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 gentleman 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.

Proceeding, the Bench considered the case in regard to the Ship.

The only ground of objection, said Mr. Glyn, was that it was not required.

Sergt. Swift's figures were again in evidence, and this time he found within 100 paces of the Ship 7 licensed houses existed. On the 7th of last May he was present at the police court when the tenant was summoned, but Mr. Glyn submitted that on this ground no objection could be lodged, as it was only on the ground that it was not required they had received notice.

The Magistrates upheld this view, and after Superintendent Taylor had repeated some statistics concerning Radnor Street, Mr. Glyn submitted that the tenant was a most respectable man, that a fair and steady trade was done, and that the house was properly conducted, notwithstanding it was suggested that the house was not required and that the Bench should deprive the owners of their property.

He called Mr. Benjamin Henry Flint, director of the firm Flint and Sons, and assistant manager, who deposed that the firm acquired the house in 1856, and it was now in their books as of the value of £1,100. The present tenant went in in 1884, and did a steady trade of some 6 to 7 barrels weekly.

George Warman, the tenant, also gave evidence, and in reply to Mr. Minter said he was a fisherman and had a connection among fishermen. During the last five years there was one third more fishing boats than there was before, and they were visited by one foreign fishing boat then. They had ten now. That increased the trade.

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 Herald 18 November 1893.

Police Court Notes.

Before The Mayor, Mr. Fitness, and Mr. Alderman Pledge, at the Borough Petty Sessions on Wednesday, a case of exceptional interest was heard and decided.

Mr. George Warman, landlord of the Ship Inn, Radnor Street, (for whom Mr. Worsfold Mowll, solicitor, appeared) was charged with two offences against the tenure of his licence – (1) with having sold intoxicating liquor during prohibited hours on the 6th November, and (2) with having permitted drunkenness on his licensed premises on the same date.

Police Sergeant James Swift, examined by the Justices' Clerk (mr. Bradley) said: On the 6th inst., at 11.35 p.m., I was on duty in Radnor Street, accompanied by P.C. Brice, the Boat Inspector. I saw the front door of the defendant's house standing open a little way, and I went into the passage that leads to the bar. I then saw the defendant and two fishermen coming from the back entrance into the bar. The back entrance opens into the fish market, or Stade. When I got to the bar I saw that it was lighted up, and I saw the defendant serve the two men with two glasses of rum, for which he was paid by Weatherhead, the other man being named Cornish. I could not tell how much money was paid to the landlord.

Mr. Bradley: It is not disputed.

P.S. Swift continued: Defendant then took a lighted lamp and went into the back room on the same floor. He returned immediately into the bar and then took two glasses containing liquor into a front room on the ground floor. I did not see him draw the liquor. When he returned to the bar a fisherman named Hopkins entered by the back entrance and came up to the bar. He said to the landlord “I shall have a drop of rum”. He was served with it and paid for it. I then went into the bar and said to the defendant “It is now between 20 and 25 minutes to twelve, Mr. Warman”. He said “Yes. These men have just come in from sea, and are travellers”. There was a clock in the bar, which then indicated a quarter to twelve, but the time I mentioned was that shown by my own watch. I knew Cornish and Hopkins, and that they lived in the same street. When I was speaking to the defendant a fourth man came from the front room into the bar. I did not know him. He was drunk. He pushed against me, and said “All right. Don't trouble yourself. I will explain it. I am a lodger here”. Defendant said “No, you don'ty lodge here. Go away and leave the Sergeant alone”. Defendant then said to me “That man's wife came in with him during the evening, and they have been sitting talking together”. This man had then gone into the front room, and I went there with the defendant, after having taken the names of Cornish and Hopkins. In the front room I found the defendant's housekeeper and a woman, who was pointed out to me by the man as being his wife. The woman was sitting down, and was drunk. There was standing before her on the table a glass containing whisky. I asked the man for his correct name and address. He commenced to talk in some foreign language, and refused to give his name and address until I told him I would take him t the police station. The landlord then said “I can tell you where he lives, but I don't know his name”. The man then gave his name as Wm. Joseph Cloughton. He said he was living in the Warren Road, but the number he forgot. I pointed out to the defendant that the man and woman were drunk. He replied “They have had nothing to drink here since 11”. The landlord then came out with me and said “I will explain all to you. Those three fishermen had just come in from sea. That man and his wife came in during the evening, and had been sitting and talking together. They often come in. I don't want them. I don't know them. In fact they are a d----d nuisance to me. I wish you would get them out of my house before you go”. I requested the man and woman to leave, and they did so, the defendant being present at the time.

Cross-examined by Mr. Mowll: Don't you know the man and woman pretty well? – No, sir.

Do you mean to say you have never seen them before? – I have not.

Is not she a professional singer in the town? – I am not aware of it.

How long have you been here? – About 11 years.

You have said the man was drunk because he pushed against you. Was that the only reason? – No, sir.

What else? – His general behaviour, manner, and appearance.

How do you know that the woman was drunk? – By her appearance.

Had you any conversation with her? – Yes, sir.

You say from her appearance and conversation she was drunk? – Yes, sir.

Did the landlord tell you they came to see him on business? – No, sir.

Was anything said about a piano? – No sir.

You are quite sure of it? – Quite.

Didn't you know that the fishermen had come from sea? – No.

Didn't you feel their coats and find them wet? – They were dry. They had the appearance of going to sea, and not coming from it.

Do you know the owner of the smack these men belong to? – No, sir.

You know every smack in the harbour? – No.

Do you mean to say you have been here 11 years and don't know the 50 or 60 smacks in the harbour? – No, sir.

Do you mean to say you don't know the crews of these smacks? – No, sir.

Were you the Sergeant in the previous case when this man was summoned before the Magistrates? – Yes.

And the Magistrates dismissed that case? – They did, sir.

Police Constable Brice, Boat Inspector, deposed: On the night of the 6th inst, at 11.35, I was going along Radnor Street and heard loud talking in the left hand room in front of the Ship Inn. I stopped a minute or two with Sergeant Swift, and we then walked to the front door, which we found open. Sergeant swift entered, and I was behind him. When we got inside the second door Sergeant swift said “There are some men coming in at the back; stand back”. I saw the defendant and two fishermen enter by the back door and come up to the bar, in which there was then a light. Defendant went into the bar and drew some liquor, with which he served the men. I could not see what it was, but it was brown, and I did not taste it. The men were Cornish and Weatherhead. The latter paid for it. I saw him put the money on the counter. Defendant then took up a lighted paraffin lamp and went from the bar to the back with it. He returned to the bar with two glasses containing drinks, and during that time Hopkins came in at the back door and said “A drop of rum, George”. He put something down and was served with rum by the defendant. Sergeant Swift went to the bar and said to the defendant “Do you know what time it is? It is nearly twenty minutes to twelve”. Defendant replied “These men have just come in from sea, and they are travellers”. While the Sergeant was taking the names and addresses a man who was in the front room came into the bar, went up to the Sergeant, and said to him “I will settle the matter. I am a lodger here”. Defendant replied “You are not. Don't interfere with the Sergeant, he is on duty”. The man then returned into the front room, and Hopkins and Cornish left the house by the back door. Swift and I then went into the front room, and found a woman sitting down, and standing by her side the man who had just left the bar. He said “That is my wife”. The woman had on the table in front of her a glass containing whisky. He then commenced talking in French, mentioning Boulogne, and the Sergeant said “I don't understand what you are talking about. Give me your address”. The defendant then said “I'll tell you where he lives, but I don't know the number. He lives in Warren Road”. The man said “I have been many years in Boulogne. My wife is an actress”.

The Clerk: Did you hear any conversation between the landlord and Swift outside the room?

Witness: Yes, sir. Mr. Warman said “Come outside and I will explain the whole matter to you”. On going into the bar Mr. Warman said “These fishermen had been at sea 24 hours, and had just come in, and I thought I was entitled to give them a drink. As for the other man and woman, they come here occasionally, but I don't know who they are. In fact they are a d----d nuisance to me when they are in the house, and I wish you would turn them out”. After a while, on being spoken to, they went out.

The Clerk: In what state were they?

Witness: They were drunk, both of them.

Cross-examined by Mr. Mowll: You are not an expert, but you are a bit of a French scholar? – No, sir.

Without being a French scholar you understood that this gentleman was talking French? – Yes, sir.

And he had talked English before? – Yes.

Could you make out his French? – I did, sir.

You understood what he said in French? – Yes, sir.

And what he said in English? – Yes.

And do you mean to say that a gentleman who talks French that you can understand, and English that you can understand is drunk? Do you meant to say that a gentleman talking these two languages is drunk? – Witness gave no reply.

You don't give me an answer. Did the lady talk in English and French? – No, sir.

You know all these smacks? – A few of them.

How many years have you been boat inspector? – About seven.

You know all these smacks, and smacksmen, for you have lived your live among them? – Yes, sir.

You know the smack these men belong to? – I know the one they went in.

Had it come in that night? – I don't know, sir.

Did you make any inquiry as to whether their story was true? – No, sir.

You are only here (as I am and the Magistrates are) in the interests of justice, and don't you think it would be only fair to make enquiries? – I did not make the report, the Sergeant did.

Is that your only answer? – That is all, sir.

By the Justices' Clerk: It had been raining that night, but as the men had not got their sea things on I could not tell whether they had been to sea or not.

This was the case for the prosecution, and evidence for the defence was called, as follows.

Benjamin Harris, ferryman at the Harbour, deposed: It is my duty to call the fishermen and ferry them to their smacks. Cornish, Hopkins, and Weatherhead form the crew of the smack Emily. I ferried them out to the smack on Sunday night, the 5th November, and they returned about 11 o'clock on Monday night, the 6th, having been to sea all that time.

Henry May, owner of the smack Emily, deposed: Cornish has been taking my place as Captain during the last three months while I have been acting as a licensed auctioneer on the fish market. The smack went to sea on the 5th at 11 o'clock, and my son was one of the crew. He returned home at 11.15 on Monday night, the 6th, and his clothes were so wet that my wife got up, made a fire, and hung them up to dry. The three men named by the police were members of the crew.

Mrs. Emily Cloughton, examined: What are you, Mrs. Cloughton? – I am an artist, and have been for 18 years.

What sort of artist? – A singer and dancer. I went with my husband to defendant's house on the night of the 6th inst. My husband and I lived in Warren Road since the 7th August, and on the 4th November my husband wrote (letter produced) to defendant, asking him to appoint Monday night, the 6th, for me to see a piano, that being the only night I was disengaged. In consequence of that letter my husband and I went to the house on the 6th.

This is a disagreeable question to put to a lady at any time, but I am bound to put it to you after the evidence of the Sergeant. Were you intoxicated? – Not that I am aware of, sir.

What did you have to drink in the house? – A small lemon and a glass of common ale I had at home.

You only had the lemon in defendant's house? – Only the lemonade. I never had a whisky in my lips.

There is no question that you were in the house? – I was in the private kitchen waiting to see the piano.

The Clerk: What time did you go to the house? – At half past ten.

What time did you leave? About half past eleven, as near as possible; after we were disturbed.

Did you write this letter? – No, my husband did.

How was it sent? – My little son, 13 years of age, took it down.

Wm. Joseph Cloughton, husband of the last witness, proved writing and sending the letter to defendant about the piano.

We hear that you answered the constable in French and English, as he understood you in both languages. Were you drunk at the house? – Certainly not. No more than I am now.

This concluded the evidence for the defence.

After hearing Mr. Mowll, the Justices retired to the Mayor's parlour and spent about a quarter of an hour in private consultation. On their return to Court, The Mayor said: George Warman, the Bench have very carefully considered these charges against you, and they are of the unanimous opinion that as regards the charge of selling intoxicating drink during prohibited hours the charge is not proved to our satisfaction, and we therefore dismiss it. The charge of permitting drunkenness is, in the opinion of the Bench, fully proved. We therefore fine you in the mitigated penalty of 50s. and 14s. costs, to be levied by distress, and in default one month's imprisonment, and the licence is to be endorsed. (Sensation in Court)

Folkestone Herald 25 November 1893.

Police Court Notes.

Last week we gave a full report of the prosecution instituted by the police authorities against the landlord of the Ship Inn, Radnor Street, Folkestone, on the charge of having permitted drunkenness on his premises upon the night of the 6th November inst. In the result the defendant landlord was convicted and the Justices directed that the conviction be endorsed upon the licence. It will also be recollected that the persons alleged to have been found drunk on the premises were William J. Cloughton and his wife Emily Cloughton, who were stated to be “artists”, and who were residing at No. 5, Warren Road, in this town. Since the hearing of that case, the decision in which is, we believe, about to be appealed from, Mr. and Mrs. Cloughton have been summoned for having been drunk upon the Ship Inn premises upon the night of the 6th instant. The case came on for hearing on Wednesday morning before The Mayor, Mr. Fitness, and Mr. Alderman Pledge.

Mr. Glyn, barrister, (instructed by Mr. Worsfold Mowll, of Mowll and Mowll, solicitors, Dover) was retained for the defence; the prosecution was conducted by Mr. John Taylor, the Superintendent of the Folkestone Police. Each of the defendants denied the charge of drunkenness, and the evidence for the prosecution was to a great extent a recapitulation of the testimony given on the hearing of the case against the landlord, though, of course directed more in detail to the specific charge now under investigation.

Police Sergeant Swift, in support of the case, said that he was accompanied on the night in question by Boat Inspector Brice, and on walking along Radnor Street they saw lights and heard voices in the bar of the house. Witness and Brice both entered, and found defendants drunk. The female defendant was half-dazed and in a stupid condition. A glass containing whisky stood before her. The landlord (Warman) said they had had nothing to drink since eleven. The woman was sitting down and tried to get up by hanging on to the table. On the third attempt she succeeded. Whilst she was arranging her hat, before a glass, the male defendant said “Don't take any notice of my wife. She has been on the stage”. Her husband ultimately assisted her out into the street, and they walked in a staggering state towards the railway.

Examined by Mr. Glyn, the constable said he gave evidence before the Justices, and also at the Quarter Sessions at Canterbury on the appeal in reference to the Tramway licence. No-one had instructed him to watch the house. Witness was casually passing. He had made no statement to the Superintendent or anyone else since the last hearing. Witness had made a verbal report to the Superintendent, which that official had written down.

Mr. Glyn: I call for that report.

Mr. Bradley: We do not produce it.

In further examination the witness said he did not know whether the report was in existence. He suggested that he gave the same evidence as he did in the other case. If he had not mentioned certain facts then it was because he was not pressed for them. The cross-examination of this witness was continued for a long time, but was mainly directed to the evidence given now for the first time by the witness, whose explanation throughout was that on the prosecution of Warman he had only given replies to the questions which had been put to him as being then considered the most material to the issue.

P.C. Brice, Boat Inspector, was also called, and gave corroborative evidence. He, likewise was submitted to a close cross-examination, but his evidence-in-chief remained unshaken.

The defendants, on being severally sworn, denied the accusation. The learned Counsel placed, through their evidence, a complete history of the defendants' movements that evening before the Court. It appeared that, as stated last week, they had made an appointment with Warman as to inspecting a piano which the latter had on sale. The procession of masqueraders took place the same evening, and both the defendants went out to see it, leaving home about seven o'clock. They were accompanied by William Wilson, a fireman in the employ of the South Eastern Railway Company, and living at 12, Warren Road. They walked about for a time, awaiting the procession, and called at Harvey's Hotel, where they had drinks. – Mr. Cloughton half a tankard of bitter, Mrs. Cloughton half a tankard of stout, and Wilson 2d. worth of whiskey. When the procession came by they followed it, and ultimately proceeded to the Ship Inn, which they reached at 10.30, and where Wilson remained with the defendants until 10.50. During the interval the drink had on the premises was – Mr. Cloughton a brandy and soda, Mrs. Cloughton a lemonade, and Mr. Wilson a small soda. Each of these three people swore in the most positive terms to their individual sobriety at the hour named, 10.50 p.m., and it was deposed also by the Cloughtons that neither of the latter had anything else to drink at the house that night. The difficulty which Mrs. Cloughton had in rising from the chair was caused by the fact that, owing to a fall on the stage, she has been suffering from an abscess in the knee, for which she had been under surgical treatment.

Herbert Price, a fly proprietor, who has frequently driven the Cloughtons about the town and neighbourhood, proved that he met them that night about nine o'clock in Tontine Street, that they were then perfectly sober, and that on all occasions when he had driven them out they had been distinguished for sobriety.

After a long address from the learned Counsel, who dealt exhaustively with the various aspects of the case, the Justices retired with their learned Clerk to consider the evidence. In the result, the defendants were convicted, and were ordered to pay, severally, a fine and costs amounting to 7s. 6d.

Great interest was taken in this prosecution, the little courtroom being crowded to it's utmost capacity.

Folkestone Herald 23 May 1896.

Police Court Record.

On Saturday Mr. Haines made an application in respect of an exemption order, required by the Licensing Act, for certain houses in the town. It was made under Section 36 of the Act. He said he believed that on licensed houses in the town had this early opening, and the Bench would see by the evidence put before them as to the desirability of it. If the Bench should grant this order they would be able to revoke it at any time.

The first application was from the landlord of the Ship Inn, on The Stade. This was made in respect of the fishermen and the fishing industry. They had 70 or 65 boats. These men, after being out fishing, could not always get into the harbour, and after being out all day they came in at about 3 o'clock in the morning, and there was no means of getting the refreshment they desired, as they did not come under the definition of bona fide travellers. Then again in the mackerel season boats came in from Newhaven and other ports, and the landlord had numerous applications in the early morning, and it was with great difficulty that he could exercise his discretion as to who those men were. It was not the landlord's intention to keep the place open for drinking every night, but only when a boat came in. He asked that from 3 to 6 in the morning he should be exempt from closing. He put in a memorial bearing 85 signatures, signed, he believed, by the men themselves, for what it was worth. If the Bench thought the hours too long, he asked them to limit the hours to a shorter period. He did not think the police had anything against the landlord of the house, Grigg, who had been there for two years. He asked the Bench to give the matter consideration, as it had regard to one of the only industries of this town.

Mr. Grigg stated that he was the licence holder of the Ship Inn. The fishing industry was something considerable in Folkestone. There were about 65 boats belonging to that part of the town, and about 250 fishermen. A good many boats came in from neighbouring ports during the mackerel season. During the year he had many of these boats' crews knocking him up for refreshment. If the Bench granted this application it was not his intention to keep the house open always, but only when knocked up.

Superintendent Taylor said that he was not aware of any circumstances that made this early opening desirable. Reference was made in a case the previous week that Dover had early opening houses, but in addition to the ordinary fishing interest, they had a number of large ships coming in there. With regard to ships coming in early in the morning from ports, he had no doubt that if a case of this description was brought before the Bench, it would be argued that those crews were bona fide travellers. He did not think early opening necessary. He had received no complaints from these men about not being able to obtain refreshment. The section Mr. Haines quoted said that early opening could be granted where it was necessary and desirable. It had not been desirable hitherto, and it did not seem to be now.

Mr. Haines said he had another application to make with respect to the Chequers Inn at the bottom of Dover Street. This was for an opening order from 5 to 6 in the morning. He put in a memorial supporting the early opening of this inn, containing 250 signatures. Several of them were S.E.R. men.

The Chairman of the Bench said he believed there were about 20 public houses in this part. If they gave the early opening order to one, the would have in justice to give it to all.

Mr. Haines said the others had not applied for it.

The Chairman said they would be sure to do so. The application was not granted.

Folkestone Herald 2 July 1898.

Police Court Report.

On Saturday last – the Mayor (Col. Penfold) presiding – Mr. R. Pay was granted a temporary authority for the Ship Inn.

Folkestone Herald 6 August 1898.

Police Court Report

On Wednesday licence was granted to Mr. Pay, Ship Inn.

Folkestone Herald 11 November 1899.

Folkestone Police Court.

On Saturday last plans were submitted to the Bench for alterations to the Ship Inn.

Folkestone Herald 19 January 1901.

Wednesday, January 16th: Before Messrs. J. Fitness and W. Wightwick.

Richard Pay, landlord of the Ship Inn, Radnor Street, was charged with having opened his house during prohibited hours on the 6th January.

The Chief Constable asked that the witnesses be ordered out of Court, and this was done. Mr. Minter appeared for the defence.

Inspector Lilley said on Sunday, the 6th inst., in company with P.C. Sales, he watched the Ship Inn, Radnor Street. About 7.45 a.m. the landlord opened the door and took in a milk can. At 8 o'clock he again opened the door, looked up and down the street, and a man went in. About four minutes past the door was again opened by the landlord, and the man let out. At the same time a woman went in. Two minutes later the same procedure was gone through, the woman was let out, and another woman went in. Two minutes later she was let out. At 8.14 the door was again opened by the landlord, and a fisherman named Bourne went in. At 8.19 he was let out. A minute previous to that, another man, named White, had been let in by the landlord, and he was let out at 8.22. At 8.27 another man was let in by the landlord, who remarked that he had been looking for him. He believed the last man was the potman. At 8.36 two milkmen were let in by the landlord, and after two minutes came out. At 8.39 the door was opened by a young woman – defendant's daughter - and a woman went in, being let out by the daughter at 8.45. At 8.50 two men, one being Bourne, who had previously been in, were let in and out again at 8.58 by the landlord's son. At 9.10 a man named Cook was let out by the son. They had changed their position just previous, and it was possible they did not see the man go in. At 9.20 a man named Hall was let in by the daughter, and let out by her at 9.28. At 9.32 a man whom they had not seen go in was let out by the landlord. At 9.41 a woman was let in by the landlord, and left two minutes later. Two men, named Staling and Bliss, were let in by the landlord at 9.45, and at 10 o'clock a woman went in, coming out at 10.02. At 10.22 Starling and Bliss were let out by the landlord. The milkman Bailey again went in as they went out. At 10.45 a man came along the street, tapped the window, and was afterwards let in by the landlord, and at 10.63 the landlord opened the door and witness and P.C. Sales went in. Behind the landlord in the passage was a man named Warman, who endeavoured to push past witness to get out. He stopped him and said to the landlord “What is this man doing on the premises?” The landlord said he asked him in to have some breakfast. Witness walked into the bar, and on the counter were a large number of freshly-cleaned glasses in a lump near the engine, and standing by itself was a glass with a quantity of froth reaching from the top to the bottom. Warman, the landlord, and Sales followed him into the bar, and he told the landlord he would report him for opening his house during prohibited hours. He replied that he asked Warman to have a bit of breakfast, and the beer he had himself. Warman refused his address, saying he had not got one. He told Warman he would be reported. All the people were let in in answer to a signal, either a rap on the window or the door, or by walking past. He saw thirteen man and five women enter and leave. Warman was the last man he saw enter.

P.C. Sales was giving corroborative evidence, when Mr. Minter said he had been instructed to defend the case, and his defence would have been as to the man having his breakfast there. It was impossible, as he had just pointed out to defendant, to suggest that Inspector Lilley had gone into the box and deliberately perjured himself with regard to all those people being there. It was no use taking up their time. Defendant had committed that offence, and the only excuse he could urge was his previous good character. He had been in the house three or four years, and Messrs. Flint, of Canterbury, for whom he also appeared, had recently rebuilt the house. They had spent a large sum of money on it, and he need hardly say, on their behalf, that they would only have a respectable tenant there. If the Magistrates decided that the man should be turned out, Messrs. Flint would fall in with their decision. There had been no previous complaints about the house. It was the dreadful snowy weather, and he dared say the people induced the landlord to let them have what was really a breach of the law. It was not worthwhile to go into the question of the truth of the statement as to Warman breakfasting there, although he could prove it. Here, although the defendant was a publican, he was a sinner, but there was perhaps no reason why they should not temper justice with mercy to the publican.

Superintendent Reeve said he could prove Warman had his breakfast at his son-in-law's house.

The Chairman said on this occasion they would not endorse the licence, or turn the man into the street. He would be fined £7 10s. and 17s. 6d. costs, and they hoped it would be a warning to him.



 

Folkestone Herald 10 August 1901.

Wednesday, August 7th: Before Messrs. W. Wightwick, W.G. Herbert, C.J. Pursey, G.I. Swoffer, and Lieut. Colonel Westropp.

Mr. Fryer (sic) was granted a licence for the Ship Inn.

Folkestone Herald 24 August 1901.

Annual Licensing Meeting.

Wednesday, August 21st: Before Messrs. J. Hoad, C.J. Pursey, W. Wiightwick, W.G. Herbert, and Lieut. Colonel Hamilton.

Mr. Prior applied for the renewal of the licence of the Ship Inn, Radnor Street, which was opposed by the Folkestone Temperance Council. Mr. Haines supported the application, and Mr. Montagu Bradley opposed.

Mr. Bradley said the grounds on which his clients opposed was that in January the then licence holder was convicted for having sold intoxicating liquors on a Sunday morning, and that the licence was not required. The Magistrates must have considered that the case against the previous licence holder was strong, or they would not have imposed such a heavy penalty. In the interests of other holders, it was necessary to take notice of such cases to encourage them to conduct their houses properly. The Superintendent had said there were too many licences in the town. In Radnor Street there were eight; North Street two; Beach Street seven; and Seagate Street three; making about twenty licences within a very narrow area.

Mr. Haines asked what evidence the Bench had before them that the house should be the one to be struck out if there were too many in the town. He thought it was a piece of impertinence, if they would pardon the word, asking the Magistrates to come to that decision. His client had held a licence in the town twelve years, and during that time had had no complaint against him.

Mr. Minter, on behalf of the owners, said it was common knowledge that there were too many licensed houses in every town in the kingdom. It was not the rule in East Kent that because there were too many licences in the town one should be taken away. That was upheld by the Appellant Court at Canterbury.

The Chairman said they saw no reason why they should select that house to take away the licence. They were all aware that there were too many licensed premises in certain localities. As far as his memory served, the Ship had always been a well-conducted house, and the licence would be renewed.

Folkestone Herald 23 May 1903.

Saturday, May 16th: Before Aldermen G. Spurgen and T.J. Vaughan, Councillor G. Peden, Lieut. Colonels Westropp and Fynmore, Messrs. W.C. Carpenter, J. Pledge, and J. Stainer.

James May was summoned by Charles Taylor for assault. Defendant, who pleaded Not Guilty, was represented by Mr. G.W. Haines. Both parties are fishermen.

According to complainant's evidence, they were in the Ship Inn, Radnor Street, shortly after six o'clock the previous Monday night, when a dispute occurred between tem respecting “some belongings” which May alleged complainant had lost at sea. Taylor resented this, whereupon May struck him a blow in the eye with his fist, knocking him down. Owing to the occurrence he (Taylor) had not been able to go to sea.

Replying to Mr. Haines, witness said he did not make himself very offensive to defendant. There was a little bit of argument, but nothing to speak of.

Frederick Bailey, a fisherman, gave corroborative evidence.

On oath, defendant stated that as defendant kept sticking his nose in his face he pushed him away. Taylor fell to the ground, but got up again with the intention of striking, and he (defendant) only struck back in self defence.

The Bench considered the case proved, and imposed a fine of 5s. with 12s. costs, or, in default, seven days' imprisonment.

The money was paid.

Folkestone Herald 28 June 1930.

Inquest.

A party from the Ship Inn, Radnor Street, Folkestone, had a most distressing experience on Monday afternoon, when their charabanc, driven by Mr. Henry Freeman Sarjeant, of Oaks Road, Cheriton, came into collision with a motorcyclist at Willesborough. The cyclist, Mr. Cedric Alfred White, agent, of 18, North Street, Ashford, died before the ambulance reached the scene of the accident. It appears that the deceased was riding his motor bicycle down Lees Road, Willesborough, and turning into the main road from Lacton Hall to Kennington, came into collision with the charabanc.

An inquest was held on Tuesday afternoon, when evidence was given by deceased's son, Cedric Alfred Wright, 18, North Street, Ashford, who said his father was an experienced motorcyclist, and had ridden a motor bicycle for about five years.

George Charles Prior, Ship Inn, Radnor Street, Folkestone, said he was a passenger in Mr. Sarjeant's charabanc, sitting next to the driver. He was looking round, and did not see the accident. He felt the bus swerve suddenly to the right, there was a crash, and the bus stopped. The bus was going very slowly at the time of the accident. He did not hear a horn sounded.

P.C. Legge said he found the charabanc standing in the road, and lying across, and partly under the charabanc, was a motor bicycle. A little in front of the bicycle was the body of the deceased, who was dead. Deceased's head was lying against the kerb. There was a skid mark 33ft. long from the point of impact to where the bus stopped. Twenty one feet from the point of impact there were marks where the charabanc had swerved across the road. There was a mark on the near side front dumb iron of the charabanc, and the starting handle was bent back. The front wheel of the motorcycle was jammed up under the front part of the frame of the charabanc. The view of the side road was obscured by a stone wall and a hedge. Mr. Sarjeant said to witness “I was coming down this street, and when I got practically on the corner a motorcyclist came out round the corner. I looked to see if he was coming up the road. As soon as I spotted him I served across the road to avoid him. The cyclist seemed to half turn and went across the front of my car and the car struck him. I sounded my horn”.

Dr. J.C. Hodgson, Ashford, said deceased had a fracture at the base of his skull, which caused death. Witness said he drove a car, and where the accident happened was a most dangerous corner.

Mr. Sarjeant intimated that he did not wish to give evidence.

The jury returned a verdict of death from misadventure, and recommended that the corner should be widened.

Folkestone Herald 13 February 1932.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

The Magistrates were: Alderman R.G. Wood, The Mayor, Alderman A.E. Pepper, Mr. W. Griffin, Dr. W.W. Nuttall, Mr. J.H. Blamey, Miss A.M. Hunt, Mrs. E. Gore, Alderman T.S. Franks, Rear Admiral L.J. Stephens, the Hon. Mrs. N. Howard, Mr. F. Seager and Mr. S.B. Corser.

Music licences were granted to the Ship Hotel and the Black Bull Hotel so that wireless concerts might be given on the licensed premises.

Folkestone Herald 16 February 1935.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

Another year of sobriety was reported by the Chief Constable (Mr. A.S. Beesley) to the Licensing Magistrates at the annual Licensing Sessions for the Borough, which were held at the Town Hall on Wednesday. All the licenses were renewed with the exception of that of the Mechanics’ Arms, which was referred to the adjourned annual Sessions with a view to the question of redundancy being considered. During the Sessions reference was made to the four licensed houses in the Radnor Street area, a statement being made by the Town Clerk.

The Magistrates were Mr. R.G. Wood, Mr. A.E. Pepper, Mr. J.H. Blarney, Dr. W.W. Nuttall, Alderman T.S. Franks, Alderman Mrs. E. Gore, Mr. P. Seager, Alderman W. Hollands and Alderman J.W. Stainer.

The Chief Constable presented his report (for details see Folkestone Express).

The Town Clerk (Mr. C. F. Nicholson) was present and it was suggested he should address the Magistrates. He said that he did not quite understand what they wanted him to tell them.

The Clerk (Mr. C. Rootes): What is the position of the licensed houses in the Radnor Street area?

The Town Clerk: You want me to explain what the effect of the Corporation’s proposals in regard to the Radnor Street area will be?

The Clerk: These licences won’t be renewed, will they?

The Town Clerk: Certainly. The Corporation don’t own any of the licences at the moment.

The Clerk: They may.

The Town Clerk: Only one. If the Bench want me to explain what the position is likely to be I shall be pleased to do so.

The Chairman said they were asked to renew four licences in the area. They had no official information as to what would happen to them. The question arose whether they should be renewed that morning or put over to the adjourned Sessions.

The Town Clerk pointed out that the owners of the houses were not represented that morning. Was it proper for him to say anything about it in their absence?

The Chairman: Why are you here?

The Town Clerk explained that he was asked to come.

The Clerk said he thought the Magistrates might like some information.

Dr. J.C. Carlile, who was present with other clergy and ministers, then asked if an application was now being made for the renewal of these licences in the Radnor Street area.

The Clerk (to the Town Clerk): Is there anything you have to mention this morning why the licences should not be renewed in the ordinary way?

The Town Clerk said it would not affect what the Corporation were doing in the Radnor Street area if the licences were renewed. He pointed out that he was making no application to the Magistrates that morning. As they were probably aware the Corporation had submitted to the Ministry of Health a Compulsory Purchase Order for the acquisition of most of the properties in the Radnor Street area. Included in the order were four licensed houses, the Jubilee Inn, the Oddfellows’ Inn, the Ship Inn and the Packet Boat Inn. When the Minister came to consider the order he declined to allow the Corporation to purchase three of those houses, the Jubilee, the Oddfellows’ and the Ship. They were struck out of the order on the ground of the expense which would be involved if the Corporation had to acquire them. The remaining house, the Packet Boat Inn, would be acquired by the Corporation. It so happened that the position of the Jubilee Inn and the Oddfellows’ Inn as they stood at the present time interfered with the proposed lay-out of the new houses. On the instructions of the Corporation he had entered into negotiations with the owners of the houses concerned and two of them, namely the Jubilee and the Oddfellows, had agreed, subject to the approval of the Magistrates, to pull down and build new houses on alternative sites. That would enable the Corporation’s lay-out scheme to be proceeded with, but with regard to the other house, the Ship Inn, he had not yet received the decision of the owners of that house as to whether they were prepared to pull down and erect a new house on a new site. These terms of the arrangements with the owners of the Jubilee and Oddfellows’ were subject to an application which would be made to the Magistrates in due course. The owners of the houses were conveying to the Corporation the sites of their existing houses in exchange for sites on which they would build new houses. There was to be no cost to the Corporation other than certain compensation to the tenant. In spite of the fact that the houses were struck out of the order, the way in which the owners had met the Corporation would enable the lay-out scheme to be proceeded with as they desired.

The Chairman: That’s for two of the houses?

The Town Clerk replied that that was so. With regard to the Ship Inn, as he had stated, he had not yet obtained the decision of the owners of the house. If they decided to stay where they were, their house would not interfere with the scheme so much as the other two had done. It would mean that their house would abut in front of a line of cottages which were going to be built there.

The Chairman: It won’t seriously interfere with you?

The Town Clerk: No, but it would be much better if they would. We cannot insist on them doing so. The other owners have done all they can to meet the wishes of the Corporation. Continuing, the Town Clerk said the fourth house was the Packet Boat Inn which was to be acquired by the Corporation.

Dr. Carlile: Is it?

The Clerk: Don’t interrupt, please.

Continuing, the Town Clerk said notice to treat had been served and a claim had been sent in. That house was being acquired because the site was definitely required in connection with the lay-out scheme, and the Ministry had confirmed an order which included that house but excluded the other three.

Mr. E.H. Philcox, a solicitor, then rose and asked permission to speak. He stated that he represented a number of residents in the area: He wanted to address the Bench on the question of the renewal of these licences.

The Clerk said he could not see any locus standi.

Mr. Philcox said when the matter did come before them again in connection with the removals of these houses he would be there to object on behalf of a number of residents. It did seem to him, however, that it would be more satisfactory if they only provisionally renewed those licences that day. Amongst the points he would make would be one on the grounds of redundancy.

Dr. Carlile said if the Magistrates were going to discuss this matter he wished to point out that a considerable number of residents were interested in these four houses and if there was any consideration of the question of the renewal of these licences then they asked that their views might be considered in reference to the question of redundancy. If the Magistrates were going to refer them back no further word need be said now on the subject.

The Chief Constable said he received the Magistrates’ instructions at their preliminary meeting in regard to the question of redundancy. He had found some considerable difficulty in deciding. It was an established fact that there were not too many licences in the borough for the summer trade, for all houses did extremely well during the period, whether structurally adapted for the purpose or not. One found that houses the least structurally fitted were doing a better trade. They found more customers in these pokey houses. He supposed there was a psychological reason for it. He had had a system since he had been there of monthly visits and those visits gave him a line on what trade the houses were doing. He had selected a number of houses and grouped them into three groups.

The first group included the Mechanics Arms, the Honest Lawyer, and the Harvey Hotel. He had taken comparative figures for the year and these figures showed that the Honest Lawyer had an average of 19 customers on every occasion they were visited; the Harvey Hotel 16, and the Mechanics Arms six. They made a special series of visits between January 17th and February 3rd and they found that the Mechanics Arms had an average of five; the Harvey 10; and the Honest Lawyer 17. They would see from those figures that the figures were pretty well the same for the whole year. It would appear superficially that of these three the Mechanics Arms was the one to go.

He had another group made. It consisted of the Harbour Hotel, the True Briton, the London and Paris and the Princess Royal. The figures for the year showed an average of 28.5 for the Harbour Hotel; 17.5 for the True Briton; 46.5 for the London and Paris; and 7 for the Princess Royal. The licensee of the Princess Royal had been there for 25 years and in spite of the figure he had mentioned they seemed to be making a living somehow or other.

The Chief Constable mentioned a third group which included the Alexandra, the Royal George' the South Foreland, the Wonder, the Pavilion Shades, the Chequers, the Wellington, the Royal Oak and the Lifeboat. The two which were doing the least trade, judged by' his figures, were the' Wonder with an average of 12 and the Lifeboat with an average of 14. The others were not doing very much better. It. was difficult to differentiate in that group. He was prepared to take directions from the Magistrates, but he was not prepared to give any.

The Magistrates then retired.

The Chairman stated on their return that with reference to Dr. Carlile’s question, the Bench had decided that later on he (the Chairman) should renew all the licences with the exception of the Mechanics Arms, the licence of which the Magistrates had decided not to renew that morning but refer to the adjourned Sessions to have evidence of redundancy or otherwise.

Dr. Carlile: That means ho objection can be taken here and now or at any other place to the four licences involved in the Radnor Street scheme?

The Chairman: I think now is the time for you to raise any objection.

The Clerk pointed out that there would be applications for the removals of these licences later on and then anyone could be heard.

The Chairman: That will be the better time, then.

Dr. Carlile said it put them at a very serious disadvantage because the licences would be granted again and there would only be the question of removal. It meant that when it came to the question of removal of the licences, it would be the removal of a licence which was already in being.

The Chairman: I am afraid that that is the position.

The Chairman then announced the renewal of all licences with the exception of the Mechanics Arms, which he stated would be deferred until the adjourned sessions.

Folkestone Herald 9 March 1935.

Council Meeting Extract.

The Health Committee reported that the Town Clerk had been informed by the owners of the Ship Inn that it was not their intention to re-buiid the premises. They had asked whether the Corporation would be prepared to sell to them a piece of land in the area adjoining the existing inn to be utilised in the event of the owners deciding to re-build at some future date. The Committee recommended that the owners the Ship Inn be informed that the Corporation were not prepared to sell to them a piece of land fur this purpose.

Folkestone Herald 7 January 1939.

Local News.

The Folkestone Licensing Magistrates on Wednesday granted the transfer of the licence of the Ship Inn, Folkestone, from Mr. G.W. Prior to his son, Mr. Albert John Prior.

Folkestone Herald 15 April 1939.

Local News.

At the Folkestone Police Court on Wednesday, the Magistrates approved alterations to the Ship Inn, Folkestone.

Folkestone Herald 8 February 1941.

Local News.

Albert John Prior, of the Ship Inn, The Stade, summoned at the Folkestone Police Court on Friday last week for having a chimney on fire, told the Magistrates it was a difficult chimney to sweep. He attributed the fire to the fact that a quantity of soot had been dislodged by a bomb explosion recently. The chimney had been swept last summer.

The Magistrates fined defendant 2s. 6d.

Folkestone Herald 5 January 1946.

Local News.

On Christmas day the death occurred of Mr. George William Prior, of 6, Bonsor Road, Folkestone, one of the oldest and best-known licensed victuallers in the district. He was 80. Mr. Prior was born on a farm at Preston, near Dumpton Park, Kent, and was only seven when he began work on a milk round.

He came to Folkestone 51 years ago, and opened a restaurant in Beach Street. Later he acquired the licence of the Wonder Tavern, which was demolished by a land mine in 1940. In 1901 he left the Wonder to take over the licence of the Ship Inn, which he held until 1938, when it was transferred to his son. Altogether Mr. Prior had been in the licensed trade for 42 years, and for some years was Chairman of the Folkestone and District Licensed Victuallers' Association. His hobbies included gardening and rough shooting. Mr. Prior, who had been a widower for 31 years, leaves two sons and two daughters.

The funeral took place at Folkestone Cemetery, Cheriton Road, last Friday.

Folkestone Herald 19 January 1946.

Local News.

Pte. Joseph Henry Dimery (18) pleaded Not Guilty at Folkestone Magistrates' Court to stealing a doormat, valued 12/-, from the Ship Inn, The Stade, Folkestone.

Albert J. Prior, licensee of the Ship Inn, said on Friday last after the premises were closed he found a doormat missing.

P.C. McFazdean said on Friday night he saw several soldiers boarding a bus. Defendant was carrying a doormat. He questioned Dimitry, who said “I have been down the Ship Inn in the Fishmarket and when I left I bought the mat from a bargeman for 3/-“.

Dimery told the court that he was drunk when he bought the mat.

An officer said defendant had a very good character.

Chief Insp. R.J. Butcher said Dimery was fined £5 in 1942 for stealing cases of corned beef.

The Magistrates fined Dimery 10/-.

Folkestone Herald 1 May 1948.

Local News.

An inquest was held yesterday afternoon on Albert John Prior, ager 49, licensee of the Ship Inn, The Stade, Folkestone, who was found dead in the kitchen of the inn on Tuesday morning. His wife, who had only returned from a holiday in America a few days before, made the discovery.

Mr. Prior was a member of the Folkestone L.V. Association and followed his father as licensee of the Ship Inn before the war.

Folkestone Herald 8 May 1948.

Local News.

"I am certain the gas had not been turned on deliberately with the idea of taking his life”, said the Folkestone Coroner (Mr. B.H. Bonniface), returning a verdict of “Death by misadventure” at an inquest last Friday on Albert, John Prior, 49, licensee of the Ship Inn, The Stade, who was found dead in a gas-filled kitchen.

P.C. Seeker said when he saw Prior's body his head was as far away from the gas stove as it could be; if the man had taken his own life the position of the body would be extraordinary.

Dr. W.C.P. Barrett said Prior was suffering from a disease of the heart and it might be possible that he turned on the gas and then collapsed.

George Charles Prior, cellarman, of 27, Stuart Road, Folkestone, said he last saw his brother about five weeks ago and he told him that Mrs. Prior was going to America.

Mrs. Dorothy Lilian M. Prior, the widow, said her husband’s health had not been good for a long time. She had left Folkestone for America on March 31st, making the trip by air. She went to see her two sisters.

The Coroner: You went with the approval of your husband?

Mrs. Prior: Yes.

The Coroner: I ask that because I understand there have been certain suggestions down the Fishmarket and I want to clear that up.

Mrs. Prior said she left America on April 22nd and arrived home about 6 p.m. the following day. When she returned her husband said “You have had your holiday and now I am going to have mine”, and he went off duty in the ordinary way, not because of his health. On April 27th she rose later than usual, at about 9.15 a.m., and went to the kitchen. The door was closed, and on opening it she smelt gas. At the same time she saw her husband lying across the room, head towards the pantry and right away from the gas stove. She could not say whether one or two taps of the gas stove were turned on. The kettle was not on the stove. The oven door was partly open, but as far as she could remember the oven taps were not on. Her husband was wearing pyjamas and dressing gown. She turned the tap or taps off and opened the windows, which were always closed at night. Her husband had never threatened to take his life and she knew of no reason why he should; she did not think he did.

The Coroner: Financially, everything is all right?

Mrs. Prior: Definitely.

Dr. W.C.P. Barrett said the deceased had been, a patient of his, and knowing him for many years he did not think he was a man who would take his own life. Witness had carried out a post mortem examination and found there was heart disease, which might have caused deceased to collapse, especially after getting up early in the morning. Death was due to asphyxia from carbon monoxide poisoning.

The Coroner: Do you think it might be possible that he turned on the gas and then collapsed?

Witness: I think it is quite possible.

In your experience have you ever known a person turn on the gas and lie with their head as far away from the gas stove as possible? - All those I have seen have always been careful to put their heads in the oven.

The Coroner said having regard to what Dr. Barrett had told him, his own observation of the room and the position of the body he had no doubt what his verdict should be in that case. “The verdict I shall record, and I have no doubt about it, is that deceased died from carbon monoxide poisoning”, said the Coroner. “There is no evidence to show how the taps became to be turned on, and I am certain that the gas was not turned on deliberately with the intention of taking his life”.

The funeral took place at St. Peter's Church on Saturday. The interment was at Hawkinge.

A member of the Folkestone Licensed Victuallers' Association, Mr. Prior took over the Ship Inn from his father, who had held the licence for over 40 years. His premises remained open throughout the war.

Folkestone Herald 28 August 1948.

Local News.

Alleged to have concealed himself in the Ship Inn, The Stade, Folkestone, on July 8th, and. stolen £15 from the till, Walter Henry Todd (29), a labourer, of 11, Invicta Road, Folkestone, was committed for trial by Folkestone Magistrates on Wednesday.

The accused pleaded guilty to breaking into the premises and stealing the money.

Mrs. D.L.M. Prior, licensee of the Ship Inn, said she closed the bar at 2.30 p.m. on July 8th, locking and bolting the doors. She left the bar at 2.45 p.m. after cleaning up, and went upstairs to her private rooms. She went to the bar again at about 5.55 p.m. and found the till drawer open. One of the keys of each register had been pushed down to release the drawer and £15 in notes was missing. The back door of the premises had been unbolted. Witness said the prisoner, who was a customer had been in the house that morning.

D/C. Huddart said at 4 p.m. on August 24th he saw Todd detained at Margate police station. He told the prisoner he was making enquiries about the theft of £15 from the Ship Inn and that he had reason to believe he had concealed himself on the premises when the bar was closed. Todd replied: “I admit that. I have spent the money”.

The accused, who was committed to Folkestone Quarter Sessions to be held on October 9th, was remanded in custody.

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 Herald 12 July 1958.

Local News.

Two men, told by the landlord of a public house in Folkestone Fishmarket to leave the premises, thought they would have their revenge by emptying a drum of diesel oil they found outside the premises. But the oil belonged to a ship's chandler and had been left on the quayside for the crew of a fishing boat putting to sea early the next morning.

Stanley Beck (42) and John Gordon Farnell (28), both of no fixed address, pleaded Guilty at Folkestone Magistrates' Court on Tuesday to stealing the oil, belonging to Mr. W.T.B. Saunders. Beck was fined £5 and Parnell £2.

Mr. T.H. Jones, prosecuting, said apparently Beck and Farnell had been told by the landlord of the Ship Inn to leave the premises. They thought they would have their revenge by pouring the oil over the wall of the public house. They were seen by the manager of the Ship Inn and when he shouted the two men ran off. They were later found at the back of premises in Marine Parade. Farnell told P.C. Lower “We have had a few drinks. What has it got to do with you?” Told they would be arrested, Beck replied “It will be a good night's kip”. Farnell said “I took the drum of oil away because the landlord told us to get outside”.

Beck denied to the Magistrates that he touched the oil and offered to make restitution of 7/4, its value.

“It was drink that made me do it”, said Farnell. “I am willing to pay the cost”.

Chief Inspector L.A. Hadlow said Farnell had a good character, but Beck had eight previous convictions.

Both men were allowed 14 days to pay the fines, with 14 days' imprisonment in default.

Folkestone Herald 20 September 1969.

Local News.

After 21 years as licensee of the Ship Inn, The Stade, the longest serving member of Folkestone Women's Auxiliary, Mrs. “Blossom” Bentley, will retire on Monday.

Mrs. Bentley, who is retiring on doctor's advice, will take a special holiday to celebrate her retirement. She will go to America to visit two of her 13 surviving brothers and sisters. Mrs. Bentley will arrive in America in time to see the marriage of her niece, Miss Margaret Hamfland, in October. After three weeks she hopes to return to Folkestone and search for a flat.

The licence of the Ship has been in the family for 68 years. It was first held by her father in 1901, and was later passed to her first husband, Mr. Albert Prior. On his death 21 years ago Mrs. Bentley took over the licence. The only time she has closed the Ship was during the war when police evacuated people from the harbour area - and when she ran out of beer.

Even though she is retiring from the trade she will keep in touch with her friends and remain active in the auxiliary of which she is a life member.

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.

Folkestone Herald 22 July 1988.

Local News.

Bed and breakfast took on a new meaning for a drunken visitor to Folkestone at the weekend. James McKenzie, 54, from Wakefield, fell asleep in the loo after an evening drinking session at the Ship Inn, in The Stade, last Friday. And when he woke up in the early hours of Saturday morning he found himself in a boozer's paradise – a bar empty of customers but full of drinks!

Owner of the Ship, Stan Dawkins, said “When the man was found in the morning he could hardly walk – he had to be carried out. I didn't notice the man when I checked the gents' toilets – he was in one of the cubicles. We've never had anything like this before and everyone has been having a laugh about it”.