entering any of the bars. Most decidedly she thought the man was in a fit state to be served; she would have served him herself if he had asked.

You asked the man to leave? – Yes.

Why? – Because I was requested for the man to be removed off the premises.

Because he had had too much to drink? – So the officer said.

Did you protest? Did you tell the officer that in your opinion the man had not had too much to drink? – Yes.

By Mr. Mowll: Mr. Smiles, the proprietor, had given her and others instructions as to be very strict about the question of drunkenness.

By the Chief Constable: Mr. Smiles, her employer, had not authorised her to engage any extra assistance on busy evenings to see that no drunken person entered the house.

Gunner Pegden, C.F.A., who was in the bar at the time, said not one of the men was drunk.

Private John Salmon Thompson, who was also there, said the man was not assisted out of the bar; he walked as steadily as anyone could walk. The man, in his estimation, was perfectly sober.

Cross-examined: The soldier was not showing the slightest sign of drink. He only saw him during the time it would take a man to walk four yards.

Driver Thomas Wallis, C.F.A., said he went into the bar about seven o'clock. He remembered the civil and military police coming in and the manageress being called. Witness saw nothing whatever to indicate that the man in question was drunk.

Cross-examined: Witness had him under observation about two minutes.

Gunner Charles Burnham, C.F.A., declared that the man walked out of the bar “perfectly alone and straight and sober”.

Cross-examined: Witness had the man in view about three minutes.

Mr. Mowll observed that the case was a somewhat singular one, owing to the conflict of evidence, and he was going to ask the Bench to dismiss the summons upon the evidence before them. He suggested, without hesitation, that the whole of the evidence for the defence would justify the Magistrates in forming the conclusion the constable did at the time – that this was not a case where there was drunkenness on the premises.

The Bench retired to consider the case in private. On their return the Chairman (Mr. Swoffer) said: We are unanimously of opinion that the men were drunk, but, in the absence of evidence as to the period of time they had been in the house, and the opportunity the barmaid had of observing their condition, we do not convict. We consider that a house of this character ought to be in the charge of a competent, responsible manager.

Local News.

At the Folkestone Police Court on Friday, following the decision in a case against a licensee (which is reported elsewhere), Captain G. Aylwen, the new A.P.M. said it was fair to let the publicans know that, although he was not here to make trouble, if he found trouble he would take it in both hands. As a result of his observations during the past week, he had found that there was a large amount of drunkenness which was never detected and which never came before the Magistrates, but with which the Military had to deal. And drunkenness led to other things which were recognised as being very serious. Men – quite decent fellows – came over here, never having had a drink before, and got into some public houses where there appeared to be absolutely no supervision. They came out mad drunk, were taken to the Guard Room, and time and time again his police had very great trouble in dealing with them. If the publicans were willing to cooperate with him he would always send military police; but what could he do unless the publicans applied to him? He would like to point out that under the Police Standing Orders, military policemen did not enter a public house unless they were sent for, and unless he or his assistant “looked for trouble” there was no supervision. His assistant, Lieut. Holmes, was looking for trouble on the occasion referred to in the case which had just been decided, and that was the line he (Captain Aylwen) would take up. He wanted to help the publicans in every way, but, in return, they must help him. In this town there were a certain number of troops every night, and it was difficult to deal with that number when so many had never been used to drinking. It was pretty obvious that the extent of drunkenness was large, and it also went to prove there was a large amount of drinking outside public houses. Therefore he would appeal to publicans to keep some sort of check on liquor which was taken out by people who kept houses and shops, because it often fell back on the publicans.

Councillor Boyd: That means other licences?

Captain Aylwen: It means any premises, such as cafes and places where liquor is consumed.

Continuing, the officer said he thought a man should be told off to supervise at each public house. The publicans were making money as they had never done before, and there was no increase of staff. It was up to the publicans to put someone in authority and see that the thing was carried out.

The Chairman of the Bench (Mr. G.I. Swoffer) said the Magistrates were pleased to hear Captain Aylwen's remarks, and the Bench were willing to support him in every way possible. The licensed victuallers, being sensible men, would do the same.

Folkestone Express 9 February 1918.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

Wednesday, February 6th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Lieut. Col. Fynmore, Messrs. G.I. Swoffer, G. Boyd, A. Stace and H. Kirke, Colonel Owen and the Rev. Epworth Thompson.

The following licence was transferred: the Shakespeare, from Mr. Smiles to Mr. F.C. Hatfield.

Folkestone Express 22 October 1921.

Local News.

On Tuesday at the Police Court Mr. Hatfield, of the Shakespeare Hotel, was granted an occasional licence from 10.30 a.m. to 5 p.m., on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, on the occasion of the sale of Government stock in Cherry Garden Avenue Camp, for which there were 4,000 lots for disposal.

Folkestone Express 28 October 1922.

Local News.

The licence of the Shakespeare Hotel has been transferred from Mr. Frederick Charles Hatfield to Mr. Thomas Mason.

Folkestone Express 25 November 1922.

Local News.

The following transfer of licence was granted at the Folkestone Police Court on Wednesday morning: Shakespeare Hotel, from Mr. Frederick Charles Hatfield to Mr. Edward Thomas Mason, master mariner, Gravesend.

Folkestone Express 1 March 1924.

Local News.

On Wednesday a lorry owned by the Cambrian Coaching Co., driven by Mr. A.R. Miles, was proceeding along Cheriton Road when the driving chain broke. Owing to the slippery state of the road the vehicle ran backwards, mounted the pavement and collided with the wall of the Shakespeare Hotel, knocking down a portion of the brickwork at one of the entrances, and damaging the pavement.

Folkestone Express 19 December 1925.

Local News.

The Magistrates on Tuesday at the Police Court granted an occasional licence to Mr. W.J. Mason, of the Shakespeare Hotel, to sell at the Territorials' Ball, to be held in the Drill Halls this (Friday) evening from 8 p.m. to 1 a.m.

Folkestone Express 26 February 1927.

Tuesday, February 22nd: Before The Mayor and other Magistrates.

Mr. E.T. Mason, of the Shakespeare Hotel, was granted an extension from 8 p.m. to 1 a.m. on the 25th-26th February, for the Drill Halls, on the occasion of the annual ball of the Buffs.

Folkestone Express 24 November 1928.

Thursday, November 22nd: Before Col. G. P. Owen, Miss A. M. Hunt, and Eng. Rear Admiral L. J. Stephens.

Ronald Rusk Cann, a youth of 18 years, was charged with stealing from the Shakespeare Hotel, two half-crowns, the property of Mr. Edward Thomas Mason. He pleaded guilty, and asked the magistrates to deal with the case.

Mr. E.T. Mason, the licensee, said the defendant lived in the Hotel. In consequence of something that had happened, he called in Det.-Sergt. Rowe on Tuesday, and the officer, in his presence, marked some coins, the two half-crowns (produced) being amongst them. On the sergeant’s instructions he (witness) placed the coins in the till at 3 o’clock on Wednesday. There were altogether £1 of half-crowns, and £1 of two shillings. At five o’clock he went to the till, and on examining the contents missed two of the marked half-crowns. He accompanied the officer up to the bedroom occupied by the defendant, and he saw the Detective-Sergeant produce the two coins from the top of the beading of the bedroom door. The defendant was in the house during the afternoon, but the doors of the bar were locked, and the key was in his pocket. He was unable to say how the defendant got into the bar, but possibly one of the doors, which was bolted, could be lifted up. The defendant had lived with him since 1915, as he was his stepson.

Det.-Sergt. Rowe said on Tuesday evening the defendant made a complaint to him, and, in consequence, he went to the Shakespeare Hotel, where he marked a number of coins, and gave Mr. Mason certain instructions. The two half- crowns produced were among those marked. On Wednesday afternoon Mr. Mason came to the Police Station, and in consequence he went to the Shakespeare Hotel, where he saw the prisoner and told him he was a police officer, and was making enquiries respecting five shillings missed from the till. He told him he believed he (the defendant) had been down to the bar, and with his permission he wished to search his property. He did so, and while searching the prisoner, he said “All right, I did take it.”. Defendant took him upstairs and pointed to the beading over the door of the bedroom, and said “It is up there”. He felt on the top of the beading, and found 9s., including the two marked half- crowns produced, which he identified as two amongst those which he had marked. He told him he would take him to the Police Station, and charged and cautioned him. Defendant made no reply. When formally charged at the Police Station defendant made no reply.

Defendant said he was out of work, and could not get unemployment benefit. That was why he took the money.

Mr. Mason, in reply to the Clerk, said the defendant had been practically brought up in his house, but he did not, pay him anything for his keep.

Defendant said when he was working he paid his mother what he could.

Mr. Mason said the boy’s mother gave him pocket-money. He did not want to press the case, but it would clear the atmosphere, and his staff who might have been accused.

Inspector Pittock said nothing was known against the defendant, who had worked as a barman in various places.

The Chairman said it was very unfortunate that a young man should be in that position. He would be bound over on probation for twelve months, to be under the supervision of Mr. Holmes. The Magistrates hoped that he would realise that his whole future depended upon him keeping straight.

Folkestone Express 12 October 1929.

Folkestone Express 26 April 1930.

Obituary.

The death took place on Monday of Mr. Charles Landey Sparrow, at his residence, Silverwood, Westenhanger, who had been in rather poor health for three years. He was 65 years of age.

The late Mr. Sparrow was a native of Folkestone and some years ago he was a well-known licence holder in the town, retiring about eight years ago. He was popularly known amongst a very large circle of friends as Charlie Sparrow. He held the licences, at various periods, of the Railway Tavern, in Dover Road, the Globe, on The Bayle, and the Shakespeare Hotel, which was the last hotel in which he carried on business. He then went to live at Westenhanger.

He was a well-known sportsman, and took a great interest in racing and shooting. He was one of the promoters and original directors of the Central Picture theatre until it was sold in July last. He was a member of the Folkestone Club for a great number of years. He married late in life and leaves a widow to mourn his loss.

The funeral took place yesterday (Thursday) at the Folkestone Cemetery.

Folkestone Express 30 August 1930.

Wednesday, August 27th: Before Alderman R.G. Wood, Messrs. G.I. Swoffer and J.H. Blamey, and Col. G.P. Owen.

Plans for alterations at the Shakespeare Hotel were submitted by Mr. Pat Attwood, and were approved by the Justices.

Folkestone Express 14 February 1931.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

Wednesday, February 11th: Before Alderman R.G. Wood, The Mayor, Colonel G.P. Owen, Alderman A.E. Pepper, Mr. J.H. Blamey, Miss Hunt, Mr. W. Griffin, Dr. W.W. Nuttall, Alderman G. Spurgen, Alderman T.S. Franks, Mrs. E. Gore, Mr. W. Smith, and Mr. F. Seager.

An application for the transfer of the off licence of the Gun Brewery to Mr. Pat Attwood, in order that he could sell on the premises, was adjourned to the adjourned licensing sessions.

Folkestone Express 14 March 1931.

Adjourned Licensing Sessions.

On Wednesday, at the Folkestone Adjourned Licensing Sessions, the music and dancing licences were again granted, after the question had been adjourned for a month, it being explained by Alderman Wood that the conditions of the licences allowed vocal and instrumental music to be given during certain hours on Sunday.

There was also another interesting decision in the case of an application for the transfer of the off licence in connection with the offices of the old Gun Brewery, it being decided that the licence was null and void owing to the fact that for 30 years it had been renewed in the name of Mr. Alfred Leney, who died in 1900.

The Magistrates on the Bench were Alderman R.G. Wood, The Mayor, Col. G.P. Owen, Mr. J.H. Blamey, Mr. F. Seager, Alderman A.E. Pepper, Mr. W. Griffin, Eng. Rear Admiral L.J. Stephens, Alderman A. Castle, and Miss A.M. Hunt.

An adjourned application for the transfer of the off licence of the office attached to the old Gun Brewery came before the Justices, Mr. B.H. Bonniface appearing for the applicant, Mr. Pat Attwood, of the Shakespeare Hotel, and Mor. Rutlet Mowll, on behalf of Mrs. Luly, and Mr. J.E. Chapple, for Messrs. Prentis and Sons, two other off licence holders in the vicinity opposed the application.

The Clerk (Mr. Rootes) said that application was before the Annual Licensing Sessions, when the Magistrates adjourned it in order that the licensed premises should be defined. Plans had now been produced showing that the off licence was in respect of the office in the front portion of what was known as the Gun Brewery.

Mr. Bonniface said the application was for the transfer of the existing off beer licence, which had been in existence probably since the year 1844. He understood that that morning there was a certain amount of opposition, but what that opposition was he did not know. Their worships would appreciate that it was an existing licence, and he was only asking for a transfer.

Mr. Rutley Mowll said that he appeared to oppose the transfer of that licence. He represented Mrs. Luly, who was the holder of a similar licence immediately opposite those premises. As he understood it, at the annual licensing meeting the Magistrates renewed all the existing licences and therefore those premises were then and there renewed with the others.

The Magistrates' Clerk (Mr. C. Rootes) pointed out that the matter was adjourned for further consideration.

The Chairman said his remarks with regard to the renewal of licences did not include that matter now under discussion.

Mr. Mowll:Then may I ask if we are dealing with a renewal of the licence of the transfer?

Mr. Bonniface: The transfer. Continuing, he said his point was the application for the transfer was made on the last occasion, when the Magistrates asked for a plan of the premises. He had complied with their request, so that from his point of view he had completed the application.

Mr. Rutley Mowll pointed out at the moment he could not tell the form in which the application was made. He would like to know if the application for transfer was made by the existing licensee or by the new tenant and occupier.

Mr. Chapple also said he did not know who was applying for the transfer.

Mr. Rutley Mowll said the Clerk had handed him the form of application. He read the application, which stated that Mr. Attwood applied for the transfer of the licence granted to Alfred Leney. He also contended that they should have the outgoing and ingoing tenant present.

The Clerk said the applicant had already put his case before the Court.

Mr. Rutley Mowll: It is immaterial to me. I am having a careful note taken of these proceedings. If it is the right way of proceeding according to your opinion I must bow to your judgement.

The Chairman: We had it before us at the last meeting. You must proceed with your opposition.

Mr. Mowll said if that licence was granted it would be in direct competition with Mrs. Luly. He was going to oppose it on its merits. He would like to point out to the Magistrates some technical points in order that they might go into the whole matter. That licence, as it appeared on the face of it, stood in the name of Mr. Alfred Leney. An inspection of the licence register showed that it was granted in 1898. Mr. Alfred Leney died on the 4th November, 1900. That licence had gone on ever since in the name of the deceased person. If those were the facts, the licence was void. It was true that Mr. Alfred Leney had a son whose name was Mr. Alfred Charles Leney. He did not know whether Mr. Bonniface was going to contend that Mr. Alfred Leney, the head of the firm, was by mistake entered in the register, and in some way confuse with his son, but knowing their late Clerk as they did, and what a very careful man he was, he thought it was a fair submission to make to the Bench that he did not write down Alfred Leney in his licence register if he really meant Alfred Charles Leney, who was quite another person. Alfred Charles Leney was the son of the late Alfred Leney. The only way in which Mr. Bonniface could get over that difficulty was by making out that the Magistrates' late Clerk made a mistake and entered the licence in the name of Alfred Leney in mistake for Alfred Charles Leney. He did not think they wanted any authorities on that point, for he was sure Mr. Rootes would advise them that if in fact the licence was renewed in the name of a dead person that licence was void, and therefore it could not be transferred. His second proposition to make to the Bench was that he did not write down Alfred Leney in his licence register, that if the licence had fallen into disuse, as that licence had done, then the Bench were not entitled to renew it, or to transfer it. It was not a case of compensation or redundancy, because it was an off licence. His third point was in regards to the merit of the case. That licence was used by Messrs. Leney. They took it over with the Gun Brewery property with different public houses. They had other premises in Folkestone from which they could conduct their retail business. The premises ceased to be occupied for any licensed purposes for some considerable time, consequently the licence became in fact, if not in law, a defunct licence. The property was used as a coal store, and no trade of any sort or kind had been conducted on the premises for many months past. Now the proposal was to resuscitate and resurrect that defunct licence and the applicant was Mr. Attwood, who was the holder of a full licence at premises adjoining. What did that mean? Mr. Attwood, at the Shakespeare Hotel, had a full licence covering all that that licence could confer. Why did he want to take a transfer of that off licence? He submitted that there could only be one real reason. He was seeking to transfer the licence to himself so that he could sell to someone else. He (Mr. Mowll) did not ask them to decide on any one point, but he asked them to decide the matter as a whole – whether it be the legal point or the meritorious point he did not mind which it was. He thought he ought to call his clerk to prove the search of the particulars in the register.

The Clerk: The register is there for itself. It has put something on Mr. Bonniface to prove.

Mr. Bonniface said he did not know that Mr. Mowll had put anything on him to prove. He was alleging that Mr. Alfred Leney died in 1900, and he assumed he was going to prove it.

The Clerk: That is not the position. I imagine you will call upon the applicant to go further than he has.

Mr. Chapple said he was quite in agreement with the terms of the able argument put forward by Mr. Mowll. He could only imagine that Mr. Bonniface would submit that the Mr. Alfred Charles Leney was in fact the Alfred Leney to whom the licence was granted.

Mr. Bonniface said he quite agreed that their late Clerk was a most capable and thorough Clerk, and he could not in any way imagine that the late Mr. Andrew would have allowed the name of Mr. Alfred Leney to remain upon the register all those years unless it meant the acting Mr. Leney, Mr. Fred Leney, as he was known. Mr. Alfred Charles Leney was a director of that company, and, in fact, the eldest son of the late Mr. Alfred Leney, and he would tell them that there was not one licence that was held by the father at all. Mr. Alfred Leney was a retiring sort of a man, and therefore the licence holder was the son. For ten years before the formation of the company he was in partnership with his father. He was going to ask the Magistrates to say that the Mr. Alfred Leney to whom the licence was granted in 1898 was Mr. Alfred Charles Leney. The licensees, Messrs. Alfred Leney and Sons, also had the store in front. The licence had been renewed year by year, and they paid the excise licence down to June, 1930. Mr. Attwood had the tenancy of the shop and store at the back. From 1925 until 1929 Messrs. Leney let the front part to Messrs. Anderson as a coal office, but they used the premises at the back, and a lot of their beer was delivered from that store. It was unfair to say that Mr. Attwood was coming forward merely to get the licence and then to sell it. If that was the position was he not attempting to do away with some of his trade? That must be one of the oldest, if not the oldest, off licences in the town. Mrs. Luly's premises were opened subsequent to their premises being opened. She had built up her trade in opposition to them.

Mr. Alfred Charles Leney, Chairman of Messrs. Alfred Leney and Co., said the company took over those premises in 1898, when he was director. He had been connected with the business since 1887. In the last two years of his life, Mr. Alfred Leney, his father, did bery little in the business. He (witness) knew of no licence being held by his father. The licences were held by himself (witness) or the secretary. That licence had been continuously renewed in the name of Alfred Leney right down to the present time as he heard to his surprise, because he had always considered himself to be the licensed holder of those premises. He was never known by his name Charles, but as Fred. He had paid the excise duty until the lease was up in 1929, and the licence duty until June, 1930. The whole of the premises until 1925 were used by the Company. It was only then that the front office was let to Anderson's, and the Company used a small store at the back. They had other premises in Guildhall Street which Messrs. Prentis now had. The beer for those premises was kept in the store at the Gun Brewery. Beer was drawn from there until the 5th March, 1928.

In reply to Mr. Mowll, Mr. Leney said the store had not been in use so far as they were concerned since September, 1929. They had premises in Tontine Street from which they could supply their beer. They had got a rebate on the excise licence for the premises.

Mr. Mowll the referred to the articles of association of Messrs. Leney and Co. He pointed out that company was registered on November 26th, 1896, and Mr. Alfred Leney was to be the first director, and Mr. Alfred Charles Leney and Mr. Hugh Leney the other directors. He asked the witness who of the three directors held the licence.

Mr. Leney: To the best of my belief I have always understood it was in my name. I have taken great pains to get at the truth of this. I have tried to get the original papers, but they have been destroyed.

Mr. Mowll: You must know whether you came over and took the transfer of the licence.

Mr. Leney: I do not.

Mr. Mowll: Have you no documents?

Mr. Leney: I have no documents at all, but I have a memory. To the best of my belief I was the holder of the licence.

Mr. Mowll: Your father held a strong position in the Company? He was not only by far the largest shareholder, and so long as he lived he was entitled to outvote all the other directors. You do not suggest that he was a back number when this Company was formed?

Mr. Leney: I do not.

Mr. Mowll: Why, he was younger than you are now, Mr. Leney?

Mr. Leney: Yes.

Mr. George Wood said he had been in the employ of Messrs. Leney and Co. for 40 years. He occasionally took up licences, and always considered that he was taking up licences for Mr. Alfred Charles Leney. His brother was for some time secretary for the Company, and he held licences in his name.

By Mr. Chapple, witness said he practically certain that Mr. Alfred Leney never held a licence.

In reply to Mr. Mowll, witness said over the door at the brewery at Dover the name of Alfred Leney, common brewer, was painted.

The Clerk pointed out to Mr. Bonniface that the position had changed since the annual sessions, and Mr. Attwood should be called.

Mr. Attwood was called, and said he intended to open the premises as an off licence shop. He was the freeholder of the Shakespeare Hotel.

Mr. Mowll, examining the agreement between Mr. Attwood and the owner of the premises, said “Do you appreciate under this agreement between you and Mr. Tite he can turn you out by giving you three months' notice at any time?”

Mr. Attwood: Yes.

Does that not tell you something? You are not going to spend any money on these premises on a quarterly tenancy? – I am prepared to open them.

You are not going to spend money on them without more secured terms? – I am trying to buy these premises.

The Magistrates retired, and on their return the Chairman said with regard to the application the majority of the Magistrates were of opinion that when the licence was transferred it was transferred to Alfred Leney, senior, the Chairman of the Company. There was no evidence that it had been transferred to anyone else since, and in consequence of that, and in consequence of the oversight of the Company and in their (the Magistrates') office, it had not been transferred. The licence was therefore null and void, and it could not be transferred.

Folkestone Express 28 January 1939.

Local News.

On Tuesday the Folkestone magistrates granted a protection order in respect of the transfer of the Shakespeare Hotel from Mr. Pat Attwood to Mr. William Powell former licensee of the Fordwich Arms at Canterbury.

Folkestone Express 11 February 1939.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

There was a decrease of six cases of drunkenness before the Magistrates during last year, the total number being 24 as against 30 in 1937. There were no proceedings against any licence holder during the twelve months. These were the main features presented by the Chief Constable (Mr. A.S. Beesley) in the annual report he submitted to the Magistrates at the annual licensing sessions at the Folkestone Police Court on Wednesday, when the Chairman (Councillor R.G. Wood) offered congratulations upon such a satisfactory state of affairs.

The other magistrates on the Bench were Mr. A.E. Pepper, Dr. W.W. Nuttall, Alderman Mrs. E. Gore, Mr. R.J. Stokes, Dr. F. Wolverson, Alderman W. Hollands, Mr. S.B. Corser, Alderman J.W. Stainer and Mr. P. Fuller.

The following licences were transferred: The Princess Royal from the executor of the late Mr. Tom Buddle to Mr. H. Robbins; the Shakespeare Hotel from Mr. P. Attwood to Mr. W A. Powell.

Note: Executors not listed in More Bastions.