Folkestone Herald 30 September 1899.

Cheriton Urban District Council.

Tuesday, September 26th.

Councillor Harriss said that there were applications for new licences to be made in the district. One was by Mr. Lonergan, but they would not want him to withdraw because it was a matter that concerned all of them. He suggested that it should go forth that the Council were willing to support what they thought would be of most advantage to the Parish – the application of Mr. Lonergan for a licence.

Councillor Lonergan said that he had some intimation that it might come on that day, and he brought the plan. There was urgency if it was to be done at all.

Councillor Greenstreet said that it should be understood that in the event of a licence being granted the opinion of the Council should be directed to the question of which would be the better site. They were not backing up Mr. Lonergan as a member of the Council. If they were going to have any public house, by all means let them have that in the best situation, never mind whether it was Mr. Lonergan, or who it was.

Councillor Dunster also considered that they were not dealing with Mr. Lonergan or anyone else personally.

The Chairman said that they had heard what Mr. Harriss said. Would anyone second his resolution?

Councillor Harriss thought that it was a very important matter. If they were going to improve Cheriton they should do their utmost to have the improvement in the right part.

The resolution was seconded. It was to the effect that the Council are of opinion that if the Licensing Justices are prepared to grant fresh licenses, preference should be given to the site at the junction of Queen's Road with Church Road.

Carried.

Folkestone, Hythe, Sandgate & Cheriton Herald, Saturday 30 September 1899.

Cheriton Licensing. At Seabrook Yesterday. Mr. Quested's application granted.

The adjourned general annual licensing meeting was held yesterday (Friday) at the County Police Station, Seabrook, before Messrs. Brockman, Day, (Mayor of Hythe). Whitewick, A. S. Jones; Capt. Smythers, Capt. Baldwin, and Dr. Lovegrove. The chief business of interest was the application by Mr. Charles Robert Quested for a provisional licence for premises to be constructed abutting to Church Road, and a like application by Mr. Robert Lonergan for premises to be built at the junction of Queens Road and Church Road.

Mr. J. Minter appeared for Mr. Quested; Mr. F. Hall for Mr. Lonergan; and Mr. Mowll for the owners and occupiers of the "White Lion," Cheriton.

Mr. Quested's Application.

Mr. Minter, in the course of his remarks on behalf of Mr. Quested's application, referred in caustic terms to a resolution with regard to the licensing recently passed by the Urban District Council of Cheriton. He said that he noticed that the Cheriton Council had been taking some extraordinary proceedings at their meetings, and he understood that Mr. James, the Clerk, was here to oppose the application.

Mr James:- I put in the resolution of the Council. I am not instructed to oppose.

Mr. Minter said that Mr. James was going to put in an extraordinary resolution.

Mr. Wilks said that a copy of the resolution and a letter of Mr. James had been sent to him.

Mr. Mentor said it was a most improper and scandalous proceeding, such as in the course of a 50 years experience he had ever heard of before, but it was not at all surprised at it when he read the nature of the resolution which they had presumed to pass, and which they had no power to do. It was totally illegal, and it had been passed really in the interests of one of the members of that Council, and he had never seen such as scandalous proceeding. This resolution was, to a certain extent, a work of art. It showed that they must have been studying the Transvaal matters a good deal, and they had to come to the conclusion that they were an independent sovereign state. (Laughter.) They issued their ultimatum to the Bench of Magistrates (laughter) to tell them not to grant the application of Mr. Quested, but they were to grant the application of one of their own body, Mr. Lonergan, who was a member of the Council and present at the meeting. Where were they to stop it a body like the Urban Council of Cheriton would so act in the interests of one of their own members, Mr. Lonergan, as to pass a resolution to suggest that the Magistrates that they should have a licence to him? Certainly the Cheriton Council had immortalized themselves. (Laughter). They will go down to posterity (laughter) as one of the most extraordinary bodies of men that were ever created. (Loud Laughter). He was afraid that should not show that they were worthy of anything entrusted with the powers which the Local Government Board had given them. (Laughter). Mr. James did not hesitate to attend, notwithstanding that he must know that it was a most illegal act on their part to have passed this resolution. (Laughter.) With regard to the "Unity Inn", Mr. Minter said it was known that that house had been sold to the War Office, and the Camp was going to be extended. He alluded to the marvellous extension of Cheriton and the extensive building operations going on. He understood that Mr. Mowll, on the part of Messrs. Beer, the landlords of the "White Lion," was there to oppose. It was simply a trade and selfish opposition. The "White Lion" had been rebuilt to the benefit of Messrs. Beer, but at the same time that did not get away from the fact that they were out of an easy distance of people who are living near the site of the house to be erected and for which he was applying for the provisional grant.

Mr. Wilks, architect, gave evidence as to the plans and the number of houses in the neighbourhood. He stated that building operations were going on very fast indeed; also that in his opinion the site was a suitable and proper one for the erection of a house. The estimate of cost was £2,000.

Mr. Percy Greenstreet, an Overseer, stated that he resided in Cheriton, and was a member of the Council. (Laughter.)

Mr. Minter:- I hope that you won't be offended by what I just said. (Laughter.)

Mr. Greenstreet, continuing, said that the population of Cheriton was well over 3,000. Houses were increasing very rapidly on the south side of the railway. The rateable value had increased very much indeed within the last three years. he believed that the rateable value had almost doubled recently. At the present moment he believed that it was well over £15,000. Building operations were still going on, and there seemed to be no limit to them.

Mr. George Conley stated, with regard to the number of houses near Mr. Quested's site, that he had been round to count them. On the south side, including 55 for Horn Street, they were 123. There were buildings going on close to the site. He considered it a very admirable site, and thought that a second licence was required.

Mr. F. W. Solley also considered that this was a proper site. He thought that another fully licensed house was required.

The Rev. R. F. Johnston:- Do you hold any official position in the parish?

Witness:- Not at all.

Mr. Minter:- You are not one of the immortalized Council, I expect. (Laughter.)

Mr. Quested, the applicant, gave formal evidence.

Mr. Mowll here said that he had a couple of witnesses.

Mr. W. J. Jennings gave evidence as to a plan, but showed every house erected on in course of erection. He stated that the old "White Lion" had been demolished and a large building had been erected instead. Nearly all the houses were within a convenient distance of either the "Unity" or the "White Lion." The "White Lion" was enlarged for the better accommodation of the public.

Mr. G. D. Wood, Managing Director of the Cheriton Omnibus Company, stated that in his opinion it was the worst thing that could happen to have a public house outside the stable gates. He had great difficulty now. He did not think it was required. He would rather not have one.

By Mr. Minter:- All stablemen were in the habit of drinking when they got the opportunity. He did not mean to say that his men were worse than others.

Mr. Lonergan's Application.

Mr. F. Hall then address the Court on behalf of Mr. Lonergan. He observed that the applicant in this case was the owner of the Oaks Estate, which he purchased from Mr. Mentor. Feeling that some time sooner or later the licence would be granted, he, being the owner of so much land, had made this application, not in the ordinary sense, as a brewer or brewers' tenant, but as the owner of the property. This house would not be in any sense a tied house. As the opposition, he said that the "White Lion" was a veritable Klondyke (laughter) and he had no doubt far and away the best house that Messrs. Beer had. He could not understand the nature of Mr. Johnston's co-operation, that he should be to assist the brewers in protecting their interest in creating a gigantic Monopoly. The Bench must come to the conclusion, as they had twelve months before, that the existing licensing accommodation was not adequate for the population. He would put in a memorial signed by 122 people in Cheriton, including the Chairman of the Urban District Council and members of it. His friend Mr. Minter had alluded to the Council in not very complimentary terms. he did not hold a brief to defend them, but the Council did not attempt to dictate to the bench. They simply passed a resolution that the Council were of opinion that if the Justices considered it expedient to grant a fresh licence preference should be given to the site at the junction of Queens Road and Church Road. He was surprised somewhat to hear his friend and anathematizing them. Perhaps he had been wrapped up in the doings of Tommy Atkins and his martial spirit was excited. (Laughter.) He suggested that there had been no dictation.

Superintendent Hollands stated that he was directed by the Chief Constable to oppose the application.

Mr. Wilks produced plans and gave evidence as to the accommodation of the house.

Mr. Lonergan, the applicant, in the course of his statement said that he brought 13 acres and was developing it for the building. The houses let before they are finished. He made his application on purpose to have control of the house near him. He was speaking as the owner of a house. He was not going to make anything out of it.
By Mr. Minter:- He had no intention of keeping the house himself. If he had a very good offer, he would not sell it. He would not do so at any price; it would spoil his property. The class was not that of people who drink beer and want controlling.

Mr. Minter:- You are a member of the celebrated Cheriton Council? (Loud laughter).

Mr. Lonergan, continuing, said that there was nothing on the agenda about the resolution. He was present. He did not produce his plans until after the motion was brought forward.

Mr. Minter:- It came as a surprise to you. (Laughter.)

Mr. Lonergan said that it did. They had power to pass a resolution.

Mr. Shead was the next witness. He mentioned that he obtain signatures for the memorial.

Mr. Minter:- You were employed to do it?

Witness:- No sir.

Was it out of love for Mr. Lonergan?

I suppose it was. (Laughter.)

Who asked you?

Not Mr. Lonergan.

Who did?

That has nothing to do with you sir. (Laughter).

Who asked you to get this memorial signed? One of Mr. Lonergan's Men?

Mr. Crust deposed that, in his opinion, there was necessary for a fresh licence, and Mr. Lonergan's site was the best, being more central.

Mr. Mowll and Mr. Bannon addressed the Bench subsequently. The latter contended that no one had the authority to state that the "Unity" would be taken down and destroyed by the War Department. The Rev. R. E. Johnston and the Rev. F. D. Hodgson also opposed the application.

The Decision.

The Chairman, after a short interval, announced that the Bench granted Mr. Quested's application, as they considered that the "Unity" would be done away with by the War Office. The other application would be refused.

Folkestone Herald 25 July 1903.

Wednesday, July 22nd: Before Alderman Banks, Messrs. W. Wightwick, and J. Stainer.

A licence to sell intoxicating liquors on the Football Ground, Canterbury Road, on the Bank Holiday, on the occasion of a fete, was granted to Mr. Quested.

Folkestone Herald 17 September 1904.

Elham County Bench.

Thursday, September 15th: Before Mr. F.D. Brockman, Alderman J.J. Jeal, Councillor H.P. Jacques, Lieut. Col. Fynmore, Mr. A.S. Jones and Mr. F.E. Burke.

Frederick Arthur King was summoned for being drunk whilst in charge of a horse and cart in Ashley Avenue, Cheriton, on the 12th inst. Mr. Minter appeared for the defence.

P.C. Goodhew stated that at 10.30 p.m. on the 12th inst. he saw defendant drunk, driving a horse and trap, the reins of which were lying loose on the horse's back. He stopped defendant and told him to get down. He got down and held on to the shaft. Witness took him to the Seabrook police station, and charged him with being drunk whilst in charge of a horse and cart.

Cross-examined by Mr. Minter, witness stated that at the police station defendant insisted on seeing a doctor, who pronounced that he was not drunk.

In reply to Supt. Hollands, witness stated that the doctor did not arrive till 12 o'clock, and the offence was committed at 10.30.

P.C. Woodhams stated that on the evening in question he was in Risborough Lane and saw defendant get out at the Victoria. He requested the landlord not to serve him. In the meantime another man went in and brought out two glasses of ale, one of which he gave to defendant. King then got on the box and drove down Risborough Lane. Witness saw that he was drunk.

Ernest Mitchell, a sapper in the Royal Engineers, corroborated the constable's evidence.

P.C. Archer deposed to being at the police station on the night in question when defendant was brought in. Witness telephoned to Dr. Chubb, and about ten minutes to twelve he (Dr. Chubb) arrived and examined defendant. He said “Well, I won't say you are drunk at the present time, but you appear to be suffering from drink”.

Questioned by Supt. Hollands, witness said Dr. Chubb did not say that defendant was capable of taking a horse home.

Mr. Minter having addressed the Bench for the defence, defendant gave evidence on oath. He said he was a fly driver, living at Cheriton. On the night of the 12th inst. he was driving past the Victoria, when he saw a man named James Reeves, who was drunk. Witness took him to his cab and drove him home. Having taken him home, he resumed his journey and was stopped by the policeman.

William Miller, John Hobb, William Seymour, and Fred Jennings having given evidence as to defendant's condition, Supt. Hollands recorded several previous convictions against defendant.

A fine of 10s. and 26s. costs was inflicted, in default one month's imprisonment.

Folkestone Herald 30 March 1907.

Local News.

We regret to announce the death of Mr. Charles Robert Quested, the proprietor of the Victoria Hotel, Risboro' Lane, Cheriton, who passed away on Wednesday morning at about 10 o'clock, after an illness of nearly eight months. The deceased, who had been an inhabitant of Cheriton for a great many years, was well-known and highly respected in the district. His father was at one time the proprietor of the Railway Hotel, Coolinge Lane.

The late Mr. Chas. Quested, who was 51 years of age, was an enthusiastic follower of the East Kent Hunt. He leaves a widow, four daughters, and one son, the eldest of his children, being about nineteen.

The funeral will take place today at 3 p.m. at the Old Parish Church, Cheriton.

Folkestone Herald 5 October 1912.

Elham County Bench.

Thursday, October 3rd: Before Mr. E. Garnet Man, A.S. Jones, F.E. Burke, R.J. Linton, G.W. Tester, H.P. Jacques, and A.M. Curties.

George Fullager was summoned for refusing to quit licensed premises when requested to do so.

Wm. Henry Monk stated that defendant went in to the Victoria, Risborough Lane, Cheriton, at 8.30 p.m. on September 21st, but as he was drunk the barman refused to serve him, and called the potman to him. Witness also had his attention called to him, and he requested him to leave. Defendant used certain language to the potman, and then struck him in the face. The potman afterwards ejected him.

Harry Moseley, barman, and Albert Reeves, potman, both corroborated, the latter stating that he was knocked stupid.

Defendant said the barman grinned into his face and kept shaking his head. He did not like it, and it upset him.

The Chairman said the Bench were bound to assist a publican when he was doing his duty. Defendant would be fined £1 and costs (11s.), or one month's imprisonment. A fortnight was allowed for payment.

Folkestone Herald 18 October 1913.

Elham County Bench.

Thursday, October 16th: Before Mr. E. Garnet Man, Mr. F.E. Burke, Commander A.B. Mansell, Mr. A.M. Curties, Mr. A.S. Jones, and Councillor H.P. Jacques.

Albert Austin was summoned for refusing to quit the Victoria Hotel, Cheriton, on October 6th, after being told to leave.

Geo. Clayson, a barman, said at about 9.30 a.m. he refused to serve defendant, and told him he had better go. Defendant, however, sat upon a seat in the bar.

Mr. Monk, the landlord, stated that, seeing the defendant on the seat, drunk, he asked him to go several times, but he refused. Witness had to get a constable to eject defendant.

P.C. Marshall deposed to being called to the Victoria Hotel. Defendant refused to leave the house on being asked, and witness, with the assistance of P.C. Clow, had to eject him.

Edward Williams said that he went into the bar, and, seeing defendant there, asked him what he would have to drink. Witness got the drink and paid for it, and then left the house. The policemen had not come then.

Defendant declared that all he had had that morning was 2½ pints. That was up to nine o'clock.

The Chairman: That's a tall order. So early, too.

The Bench fined defendant 2s. 6d. and the costs (13s.), allowing a week for payment.

Edward Williams was summoned for procuring a drink for a drunken person on October 6th.

Geo. Clayson, barman, said defendant came into the house with some others and got five drinks for his chums. Witness saw him give half a pint to Austin.

Geo. Henry Allen, called on behalf of defendant, said he heard Williams as Austin what he would have to drink. Austin was merry, but not drunk.

Defendant said he did not know that Austin he been refused, and did not think he was drunk.

Fined 5s., including costs.

Folkestone Herald 22 January 1916.

Elham County Bench.

Thursday, January 21st: Before Mr. E. Garnet Man, Mr. F.E. Burke, Mr. A.S. Jones, Mr. H. Strahan, Mr. J.E. Quested, Mr. E.J. Bishop, Mr. C. Ed. Mumford, Mr. A.N. Watney, and Mr. H.P. Jacques.

Alice O'Connor, a laundry employee, was summoned for illegally procuring certain intoxicating drink for soldiers on Christman night.

Mr. H.W. Tomlinson, landlord of the Victoria public house, Risborough Lane, Cheriton, stated that on Christmas night the defendant called at his house for two bottles of stout. He asked her whether it was for her own consumption, and whether she knew the consequences if it was to be given to soldiers. She replied “Yes, I know. The stout is for myself”. He then served her.

P.C. Clow stated that he was on duty outside the Victoria public house about eight o'clock, when he saw the defendant leave the house carrying two quart bottles of stout. Sergt. Withall was with him at the time, and remained on duty near the house. Witness followed the defendant some little distance, and he saw her hand one of the bottles to a soldier. He at once went to her, and brought her back to the house, when she said she gave one bottle to a soldier.

Defendant said that she purchased the two bottles of stout for herself. As she left the house she was followed by two soldiers, who asked her whether there was “any chance for a drink”. She said “No”, whereupon one of the men snatched a bottle out of her hands, and opened it as the constable came up.

Defendant was fined 5s.

Folkestone Herald 27 October 1917.

Elham Petty Sessions.

Thursday, October 25th: Before Major D'Aeth, Mr. E.J. Bishop, Mr. H. Strahan, and Mr. C. Ed. Mumford.

Herbert J.W. Tomlinson, licensee of the Victoria public house, Risborough Lane, Cheriton, was summoned for supplying beer to certain soldiers, contrary to the regulations. Mr. G.W. Haines defended, and pleaded Not Guilty.

Sergt. Major Gilbert Smith, of the Canadian Military Police, stated that on the evening of 22nd September he was visiting the military police patrols. Some few minutes past eight o'clock he found a picquet standing outside the Victoria public house in Risborough Lane, and two Corporals, who should have been with the picquet, could not be seen. He went to the entrance of the house, and when he tried to get inside someone put what seemed to be his foot against the door to prevent him entering. Eventually he did enter, at about seven or ten minutes past eight. He saw Acting Corporal Fletcher and Acting Corporal Smith standing in front of the bar with beer glasses in front of them. They had their brassards on. He ordered them out. Each had a pint of beer in his glass. When they were outside he placed them under arrest. At 9.30 that night the defendant came to him at Cheriton and asked him to take no action of the matter, as it would be serious for him. He told defendant that it was no use endeavouring to discuss the matter with him, and it was up to his superiors to deal with it. He was quite certain as to the time he entered the house because before going on his duty for the night he checked his watch by official time.

Cross-examined: When he went to the door of the house he did not say who he was, and it might be quite possible that defendant put his foot to the door in order that no-one might enter. He knew of no order whereby corporals of the police could enter licensed premises “to clear the house” unless called upon by the landlord in cases of disturbance. Two days after he reported the corporals an order had been issued pointing out that corporals were not to enter any house at closing time unless urgently requested by the landlord.

Corporal James Smith, C.M.P., stated that he heard someone in the house call “time”. It was then a few minutes before eight o'clock. Fletcher and he entered the house, and saw some staff sergeants, who “jeered” at him. The whole of the men in the house left, including the staff sergeants. It had been customary for landlords to provide a pint of beer when the corporals of a picquet and police on duty entered to clear the house. He had a pint and so did Fletcher, who was with him.

The Chairman: If you were at any other house would this have occurred?

Witness: Yes, sir. It is the custom at all houses.

The Chairman: did you pay for it?

Witness: No; when the house was cleared of soldiers, a pint was put on the counter.

Mr. Haines, addressing the Bench, said he pleaded Guilty to a technical offence. In this district, ever since the Canadian troops were stationed in the locality, it had been a recognised custom that the police should have a glass of beer or ale when they cleared the houses of soldiers. This was not an offence against the regulations which dealt with offences “calculated to assist the enemy” or to “make a man less efficient for duty”. This was no sale, but an acknowledgement, so to speak, for “services rendered”; those services being to see that the house was clear of all troops at the proper time. This was no question of selling, and being a technical offence he asked the Bench to look upon the occurrence as a matter of custom, for the defendant had a good many years record without any complaint and the house had a clean record.

The Magistrates having deliberated in private, the Chairman said thay concluded that an offence had been committed, and would therefore have to convict. But they recognised that the offence had arisen out of a lax system which had been allowed to be carried on, and which apparently became a custom amongst licence holders in the district. The defendant no doubt assumed that when the military police cleared the house at 8 o'clock the policeman's duty was at an end, but a military police officer was never off duty. The defendant on this occasion committed two offences; he committed an offence against the “Treating Order”, for he treated the corporals to a drink of beer – a bad custom in the district – and he had supplied men with intoxicating liquor while they were on duty. Defendant would have to pay a fine of £5 as a warning to all other licensees. The Bench decided, however, that the defendant having been led by “custom” should not have any complaint made against the house or any endorsement of his licence at the next licensing meeting.

Superintendent Castle said he would note the observations made anent next Licensing Sessions.

Folkestone Herald 13 July 1918.

Elham County Bench.

Before Mr. E. Garnet Man, Dr. Tyson, Mr. A.S. Jones, Mr. E.J. Bishop, Mr. H. Strahan, and Mr. C. Ed. Mumford.

The licence of the Victoria Inn, Risborough Lane, Cheriton, was transferred from Mr. F.H.W. Tomlinson to Mr. F. Rivers.

Note: Date is at variance with More Bastions.

Folkestone Herald 24 April 1926.

Seabrook Police Court.

Monday, April 19th: Before Mr. J.S. Clark.

Andrew Benedict Richards, of Queen's Street, Chatham, was charged with breaking and entering the Valiant Sailor, near Folkestone, during the night of April 14th and 15th, and stealing therein five Masonic medals, a metal watch, a bunch of keys, valued at £7 5s. in all, the property of Mr. Alfred C. Aird. He was further charged with breaking and entering a house in Risborough Lane, Cheriton, during the night of the 15th and 16th inst., and stealing two wallets, a razor and case, and a gold filled watch, valued at £6 10s., the property of Mr. Edwin Turner. There was a third charge of breaking and entering the Victoria Inn, Cheriton, during the night of the 15th and 16th, and stealing £6 in money, a silver plated pencil case and pen, a pair of suede gloves, and a quantity of cigars and cigarettes, together of the value of £6 15s., the property of Mr. Francis Rivers.

Detective Constable Avory, stationed at Seabrook, stated that he saw the prisoner detained at Chatham police station the previous evening at six o'clock, and charged him with the three offences. Accused made no reply. Witness brought him to Seabrook police station, where he formally charged and cautioned him. Accused said “The other three medals I gave to three men in Folkestone. They had one each. I put some papers which were in one of the wallets behind a bush on the edge of the Menage, Cheriton”.

Prisoner was remanded in custody until yesterday.

The Magistrates present at the adjourned hearing were Mr. J.S. Clark and Mr. C. Sheath.

Mr. A.C. Aird, of the Valiant Sailor, Hawkinge, said that he made an inspection of his premises on the night of the 14th April, and found them all secure. Just after six o'clock on the following morning, on going downstairs, he noticed that the dining room window was open and one pane was broken near the catch. The room itself was in a state of great disorder. He had an office adjoining the dining room, the door of which was locked. He unlocked the door and entered, and noticed that the window was open, and a pane of glass near the catch was broken. The office was in great disorder. He then looked round the other downstairs rooms. The front door was unbolted. He missed nothing from the dining room, but he missed five of his Masonic medals (three produced) and a gun metal watch which had been kept in a drawer in his desk. At a later inspection he missed a bunch of keys, some foreign coins, and a small electric torch. He identified the three medals, the keys and the watch, and the coins were similar to those he had. The value was between £7 and £8.

Detective Constable Avory said that about 7 a.m. on the 15th April he examined the premises in company with Sergt. Fry. A room used as an office had been entered by the window, which had a pane of glass broken near the catch. The room had the appearance of having been hurriedly searched. The thief, not being able to gain admittance to any other part of the building, owing to the door of the room which he was in being locked, had left by the way he entered, and entered the dining room by the indow in the same way as he had entered the office. At 6 p.m. on the 18th April he saw the prisoner detained at Chatham police station. He cautioned him and charged him. Prisoner made no reply. He took him to Seabrook police station, where at 10 p.m. he again cautioned and charged him. Prisoner replied “Three of the medals I gave to three men at Folkestone; I also gave one of them the watch. I do not know who they were”. On April 20th witness recovered the watch from a man named Alfred Brown at the Plough lodging house, New Romney.

Mary Green, 16, Queen Street, Chatham, said that the prisoner was her brother. On April 15th he came home between half past ten and eleven. She thought it was a Thursday, but she was not sure; it might have been Friday. Her brother gave her a tobacco pouch, two medals, a silver pen and pencil, and a pair of gloves. She recognised the articles produced as those given her by her brother. The next day the police called at the house, and she handed the property over to them. She also handed over an attaché case belonging to her brother. The police opened the case in her presence, and it contained the cigars, cigarettes, and gloves produced.

Prisoner: When I gave you those things I told you I bought them at Folkestone, did I not?

Witness: Yes.

Detective Constable Hawes, of Chatham, said that on April 17th he kept observation in the High Street, Chatham. About 9.30 p.m., when in company with Detective Constable Gilham, he saw prisoner in Globe Lane, Chatham. He told prisoner he was making enquiries respecting a case of burglary near Folkestone, and that he had reason to believe that he had been to Folkestone. Prisoner replied “No, I have not”. Prisoner then said “Look here, I have been to Folkestone, but you do not want me. I told you I would not do another job in Chatham, and if you let me go I will put you on to a good job”. He noticed the prisoner was wearing one suede glove on the right hand and carrying another. He asked prisoner how he came in possession of them. Prisoner replied “I bought them”. He told prisoner that the gloves answered the description of a pair stolen at Cheriton on April 15th. He cautioned prisoner and told him that he would take him to the police station, where he would be detained for further enquiries. At 10.30 p.m. the same evening he went to 16, Queen Street, Chatham, where prisoner resided with his married sister, Mary Green. He was in company with Detective Inspector Galloway and Detective Constable Gilham. In consequence of what he said to the prisoner's sister, she handed him the bunch of keys and the flash lamp from the prisoner's attaché case. The two Masonic medals were shown to him on a cistern in a lavatory at the rear of the premises by the prisoner's brother-in-law, Edward Green. He took possession of the medals. The third Masonic medal was recovered by Northfleet police and handed to him.

Detective Constable Gilham corroborated.

Mr. Edward Turner, an Army pensioner, 180, Risborough Lane, said that at about 9.15 p.m. on April 15th he went to bed, leaving a presentation gold watch and a silver chain, a wallet containing his Army documents, and a razor in case on the kitchen dresser. He heard no noise whatever during the night. On the following morning he went to the dresser between 9.15 and 9.30 and found the articles he had placed there overnight missing. He reported the matter to the police. He valued the articles at £6 6s. He identified the watch, the wallet, the razor case, and a small portion of the documents produced.

Mrs. Turner, wife of the last witness, gave evidence of bolting the door.

Dorothy Mary Turner said that when she came down on the morning of the 15th she noticed that the back door was open, and that two ornamental tins were on the kitchen table with the lids off. The previous evening about 11.15 she heard a bus stop and footsteps, and the door handle was turned. She did not know her father was in, and she thought that it was he.

P.S. Marsh said that shortly after 3.30 p.m. on April 16th he visited 180, Risborough Lane, Cheriton, where he found that an entry had been made by the back door being insecurely fastened. The lock, although fastened, did not secure the door. A bolt which was on the top of the door appeared to be slightly out of alignment with the slot in which it should go.

Detective Constable Hawes said that the suede wallet produced was handed to him by the prisoner's sister, and the gold presentation watch produced by the prisoner's sister-in-law, Norah Richards. The morocco leather wallet produced was found on the prisoner when he was searched at the police station.

Detective Constable Avory said that at 6 p.m. on April 18th he saw prisoner detained at Chatham police station. He told him that he was a police officer, cautioned him, and charged him with breaking and entering the dwelling house at 180, Risborough Lane, Cheriton, and stealing one gold watch, one razor and case, and two pocket wallets, the property of Mr. Edward Turner. Prisoner made no reply. At Seabrook police station at 10 p.m. he was again cautioned and charged. Prisoner replied “The papers which were in one of the wallets I put in the hedge on the edge of the Menage”. On the 19th he searched the spot indicated by the prisoner and found the papers produced, and also the razor case.

Mr. Arthur Henry Alker, living at the Victoria Inn, said that he was the son-in-law of the licensee, Mr. Rivers. On April 15th about 10.30 hel ocked and secured the house. He did not hear anything in the night. On the following morning he examined the tills and found that they were empty. He knew that there was something in them overnight. There was a half pint glass containing beer and a half pint milk stout bottle in teh saloon bar which had not been there the night before. There were footmarks on the rug at the entrance to the drawing room, and the dining room was in disorder. A small parcel was undone, and a pen and pencil were missing from a case. When he put on his coat he discovered that a pair of brown suede gloves were missing. There was £2 in each till the night before, and there were three tills. He identified a pen and pencil (produced), and he also recognised a cigar box (produced).

Mary Fowler, employed as a barmaid at the Victoria, said that she went downstairs about seven o'clock on the morning of April 16th to let the painters in. Whilst she was undoing the back door two of the other painters came through the dart room door. Then she went back into the kitchen, and after that through the saloon bar behind the bar. She found the till open, with a penny or two halfpennies in it. £2 had been left in it the night before. There were three tills, and the same amount was left in each till. She saw that the other two tills were open.

Mary Green said that the pen and pencil, the gloves, and the tobacco were given to her by her brother.

Detective Constable Hawes said that at 9.30 on April 17th he saw the prisoner at Chatham and asked him how he came into possession of the gloves. He replied “I bought them”. He examined the gloves and told him they answered the description of a pair of gloves stolen at Cheriton on April 15th. On the way to the police station the prisoner dropped the gloves and the one produced was recovered by Detective Constable Gilham. At 10.30 p.m. the same day he went to 16, Queen Street, Chatham, where he saw the prisoner's sister, Mary Green, who handed him a pencil case, a pen, and a quantity of cigarettes, tobacco and cigars.

Detective Constable Avory gave further evidence.

Defendant called no witnesses, and said that he had nothing to say.

Prisoner was committed to take his trial at the next Assizes.

Folkestone Herald 3 July 1926.

Kent Assizes.

At the Kent Assizes at Maidstone, Andrew Benedict Richards, 28, shoemaker, pleaded Guilty to breaking into the Victoria public house and other premises at Cheriton on April 15th and 16th, and stealing therein £6, cigars and cigarettes, and other articles, the property of Francis Rivers and another. Prisoner also pleaded Guilty to having committed perjury in his evidence at the West Kent Sessions at Maidstone on April 8th of this year.

The perjury charge arose in a case of shop-breaking at Chatham in which the police gave evidence that they actually saw accused in the shop. An alibi was set up by prisoner, and the Sessions jury acquitted him.

Three women who gave evidence in support of the alibi were also before the Assize Court charged with perjury.

Mr. Dickens said Richards broke into a public house at Hawkinge and stole from it 5s., and the next night he forcibly entered a public house at Cheriton, stole £6 and other small articles, including a pair of gloves, which he was wearing when arrested. He committed another burglary the same night at Cheriton, and stole a gold watch and a few other articles.

Superintendent Golding described Richards as a bad character, and read a list of his previous convictions, which began at the age of 11, when he was bound over at Rochester for the theft of a bicycle. At Rochester Quarter Sessions in 1915 he received two terms of three years (concurrent) for false pretences. He was called up in 1916 and went to France in the Royal Artillery. On his return in June, 1919, he deserted and was arrested for housebreaking, and additional charges were taken into account. He was in Canterbury prison when he received discharge from the Army, his military character being “bad”, At Kent Assizes in February, 1921, he received two sentences of hard labour for shop-breaking. In October, 1922, he came out of prison, and in November was sent back for larceny. At West Kent Quarter Sessions in 1923 he received three years' penal servitude for housebreaking. On July 1st, 1925, he came out on licence and had done very little work since. Since his arrest he had assisted the police to recover some of the stolen property.

Prisoner, through his counsel, said he accepted full responsibility for the perjury; the women in no way benefited by the evidence they gave.

Inspector Sarramore, of Chatham Division, stated that prisoner was found a situation by the police. He was out of work for a fortnight, and during that time police officers assisted him. They found him another job at £3 10s. a week, and whilst in that situation he committed the crime out of which the perjury charge arose.

Richards told the Judge that he played upon the affection of the women and got them to come forward and commit perjury.

His Lordship bound over the three women. He sent Richards to three years' penal servitude for the burglaries and to two days' (concurrent) for perjury. If he did not make a complete change, the Lord Chief Justice warned him, he would be tried as an habitual criminal.

Folkestone Herald 9 October 1926.

Local News.

About nine o'clock on Monday morning a fully-grown fox was seen dashing down Risborough Lane, Cheriton. After narrowly escaping death by being run over by a passing bus, it dashed through an open door into the Victoria Hotel, Risborough Lane.

The landlord (Mr. F.R. Rivers) locked the door on the fox, which had taken refuge in the saloon bar. It next got under the bar counter. Two officers of the 11th Hussars arrived on the scene, and with a stick and bag managed to secure the animal. When cornered the fox snarled and showed its teeth. It will probably be released again later when hunting is in full swing. It is not definitely known where the fox came from.

Folkestone Herald 5 February 1927.

Elham Annual Licensing Sessions.

Thursday, February 3rd: Before Dr. W.J. Tyson, Alderman E.J. Bishop, Alderman C. Ed. Mumford, Mr. A.S. Jones, Mr. W.G. Tester, Mr. R. Rigden, and Mr. C. Sheath.

The Superintendent of the Elham Division, K.C.C. (Supt. F.H. Golding) presented the following report: I have the honour to submit to you my annual report on the licensed houses within the Elham Petty Sessional Division, the number and description being as follows: Ale houses, 26,; beer houses on, 8; beer houses, off, 3; grocers, etc., 5; Total 42.

The population of the Division is 17,310, which gives a ratio of one licence to 412 oersons. During the past year the licences of four ale houses and two beer houses have been transferred. One licensee has been proceeded against for an offence against the Licensing Act, and the case was dismissed. No proceedings have been taken against any person during the year for drunkenness. The number of persons proceeded against dor drunkenness during the past eight years is as follows: 1919, 1; 1920, 2; 1921, 1; 1922, 3; 1923, 2; 1924, 2; 1925, 2; 1926, nil.

All the licensed houses have been generally well conducted during the past year, and I have no objection to the renewal of any of the licences.

The Chairman said that the Bench had pleasure in signing the report as satisfactory.

Mr. Rutley Mowll, of Dover, applied on behalf of the Folkestone and District Licensed Victuallers' Association to extend the permitted hours under the Licensing Act, 1921.

Mr. Mowll said he appeared to ask the Magistrates to remove a curious anomaly that had arisen with regard to the licensing hours in the district. Since he had the honour of appearing before the Magistrates on a similar application the circumstances had, he ventured to say, very much changed to the advantage of the applicants, as they had now got on either side of their jurisdiction the very conditions prevailing which he was asking the Bench to apply to its jurisdiction. That was to say Hythe had got the privilege, and so had Folkestone, so that on either side of them they had got the licensing hours during the seasonable months extended from 10 until 10.30. He was there to ask the Magistrates to do that for the licensees in their district in their desire to cater for the needs of the public. When it was last before the Bench it was a little uncertain as to whether the Folkestone Magistrates would assent to that very reasonable course. They did assent, and he though the was right in saying that it had been found to work most satisfactorily both at Folkestone and also at Hythe. He thought that they wanted no more striking illustration of the ridiculous way in which the matter worked out at the present time than to take the town of Sandgate. It was true that Sandgate had not a Mayor and Corporation of its own; it was ruled by a District Council and consequently came within the Elham Division area. Suppose anybody arrived by bus at 10 p.m. at the foot of Sandgate Hill. The Fleur de Lis, at Sandgate, was within the jurisdiction of the Folkestone Magistrates, and consequently customers arriving by bus could go and get a drink there at ten o'clock, and remain there until 10.30. Immediately opposite was the Military Tavern, which was within their jurisdiction, and unless they granted the facility for which he applied, the Military Tavern had to close its door at ten o'clock, and therefore the Fleur de Lis had that advantage over the Military Tavern. Persons who wanted intoxicating liquor had to leave the Military Tavern at ten o'clock, and they could walk across the road and get those facilities at the Fleur de Lis. It was laughable; it did not want any comment by him. That was the position. The only difficulty the Magistrates had in his mind in assenting to the proposition was the fact that within their jurisdiction were a number of houses in a purely rural area. If they examined the type of trade, the quantity of trade that was done in their urban houses, as distinct from their rural houses, they would find that by far the larger portion was done in the urban houses. Let them take such houses as the White Lion at Cheriton, or the Victoria Hotel in Risborough Lane – they were obviously, to all intents and purposes, town houses. Within half a mile of the White Lion, such was the need for licensing facilities, there was an application now pending before the Folkestone Bench to grant a full licence; to transfer, in fact, a hotel licence from the Borough of Folkestone to that point to a place called the Morehall Wine and Spirit Stores. If that was granted – he was not pre-judging it at all – there would be an anomaly there. That house would be open until 10.30 under the rule of the Folkestone Magistrates, and the adjoining house, the White Lion, would have to close at ten o'clock. The thing was absurd. What he was asking the Bench to do was to have regard to the majority of the needs of the district, to say that they were not going to penalise the licensed victuallers who came within their district by prohibiting them from having the privilege which the licensed victuallers on either side of them enjoyed. They could not have a better record than that which they had heard in Superintendent Golding's report; not a single licensed victualler convicted of any offence and not a single case of drunkenness. If they could not trust those licensed victuallers he did not know who they could trust. He asked the Bench to grant the application. He would point out to them if they felt any difficulty regarding the rural area that while he did not think they had any right to split up their licensing district – he thought one rule must apply throughout the district – if their rural houses did not require that facility there was no reason on earth why they should use it. The facility was needed for the urban houses. They had every reason to need it and he was suggesting to the Bench that it was only fair and right that they should have it. Every Bench had to decide for itself, but it must be within their knowledge that the facility for which he was asking was already enjoyed in one for or another by almost every other town on the coast in Kent. They had got it at Dover, at Deal, Folkestone, Hythe, and they had got it at places like Margate and Broadstairs. There was only one place he knew of where it was not granted in those seaside towns and that was at Ramsgate, but it could not be long before common sense prevailed there. He asked for common sense to prevail in their Division, and he appealed to the Bench to help the licensed victuallers under their jurisdiction to carry on their business at a time when all seaside people were making their living.

After a brief retirement of the Magistrates, the Chairman announced that the hours would remain the same as last year.

Folkestone Herald 11 February 1928.

Elham Petty Sessions.

Thursday, February 2nd: Before Mr. C. Sheath and other Magistrates.

Charles Howse, jun., of 13, Alma Road, Cheriton, was summoned for assaulting William Thomas Stevenson, of 10. Sidney Road, Cheriton.

Complainant said that on January 15th, at about 8 p.m., he had been for a walk with his wife and on their way back they went to the Victoria Hotel, Cheriton. While he was in there defendant came in, tapped him on the shoulder, and said he wanted to speak to him outside. Witness went outside, and when he still had his hand on the door handle, defendant struck him on the bridge of the nose. He afterwards struck him a second blow. He accused witness of getting him “the sack” from Council work.

Mrs. Stevenson said she saw her husband with his nose bleeding and with a handkerchief saturated with blood.

Defendant, on oath, denied calling defendant outside, and said complainant asked him to step outside. Mr. Stevenson attempted to strike him, and he put out his fist to ward him off, so that his hand must have caught him on the face.

A fine of 30s. was imposed, defendant being given fourteen days in which to pay.

Folkestone Herald 14 October 1933.

Obituary.

We record with regret the death of Mr. Francis Robert Rivers, licensee of the Victoria Hotel, Risborough Lane, Cheriton, at his residence on Thursday. Mr. Rivers, who had only been ill for a week, was 66 years of age.

Mr. Rivers had been a licensed victualler for over 40 years. He came to the Victoria Hotel 15 years ago, and has occupied it ever since. He was a Londoner by birth, and at one time he was the owner of several restaurants in the City. He was in business, among other towns, in Liverpool, Edinburgh, and Bury St. Edmund's, before he came to Cheriton from the last named place. He was a keen member of the Folkestone Licensed Victuallers' Association, and he was for some years the local Chairman. He was also Treasurer of the Licensed Victuallers' Conference when it came to Folkestone in 1931. He took a keen interest in the Borough of Hythe Conservative and Unionist Association, and did a lot of work in connection with the elections. Mr. Rivers was for a time a sidesman at All Souls Church.

He leaves a widow and one daughter, with whom much sympathy will be felt in their bereavement.

The funeral will take place on Monday, and the internment will be in St. Martin's Cemetery, Horn Street.

Folkestone Herald 18 August 1934.

Local News.

Following an alleged quarrel between two soldiers at Cheriton on Saturday night, Pte. Robert Cameron, of the 2nd Batt. Royal Ulster Rifles, appeared before the Folkestone Magistrates on Monday, charged with unlawfully and maliciously inflicting certain grievous bodily harm on John Curran, of the same regiment.

The case was heard by Dr. W.W. Nuttall, Alderman T.S. Franks, and Judge Terrell, K.C.

Chief Inspector H.G. Pittock said the injured man was still in hospital, and it would not be possible to complete the case that morning.

Sgt. Walter Griffith, of the 15th/19th King's Royal Hussars, stationed at Shorncliffe, said on Saturday evening he was coming from Cheriton towards Shorncliffe with his wife and when he approached the Victoria public house he saw a group of people outside quarrelling. As he approached the group he saw there were eight to ten persons, two of them being soldiers in uniform. He saw the taller of the two soldiers push the group apart and take his tunic off. He started shouting out “Who started this row?” He did not know the soldier. He saw the shorter of the two either trying to stop him or interfere, but the taller man put himself in a fighting attitude and said “Stay down”. He then saw the taller one go back into the group, still apparently wanting to fight, and the shorter man again tried to interfere or stop him. The taller soldier again told him to “Stay down”. The smaller one turned away and spoke to a woman, when the taller man suddenly turned round and struck the shorter man. It looked as though he struck him from behind. He delivered the blow with his fist. The shorter man fell and he heard a thud as if he had struck the pavement. Witness went across to see if the man was badly injured, and a policeman arrived almost at the same time.

P.C. Williams said at 10.40 p.m. on Saturday he was on duty in High Street, Cheriton, and from what he was informed he proceeded to the Victoria public house, and there saw a soldier lying on his back on the pavement in Church Road. He was unconscious. He made enquiries on the spot and he saw the prisoner. He asked him what had happened, and he turned round and said “I hit him”. He telephoned for the ambulance and conveyed the injured man to the hospital. He eventually brought Cameron to the police station.

Miss Elizabeth James, a house surgeon at the Royal Victoria Hospital, said Curran was admitted at 11.15 p.m. on Saturday. He was unconscious and bleeding from the nose. There was a bruise about the size of a walnut over the right eyebrow. There were no other injuries. He was admitted to the ward and half an hour later he recovered consciousness. A later examination showed that there was a tender place on the right side of the nose. There was no injury to the skull or central nervous system. That day he had been X-rayed and there was no evidence of a fracture of the skull or nasal bone. His general condition that day was very good. He was suffering from concussion, and he would not be fit to attend Court for some time. He would be transferred from the hospital on the following day to the military hospital.

Inspector Pittock announced that that was as far as he could take the case then.

The Magistrates adjourned the case for three weeks, Cameron being bound over to attend the adjourned hearing.

Folkestone Herald 8 January 1938.

Local News.

An N.C.O.'s exemplary character saved him from being sent to prison at the Folkestone Police Court on Tuesday, when he was found Guilty by the Magistrates of an assault on a 16-year-old Cheriton boy on Christmas night.

“I think you should be jolly well ashamed of yourself”, said the Chairman (Engineer Rear-Admiral L.J. Stephens) to the defendant, L/Cpl. Charles Reginald Laycock, of the 1st Royal Dragoons, Shorncliffe Camp. Laycock, who is light-heavyweight boxing champion of the regiment, was fined £5, the maximum penalty for such an offence, and also ordered to pay £1 compensation.

Engineer Rear-Admiral Stephens presided with Alderman J.W. Stainer, Mr. H.W.L. Molesworth and Miss G. Broome Giles.

Laycock denied the assault and called two witnesses.

Raymond Chamberlain, aged 16, of 51, Ashley Avenue, said on Christmas night about 10.15 he was walking with Mrs. Court and her two daughters up Risborough Lane when he heard a clatter of feet and voices. He half looked round and saw at least two soldiers who were in uniform. He did not recognise defendant as being one of them. They came behind witness and hit him. He was playing a mouth organ when he heard the footsteps and voices, and then someone hit him in the mouth. It was a pretty hard blow and he was knocked down. Two of his teeth were knocked back and he had had them out since. When he got up again he saw some soldiers running away.

The Clerk (Mr. C. Rootes): Do you know how long you were on the ground?

Witness: No.

Miss Betty Court. 66, Park Road, Cheriton, said on Christmas night she was walking with her mother and sister and the last witness in Risborough Lane. Three soldiers came from behind and one of them said “There’s four, a nice party, but there’s one too many”. Chamberlain was then struck and knocked down. Witness said that she was going for the police and the soldiers ran away. She recognised defendant as one of the party and the man who struck the blow. An identification parade was held on the following morning, there being about 17 men on parade. She picked out defendant as the man who had struck Chamberlain.

By the Clerk: When defendant came up behind them in Risborough Lane he was not wearing a hat. Chamberlain was unconscious about four minutes. The soldiers got hold of her sister and said “Come along with us”. Then when she said that she was going to fetch a policeman they let her go and ran. It was a foggy night but she recognised Laycock.

Questioned by defendant, witness said at the identification parade she first picked out a corporal of the guard as being the soldier. He was a shorter man than the defendant. When Laycock took his hat off she recognised him immediately. A Mr. Hooper was present and he asked defendant to take his hat off and she then recognised him immediately. Mr. Hooper said “That's the man”.

By the Clerk: Mr. Hooper was coming up behind at the time of the assault.

Miss Joan Court, a sister of the last witness, next gave evidence. When the soldiers approached, she said, her mother said “Don’t take any notice of them, they might be drunk”. They walked on when she heard a shuffling of feet and all of a sudden Chamberlain was struck in the mouth. Her mother said “What do you think you are doing?” Defendant got hold of her after he had assaulted Chamberlain, pushed her against the wall, and said “Come here”. When on the way to the barracks with a police officer she saw the three soldiers again, but as the constable spoke to them two of them took to their heels and ran. Afterwards she went to a barrack-room and saw some men in bed. Defendant was not there then. She returned to the room at midnight with a sergeant and the police officer and she then saw defendant in bed. Defendant was then asleep. She recognised him as the man who had assaulted Chamberlain and pushed her.

Replying to defendant, witness said she first picked out a corporal at the identification parade because with their hats on they were so much alike.

Mrs. Edith Court, the mother of the two young women who had given evidence, said when the soldiers approached she heard someone say “You are a nice little party, but you are one too many”. As they said that the boy was knocked to the ground. She said “What have you done? You have killed him”. She could not recognise defendant as being one of the soldiers.

P.C. Jenns said he was called to the scene of the assault. The boy’s face was badly knocked about and two or three- teeth had been knocked back into the jaw.

He accompanied the other witnesses to the guard room. They had just turned a corner in Risborough Lane when three soldiers approached from the direction of Risborough barracks. They were all wearing hats. They had just passed a lamp standard and the girls were looking at the men. One of the girls said “They're the men”. Witness called on the soldiers to stop and he turned and put his cycle against the wall, when immediately two of them took to their heels. He gave chase, but was unable to catch them. He could not recognise defendant as one of the two soldiers who ran away. Later Miss Joan court identified Laycock, one of the men in bed, as one of the three soldiers.

Defendant, giving evidence, said on Christmas night he was in the Victoria public house from 9.40 to 10 o’clock with L/Cpl. Axworthy. When he left just before closing time he had a soda syphon in his hand. They had gone about 200 yards up the road when he threw the syphon up in the air. He heard someone shout and they ran away. They ran to the mud patch and on to the barracks.

He met the Corporal of the Guard and he said he would come back with him to see what he had done. As they reached the corner opposite Doulton's shop they saw the three women and the constable. The women said “There they are”. Thinking they were referring to the siphon breaking incident he ran away. At the identification parade the next day one of the young women said “You are not tall enough for the man who did the assault”. They next went up to Corporal McGuire, the Corporal of the Guard, who had been on duty the previous night, and picked him out as the man. A civilian then said “I think that's the man”, and they “jumped on him” straight away.

By the Chief Constable (Mr. A.S. Beesley): He left barracks at 9.30 p.m. on Christmas Day and with Cpl. Axworthy he went to the Victoria public house.

The Chief Constable: When the constable saw you and you ran away Axworthy was left behind. Can you explain why he should have said to my constable “I was walking by myself and the other two men were just passing me”?

Defendant: No.

Laycock said he held the light-heavyweight boxing championship of the regiment. Did it stand to reason that he would hit a boy?

Cpl. Thomas McGuire, Royal Dragoons, said on Christmas night he was Corporal of the Guard from 6 o'clock to reveille the following morning. At 10.15 p.m. when “Lights out” sounded he met L/Cpl. Axworthy, who came running up. He asked him what he was running for, and he said that he had been down to Cheriton and something about smashing a soda syphon. He asked Axworthy who was with him and he said “Cpl. Laycock”. Witness went towards the band block and there saw defendant. He asked him what had happened. They said that one had a syphon and another had a sign. and they smashed them. He advised the two men to go back to the place from where they had taken the syphon and sign, and offer to pay for them. He was accompanying them and when they turned the comer opposite Doulton’s he saw the constable, two or three women and the boy. The policeman pointed and said “Come here”. Laycock “took to his heels” and witness ran after him. When he caught up with Laycock he asked him what had happened and he said that he did not know. He had told L/Cpl. Axworthy to stand fast while he went after Laycock.

The Chief Constable: This story is a pure fabrication?

Witness: It is actually what I know.

The Chief Constable: As Corporal of the Guard why should you be running away?

Witness said he had explained that. He was going back with defendant over this syphon smashing incident.

Why did you run away when the policeman told you to stand fast? - The policeman shouted and I ran after Laycock.

The Chief Constable: I am suggesting your story is a fabrication. If any part of it were true your actions were extraordinary. Were you afraid of the policeman’s action?

Witness: I had nothing to be afraid of.

L. Cpl. Edward J. Axworthy, the Royal Dragoons, said he was out with defendant on Christmas evening. They went to the Victoria public house and stayed there until just on closing time. He had a “Beer is Best” sign in his hand and defendant a syphon. They threw them away in the street and the noise caused a bit of commotion. They were returning to the public house with Cpl. McGuire when they met the policeman and three women.

Cross-examined witness said Cpl. McGuire told him to stay with the women after Cpl. Laycock had run away.

The Chief Constable: Did the constable tell you that he had received a complaint of a boy being assaulted?

Witness: I cannot remember that.

Did he ask you if you knew anything about it? - I cannot remember that.

Did you say you knew nothing about it to the women? - I am not quite sure.

Did the constable ask you for the names of your two companions? - Not to my knowledge.

Didn’t you refuse to tell them? - At the Guard Room.

Did the constable ask you if you all three had been together? - I don’t remember that.

Didn't you tell the constable that you were walking alone and that you did not know the other two men? - No.

The Chairman announced that the Magistrates were quite satisfied that the assault had been committed by defendant.

An officer said Laycock was in the regiment for six years and then discharged to the Army Reserve on the completion of his Colour Service. He was away about a year and then came back under the new terms offered to reservists. He had been back with the regiment about six months. He was a very smart and keen soldier, and he (the officer) had just recommended his promotion to lance-corporal. His character was exemplary.

The Chairman (to Laycock): We consider it a most brutal assault on your part. If it had not been for your exemplary character we should have had no hesitation in sending you to prison. You will be fined £5, the maximum penalty, and you will also have to pay £1 compensation. I think you should be jolly well ashamed of yourself.

Folkestone Herald 2 December 1944.

Local News.

At Folkestone Magistrates Court on Tuesday a protection order was granted to Mr. A.H. Alker in respect of the Victoria Hotel, Cheriton. The outgoing licensee, Mrs. Rivers, was excused attendance at the transfer sessions.

Folkestone Herald 26 April 1958.

Local News.

When Folkestone Magistrates on Wednesday granted a music licence for the Victoria Inn, Risborough Lane, Cheriton, there was a reservation that the volume of noise which could be produced from a juke-box it was proposed to install, should be controlled by the landlord, to prevent possible nuisance to neighbours. The landlord gave the necessary undertaking.

Folkestone Herald 14 February 1959.

Local News.

The transfer of the licence of the Victoria Hotel, Cheriton, to Mr. R.H. Larkin, and the off-licence of 9, Queen Street, Folkestone, to Mr. Frederick Charles Hanks, were confirmed at Folkestone Brewster Sessions on Wednesday. Protection orders had been granted previously.

Folkestone Herald 21 December 1963.

Local News.

A complete transformation has been effected at the Victoria Inn, Cheriton, a popular rendezvous for many patrons, including troops from nearby Shorncliffe Camp. A comfortable, intimate atmosphere has been imparted by the use of natural materials, by no means an easy problem, considering the unusual height of the ceilings and the shape of the Victorian windows.

In the Albert Bar this difficulty was overcome by making a feature of the beams to include concealed lighting. The bar has been divided into areas of local interest where customers can sit, watch or play darts away from the mainstream of patrons at the counter. The main server is emphasised with vertical boards of Douglas pine, contrasting with the heavy horizontal timber to the counter front and the drop ceilings above.

The Victoria Lounge has been divided into smaller areas bu an arrangement of fixed seating, incorporating a screen featuring well-known trade marks, which also provides illumination. Incorporated in the fireplace surround are 12 silver Victorian coins, including 3d. and 4d. pieces, double florins and crowns. Further interest is provided by a picture of young Victoria in full regalia, and various other pictures from her childhood to advanced age.

The Victoria faces the future entirely new in design, yet with the same friendly, courteous service one associates with the traditional public house.

The new bars were informally opened by Cmdr. N.C.M. Findlay (ret.), Managing Director of Messrs. Mackeson and Co., Ltd., who was accompanied by Mr. R.A.R. Fanshawe, Assistant Managing Director.

Folkestone Herald 27 January 1984.

Local News.

Regulars at Cheriton’s Victoria pub have raised over £600 to help severely disabled children. On Friday, landlord Mr. John Darling presented a £660 cheque to Mr. Steve Atmore, chairman of Eversley House Parents’ and Friends’ Association. The money will help provide new bathroom and toilet facilities for the children’s hospital at Seabrook. About £350 was raised over the past year, the main fund raisers being the darts team. The rest of the money came from tombola and other competitions at the pub on Friday.

Folkestone Herald 27 October 1994.

Local News.

Pub landlord John Darling will be pulling his last pint at the Victoria pub in Risborough Lane, Cheriton, on October 31. The next day Mr. Darling, 54, and his wife Teresa, 48, will be pulling their first pints at the Duke's Head, in Sellindge. After almost 20 years managing the Victoria, the couple have decided it is time to move on and run their own pub. “We started out in a pub at Maidstone and came down here in 1975. We have mixed feelings about leaving the Victoria. It's quite sad, but we have good memories and this is a challenge. We have been managers for Whitbread until now, and with our new pub we will be self-employed, renting the pub from Whitbread. We wanted to be in the country and the pub in Sellindge came up, so we put in for it”.

The Victoria is being taken over by Gary and Marilyn Thrower, who currently run the Mill House at Canterbury.