Folkestone Express 1 June 1872.

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

Mr. Conley applied for a temporary authority for the Victoria Inn, Beach Street, and stated that he could not produce the original license, Mr. Boult, the previous occupier, having gone from home for a time, and his address could not be found although he had taken every pains to do so.

The Clerk told applicant that he would sell at his own risk.

Folkestone Express 13 July 1872.

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

The license of the Victoria Inn, South Street, was transferred from Mr. J.T. Boult to Mr. Conley.

Folkestone Express 30 August 1873.

Wednesday, August 27th: Before The Mayor, J. Gambrill, J. Tolputt, and J. Clarke Esq.

Annual Licensing Meeting.

The licensing committee met at ten o'clock for the purpose of taking into consideration the question of making any alteration in the hours for opening and closing public houses. Shortly after eleven o'clock the licensed victuallers present were called into Court, where the Clerk said the Bench would hear anything with reference to the alteration of the hours for the opening and closing.

Mrs. Levy, wife of the landlord of the Victoria Inn, South Street, applied for a renewal of the license.

Superintendent Wilshire produced correspondence he had had with the French police authorities, from which it appeared that Levy was sentenced on the 24th June last, at the Correctional Tribune of the Seine to two years imprisonment for picking pockets.

The Clerk told applicant that a married woman could not hold a license, and although the conviction of her husband had not been proved in the proper form, the Bench were bound to take some notice of what had been communicated with them by Supt. Wilshire.

Application refused.

Folkestone Express 4 October 1873.

Adjourned Licensing Meeting.

Victoria, South Street.

Tuesday, September 30th: Before The Mayor, J. Tolputt and J. Clark Esqs.

Mr. Till, who supported the application, said that Morris Levi, the former landlord, was away in Paris and would not return. The application therefore was that the license should be renewed to Jacob Levi, his brother. He wished to call attention to an Act passed in the reign of George the Fourth which provided that if any person “removed from” any place the Bench might grant a license to a new tenant. Applicant had been living in Boulogne since the year 1842, and the Chief Commissioner of Police at that place had given applicant a very good character. No objection had been raised.

The Mayor remarked that it was brought before the notice of the Bench on the annual licensing day that Morris Levi, the former landlord, was in prison in Paris.

Mr. Till said that fact had not the slightest bearing upon the present application. It was a fact that Morris Levi had gone away from Folkestone and it was not necessary to confirm where he was. It was certain he would not come back.

Mr. Dickenson proved that the house was re-let to applicant.

Jacob Levi, the applicant, stated on oath that he intended to carry on the business for his own benefit, and not for the benefit of his brother.

Supt. Wilshere said he had no complaint against the house.

Application granted.

Note: No mention of Morris Levi in More Bastions. Jacob listed from 1872.

Folkestone Express 20 December 1873.

The Victoria.

Monday, December 15th: Before The Mayor, R.W. Boarer and J. Kelcey Esqs.

A temporary authority to sell was granted to George Tyas, who has taken the Victoria, South Street.

Note: Date differs from information in More Bastions.

Folkestone Express 31 January 1874.

Transfer:

Wednesday, January 28th: Before Col. De Crespigny, J. Tolputt and R.W. Boarer Esqs.

The following transfer of public house was granted:

Victoria – to George Tyas.

Folkestone Express 28 March 1874.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Folkestone Express 16 November 1878.

The Victoria Inn.

Wednesday, November 13th: Before The Mayor, Alderman Caister, Capt. Fletcher, J. Fitness, R.W. Boarer, and Jas. Kelcey Esqs.

Temporary authority was granted to James Hawthorn to carry on the business of this house.

Folkestone Express 11 October 1879.

Wednesday, October 8th: Before R.W. Boarer Esq., General Cannon, Captain Crowe, and M. Bell Esq.

John Newman was charged with being drunk and begging in South Street on October 6th.

P.C. Hogben said on Monday evening he was sent for to the Clarendon Hotel, and from what he was told he went along South Street, and saw the prisoner go into the Victoria and hand his cap round to the people in the bar, and from there he went to the Paris Hotel bar and asked for coppers to pay his lodgings. Witness took him into custody. On the way to the station prisoner was very violent.

He was sentenced to fourteen days' for begging and to a further term of seven days' for being drunk, in default of paying a fine of 5s. and costs.

Folkestone Express 20 March 1880.

Saturday, March 13th: Before The Mayor, Alderman Sherwood, Colonel De Crespigny and J. Clark Esq.

The license of the Victoria Inn, South Street, was transferred from ---- Pegg to James Watson.

Folkestone Express 15 April 1882.

Inquest.

An inquest was held at the Town Hall on Wednesday evening on the body of Edward Cole, found in the harbour in the morning.

Rufus Poole, a seaman living in Dover Street, Folkestone, identified the body as that of Edward Cole, a sailor on board the Clarence collier, lying in Folkestone harbour. He was in company with deceased about a quarter past ten on Tuesday night. He went into the Victoria and saw the deceased. They stayed until eleven and left together. He left deceased at the corner of the wall opposite the Paris Hotel. He said he was going aboard his vessel, which was lying outside the tramroad. He was not sober, but could walk straight. Witness went aboard his own ship, which was lying near the clock house, and saw no more of deceased. The tide was out and the harbour was dry. The tide would begin to flow between one and two o'clock in the morning. The Clarence was lying some distance out in the outer harbour, and the deceased, to get on board, would have to go down a ladder fixed on the side of the tramroad.

William Dorrell, a labourer in the employ of the Railway Company, said he was at work on Wednesday morning about ten minutes to ten, and heard some men call out that there was a man overboard. He ran down a ladder and saw the deceased underneath the tramroad on the ground. Two men helped to pull him out. They laid him on an arched wall and sent for the police. Deceased was dead and cold. There was a chain running from the top to the bottom of the ladder.

Mary Watson, wife of the landlord of the Victoria, said she knew the deceased, who was a native of Greenwich. He went into her house about ten o'clock and sat in the taproom until eleven. He was not sober when he left the house, in company with Poole. He said he was going on board his ship.

Mr. Richards Mercer, surgeon, said he examined the body about midday. It was lying at the old police station. There were no marks of violence on the body, but a severe wound over the right eyebrow and forehead, cause in his opinion by a fall. The injuries in all probability would have caused concussion and rendered him insensible. Death appeared to have resulted from drowning.

A verdict of Found Drowned was returned.

Folkestone Express 18 April 1885.

Tuesday, April 14th: Before The Mayor, Alderman Hoad, and General Armstrong C.B.

Elizabeth Wells, a young woman, was charged with stealing a sovereign, the money of Walter Manning, a seaman, of 6, Hollington Street, Camberwell.

Prosecutor said he went to the Victoria Inn, South Street, about half past nine o'clock on Monday morning, and sat down in the private bar and went to sleep. The landlady woke him up about a quarter past eleven and told him to feel in his pocket and see if he had lost any money. He had two sovereigns in his waistcoat pocket when he went to sleep, and he found one of them was missing. He knew nothing of the prisoner, and had never seen her before Monday. She was then drinking with him in the bar. He treated her with a glass or two.

Prisoner admitted taking a sovereign out of prosecutor's pocket, but said she put it back again.

Mary Watson, landlady of the Victoria Inn, said the prosecutor and prisoner were in the bar together. They were neither of them quite sober. She supplied them with a pint of ale. Prosecutor then went to sleep, and she saw prisoner take a sovereign from his waistcoat pocket. She showed it to witness and then put it in her purse. Witness told her to put it back where she took it from. Prisoner put something back in the man's pocket, and then she went away. Witness woke prosecutor and told him what had happened. She saw the two sovereigns before he went to sleep, and when he woke he had only one sovereign and a halfpenny.

Alfred Suckling, a driver, living at Nelson Place, said he went into the private bar of the Victoria Inn. Prisoner and prosecutor were there. Prosecutor was neither asleep nor awake, but nodding. He saw prisoner take a purse from her bosom. It contained a sovereign and some coppers. She put something back into prosecutor's pocket. The landlady said just as he went in “I won't allow that in my house”. The man searched his pockets, and he had a watch, a halfpenny, and a sovereign. Witness then went to the Bricklayers' Arms, and while there prisoner went in and asked him if he was going to treat her.

P.C. Woods apprehended the prisoner in a draper's shop in Dover Street between one and two o'clock. He asked if her name was Wells. She said “No, my name is Smith”. He told her he should charge her on suspicion of stealing a sovereign from a man at the Victoria Inn, South Street. As they were going down Dover Street the prisoner said “No I have got into trouble, don't take me past my mother's house”. He asked her where she lived, and she said “My name is Wells, and I live in Dover Street. Take me up over The Narrows. I took the sovereign and put it back again”. When she was searched a purse containing 3s. was found upon her.

Prisoner elected to be tried by the Bench and pleaded Guilty, and hoped the Bench “would not put it down upon her too hard as it was the first time she had been in trouble”. She was sentenced to one month's hard labour.

The Mayor cautioned the landlady of the Victoria against serving people with drink when they were partially intoxicated, and also advised prosecutor to be more careful as to the company he got into in future.

Folkestone Express 16 September 1893.

Adjourned Licensing Session.

The special sitting for the hearing of those applications for renewals to which the Superintendent of Police had give notice of opposition was held on Wednesday. The Magistrates present were Messrs. J. Clark, J. Hoad, W.H. Poole, W.G. Herbert, J. Fitness, J.R. Davy, J. Holden, C.J. Pursey and J. Pledge.

Mr. Lewis Glyn and Mr. Bodkin supported the applications on behalf of the owners, instructed by Messrs. Mowll and Mowll, with whom were Mr. Minter, Mr. F. Hall, and Mr. Mercer (Canterbury), and Mr. Montagu Bradley (Dover) opposed on behalf of the Good Templars.

Before the business commenced, Mr. Bradley handed to Mr. Holden a document, which he carefully perused, and then handed to Mr. J. Clark, the Chairman.

Mr. Glyn, who appeared for the applicants, speaking in a very low tone, made an application to the Bench, the effect of which was understood to be that the Justices should retire to consider the document. The Justices did retire, and on their return Mr. Holden was not among them.

Mr. Glyn then rose to address the Bench. He said he would first make formal application for the renewal of the licence of the Queen's Head. It was known to all the gentlemen on the Bench as an excellent house, and the licence had been held for a considerable number of years. The present tenant had held it since 1887; it's value was £1,500, and the present tenant had paid no less than £305 for valuation for going into the house. The licence was granted a great many years ago, and had been renewed from time to time. The Superintendent of Police now opposed on the ground that it was no longer required and was kept in a disorderly manner. First, with regard to the objections of the Superintendent, he thought he would admit when he came into the box that it was not he who was making the objections to all those licenses, but that they were made in consequence of instructions received from some members of the Licensing Committee. Of course in his view, and in their view, a very serious question might arise, whether the Licensing Committee had any locus standi. His general observations in that case would apply to all the cases. The Superintendent, in raising those objections, was acting under instructions from the Licensing Magistrates, so that they were really in this position, that they were sitting to adjudicate in a case they themselves directed. He felt certain the Bench would not refuse to renew one of those licenses, but he thought it right to put the facts before them, in order that when they retired they might consider what their position was. He also pointed out that there was not a single ratepayer objecting to any of the renewals. The first ground of objection was that the houses were not required. Before going further he referred to the very important action of the Watch Committee, who were the parties one would expect to put the law in action. But they declined to have anything to do with it, and declined to sanction any legal advice to the Superintendent for the purpose of depriving his clients of what undoubtedly was their property. He ventured to think that in all his large experience in these matters that there never was a case where a licence was taken away simply because it was not required, or simply because some of the learned Magistrates thought it ought to be done and instructed the Superintendent to raise objections. There were two or three of the houses existing before 1869, and therefore his clients were entitled to a renewal of their licenses, there having been no convictions against them during the year. With regard to the other licenses, they were granted a great many years ago, at a time when th population of this borough was about half what it is now, and the Magistrates then thought they were required. They had been renewed from time to time by that body, and were they willing to say now that they were not required, and deprive the owners and tenants of their property and of their licenses? There was not a single Bench in the county, which, up to the present time, had deprived any one tenant of his licence and his property, simply because a suggestion had been made that it was not required. There had been one case in the county two years ago, but the party appealed to the Court of Quarter Sessions, and that Court said the licence ought to be granted. It would be very unfair to his clients, several of whom had spent large sums of money on their property, to refuse a renewal of their licenses, especially having regard to the fact that they were granted a great many years ago, and against which there had not been a single conviction during the year. In order to save time, he put two questions before the Magistrates:- first, were they prepared to deprive the owners and tenants of their property, and secondly, the licenses having all been renewed since any conviction had taken place, were they prepared to deprive the owners of their property without their having an opportunity and investigating the charges brought against them. It would save a great deal of time if the Bench would consider those two points.

Mr Bodkin followed with a few supplementary remarks. He referred to the case of “Sharpe v Wakefield”, in which the decision had been given that a licence, whether by way of renewal or whether it was an annual matter to be considered year by year, and not renewed as of right. He quoted from the remarks of Lord Halsbury, who seemed to consider that in dealing with renewals they ought not to deal with them exactly in the same way as in new applications. He dwelt upon the fact that last year all the licenses were renewed, and that though no new licenses had been granted for many years, the borough had increased in population, and there had been an entire absence of legal proceedings against any of the houses in the past year.

Mr. Minter, who appeared, he said, for the tenants, emphasised what had fallen from the other two legal gentlemen, and said it would be unnecessary for him to make any lengthy remarks. Mr. Glyn had referred to the population having increased twofold since those licenses were granted. There was another very important matter for consideration, and it was this. That although the population had increased twofold since the whole of those licenses were granted, during the last twelve years no new licenses had been granted. Mr. Glyn had also referred to the hardship on the owners if they lost their property, having regard to the fact that there had been no conviction against the tenants during the year, but in addition to that he desired to call attention to what was the intention of the legislature. The legislature had provided that in all cases where owners of licensed houses were brought before the Bench and charged with any offence against the licensing laws, the Magistrates had the power, if they deemed the offence was of sufficient importance, to record that conviction on the licence. They could do that on a second conviction, and on the third occasion the legislature said that the licence should be gone altogether. He was happy to say there was no record on any one of the licenses of the applicants, notwithstanding that they might have been proceeded against and convicted before the last annual licensing meeting. That showed they were of such trivial account that the Magistrates considered, in the exercise of their judgement, that it was not necessary to record it on the licence. Was there any stronger argument to be used than that the Magistrates themselves, although they felt bound to convict in certain cases, did not record the conviction on the licence? He cordially agreed with the suggestion of Mr. Glyn that the Magistrates should retire and consider the suggestion he had made, and he thought they would come to the conclusion that all the licenses should be renewed. There were cases where the houses could claim renewals as a right, and in which he should be able to show the licenses existed before 1869. That course would save a great deal of time.

Mr. Montagu Bradley claimed to be heard on behalf of the Good Templars.

The Court held that Mr. Bradley had no locus standi, as he had not given notice to the applicants that he was going to oppose.

Mr. Bradley thereupon withdrew.

The Magistrates again retired, and on their return the Chairman said the Magistrates had decided that where it was a question of disorderly conduct, it was to be limited to during the year just ended, and not to go into questions prior to the annual licensing day of last year. They thought it right that the cases should be gone into, in order that they might know what the objections were.

Mr. Glyn enumerated the houses, and they were then gone into separately in the following order:

The Victoria.

Mr. Glyn said the tenant of this house had been carrying on business for 13 years at £25 a year. The only ground of opposition was that it was not required.

Sergeant Swift said there were six other houses within 100 paces.

By Mr. Bodkin: I should not suggest that a house is simply required for the people in that street.

Mr. Mackeson said the Victoria was purchased by his firm in 1886. It's value was about £1,000. The rent paid by Mr. Watson was £25. It was respectably conducted, and no complaints had been made.

Henry Dunn, living in South Street, next door to the Victoria, said the house was a quiet one, doing a fair trade. He found no cause for complaint at all.

By Superintendent Taylor: I live at 24, South Street. (Laughter)

Mr. Glyn: We are told there are only seven houses. (Laughter)

By Superintendent Taylor: I should suffer no inconvenience if the house was closed.

Mr. Glyn said there was a mistake with regard to the number of houses – there were 30.

Arthur Mepsted, a fishmonger, living in South Street, said the house was respectably conducted, and fully up to the wants of the neighbourhood.

By Superintendent Taylor: There is only one other house in South Street - the others are in Harbour Street.

Superintendent Taylor: What inconvenience would you be put to if this house was closed? How much further would you have to go for your supper beer? – It would be no inconvenience to me.

By Mr. Glyn: I have never heard of any objection to the licence.

James Watson, formerly a pilot, gave evidence. Formerly he kept the Brewery Tap in Tontine Street. The house was fairly well attended.

By Superintendent Taylor: My wife manages the house in my absence. It is well conducted in my absence.

Mr. Glyn: This is one again which you, in your report, have said is well conducted. (Laughter)

Mr. Glyn then addressed the Bench on the whole of the cases, and urged that no Bench had ever refused a licence where there had been no complaint or conviction. He said the Superintendent had conducted the cases ably and fairly, but he had picked out several houses and asked the Bench to refuse licenses to them. How, he asked, could they do so? It would be very nice for the owners of other houses, no doubt. He emphasised his remarks that no Bench in the county had refused a licence on the ground that it was not wanted. Nothing had occurred in the neighbourhood to alter the position of things, yet Folkestone was asked, as it were, to set an example to other boroughs in the county, and to confiscate his clients' licenses, when there was no ground whatever for that confiscation. It was not a small matter. It was not a question of £15. The lowest value was put at £800. The ground of objection was merely that the licenses were not wanted, although they had been in existence many years, and the owners had spent large sums of money on the houses on the faith of the licenses which the justices' predecessors had granted, and which they themselves had renewed. The population had largely increased, and the Magistrates had refused to grant fresh licenses because they thought there were sufficient. He ventured to submit that they would not do what other Benches had refused to do, and deprive his clients of their property. They looked to the Magistrates to protect their property and their interests. If there had been any strong views in operation against the licenses among the public, it would be different. But they had not expressed any such views. There was the Watch Committee, the proper authority to raise those points, who had declined to support the objection, which came from a member of their body, who was not present, and who had not taken part in the proceedings. He asked them, without any fear of the result, to say that under all the circumstances they were not going to deprive his clients of their licenses.

There was some applause when Mr. Glyn finished his speech.

The Justices then adjourned for an hour to consider all the cases.

On their return Mr. J. Clark, the Chairman, said: The Magistrates have had this question under consideration, and they have come to the decision that all the licenses be granted, with the exception of the Tramway Tavern. (Applause)

Mr. Glyn said he need hardly say they were much obliged to the Chairman and his brother Magistrates for the care they had given the matter. With regard to the Tramway Tavern, he asked if they would allow him, in the event of the owners deciding to appeal, which it was probable they would do, to serve the notice on their Clerk.

Mr. Bradley said there was no objection to that.

Mr. Glyn said his friends felt they ought to acknowledge the very fair manner in which Superintendent Taylor had conducted those proceedings.

The business then terminated.

Folkestone Express 30 December 1893.

Wednesday, December 27th: Before The Mayor, Aldermen Pledge and Sherwood, and J. Fitness Esq.

James Noble was charged with being drunk and disorderly in South Street on Boxing Day. He pleaded Guilty.

P.C. Lawrence said the defendant was very drunk at the Victoria, and Mr. Watson asked witness to eject him. He refused to leave South Street, and was therefore taken into custody.

The Magistrates' Clerk (to defendant): What time did you go to the house? – In the afternoon.

Were you sober when you went? – Yes.

You were there all the afternoon, till you got drunk? – I went out and came back again. I can't remember when. I remember Watson striking me.

Where did you get drunk? – I got most of the drink in his house.

Superintendent Taylor said that it was a case in which he thought it necessary to send for the landlord. It was a very common occurrence for men to go to a public house and remain till they got drunk, and then, because they got noisy, the landlord sent for the police and had the offenders put into the street, where, being naturally annoyed at being ejected, they became disorderly, and often assaulted the police. In that case he sent for the landlord, and he was in court. He should have to consider whether or not it was a case in which he should have to summon him for permitting drunkenness on his premises.

James Wilson, the landlord, said when the defendant entered his house he said he had drunk 14 pints of beer in the Blue Anchor, and he could not have drunk 14 pints of beer without being pretty well drunk.

Mr. Bradley: If you are going to be summoned, you had better keep your mouth closed.

Defendant said he never went into the Blue Anchor on the previous day.

The Mayor said the Bench had decided to look on the case in a very lenient way. Defendant would be fined 6s. and 4s. 6d. costs, or 14 days'.

Folkestone Express 3 February 1894.

Advertisement.

Victoria Inn, Folkestone, TO LET; Ingoing and rent moderate; in possession of present tenant 15 years. Apply Hythe Brewery.

Folkestone Express 16 February 1895.

Wednesday, February 13th: Before W.G. Herbert and C.J. Pursey Esqs.

Arthur Felmingham was summoned by Arthur Smith for refusing to quit the Victoria Inn when ordered, but did not appear.

Supt. Taylor said he had received a doctor's certificate stating that defendant was not in a fit condition to attend.

The summons was therefore adjourned for a week.

Folkestone Express 23 February 1895.

Wednesday, February 20th: Before J. Fitness Esq., Aldermen Pledge and Sherwood, J. Brooke, T.J. Vaughan, and Geo. Spurgen Esqs.

Robert Felmingham, whose wife until recently was the holder of the licence of the Princess Royal, was charged with being drunk and refusing to quit the Victoria Inn on the 11th February. Mr. F. Hall appeared for the complainant, and Mr. H.W. Watts for the defendant.

Caroline Louisa Smith, wife of Ernest Victor Smith, the holder of the licence of the Victoria Inn, South Street, said: On Monday the defendant came into our house. I heard him using bad language, and went down and requested him to leave. My sister had previously asked him to leave. He left after a few minutes, and the door was bolted to prevent him returning. He came back again when somebody else entered and was again requested to leave. I was afraid he would smash the windows. He went out and returned a second time. He put out his arms and knocked all the glasses over – two grog glasses and two pints of beer. I requested him to go out the third time, and he would not, and I sent for a policeman. In the meantime defendant commenced to fight. He said he had got no licence, and he was going to cause a disturbance in my house. His wife was the licence holder of the Princess Royal. When I went downstairs, defendant had blood on his face, and I saw that he was intoxicated. During the time he was there he was not served with any intoxicating liquor. He had been served with some soda water. He asked for whisky and soda, but we refused to serve him. A customer came in and asked for a pint of beer. Defendant took out his tester and tested it. When I went downstairs he asked me if I was the landlady. He tested the beer in front of my face, and asked where the landlord was. I asked him four or five times to leave, and after a time he went out. I saw him strike a man named McKay. He struck a man named Marshall as well. Defendant was the aggressor.

In reply to defendant, witness said: I requested you to leave four times altogether. I did not serve you with whisky and soda – only plain soda. I saw the blood on your face when I came down. It was here (pointing to her lips).

Mr. Watts, who came in rather late, took up the cross-examination at this point, and in answer to him she said: I did not hear anyone say to defendant “We'll do you”. I saw McKay strike defendant, but it was in self defence. I sent for Charles Caggett, a constable, between four and five. In the meantime another constable was fetched by a friend of defendant's.

Annie Louise Turner, sister of the first witness, and barmaid at the Victoria Inn, gave similar evidence as to defendant's behaviour.

Edward Henry Anslow, a labourer, said he saw defendant outside the Princess Royal on the 11th inst. He spoke to a young fellow, and asked him if he wanted a pint of beer, and he declined. He then asked witness if he wanted a pint, and he said “Yes”, but did not get it. (Laughter) Defendant offered him half a sovereign if he would hold his coat, as he wanted to fight a young man in the road, but he did not fight with him. Instead, he went and interfered with Mr. Tolputt's waggoner, and his nose was cut. When defendant returned he went into the Princess Royal, and the company there dispersed. Then he followed them into Swift's house. Witness went in after, and saw defendant with his clothes off. He said he was the best man in Folkestone, and no-one could take it out of him. He was served with some soda water – nothing else. He refused to quit the place three times. The second time he knocked over all the glasses – one pint of beer belonged to witness. He was not what witness would call drunk. He seemed to know what he was about. With regard to the row that took place between McKay and defendant, defendant kept saying he was the best man, and he struck McKay, and got knocked down.

In reply to Mr. Watts, witness said Mrs. Smith sent for a policeman before defendant was knocked down. When the constable came he was standing up.

Edward George Bricknell gave similar evidence. He said defendant wanted to fight with him.

Mr. Hall had other witnesses, but did not think it necessary to call them.

Mr. Watts said it must be admitted his client had a certain amount of liquor, but he was not responsible for the disturbance.

The Bench, however, held that the charge was fully proved, and fined defendant 30s. and 20s. 6d. costs, or a month's imprisonment.

Mr. Hall asked for the costs of his witnesses, but the Bench declined to allow them.

Folkestone Express 6 May 1899.

Wednesday, May 3rd: Before W. Wightwick, and W.G. Herbert Esqs., and Colonel Hamilton.

Frederick Skinner, the landlord of the Victoria Inn, South Street, was summoned for selling beer where not authorised to do so, and Alfred Skinner was summoned for aiding and abetting him.

The case appeared to create a large amount of interest, for the Court was crowded, among those present being several licensed victuallers.

Mr. J. Minter appeared for the defendants, who pleaded Not Guilty.

P.S. Lilley said that on the morning of the 25th of last month, in company with P.C. Johnson, he kept watch upon the Pavilion reconstruction works. At ten a.m. he saw the defendant Frederick carry a glass bottle containing liquid, apparently beer. At ten minutes past ten the defendant Alfred went into the works, carrying on his shoulder a tin urn, holding about four gallons, and a basket containing glasses. Both defendants came from South Street. At 10.25 a.m. both defendants came out of the works, and Alfred was carrying the urn, which appeared to be empty. Both went along South Street. At 10.35 they both came back carrying the urn, and went into the works. About two minutes later he and Johnson went into the works, and in a room on the ground floor facing the Lower Sandgate Road saw the defendant Frederick drawing beer from the urn and handing it in pint glasses to the men. Alfred was taking the money. He saw several men served and pay. In one instance a man tendered sixpence, and received from Alfred fourpence in change. He heard defendant Frederick say to Alfred “Has he paid you?”, meaning a man he had just served with a pint of beer. During a portion of the time he was standing looking over Alfred's shoulder. He touched him on the shoulder and said “You won't deny taking the money, I suppose, Skinner?” He looked up and said “It's all right sergeant. It's all ordered”. He said “But you are taking the money for it”. He replied “Yes, we have to take some or we should not get it at all”. Witness said “I shall report you for selling intoxicating liquor at a place where you are not authorised by your licence to do so”. He said “Alright”, and turning to Frederick said “The game's up, come on”. Frederick said “No. Let us sell this lot”. They took the names of four men who were served and paid, and he asked Alfred how much the urn held. He said “Four gallons”. There was no book in use, nor did he hear defendants ask any of the men if they had ordered the beer. They left the building, and about ten minutes after both defendants came out, and they were carrying the urn. Alfred said to him “This is just what I expected, sergeant. I suppose we shall get off by paying”. He asked him if he would stop while he fetched the book in which he had entered all the orders. They both went into the Victoria in South Street, and Alfred on returning showed him a book in which there were a lot of names and figures. He and Johnson were both in plain clothes.

By Mr. Minter: I have no doubt the men knew me. I took the names of Harry Cheeseman and William Baker. Johnson took Amos and Andrews.

P.C. Johnson said on the morning of the 25th he was in company with P.S. Lilley keeping watch on the Pavilion works in Lower Sandgate Road, and at 10 a.m. he saw the defendant Frederick come through South Street and enter the works carrying a bottle which seemed to contain beer. At 10.10, defendant Alfred came through South Street with a can on his shoulder and a basket containing glasses. At 10.25 they came out and went back to South Street, Alfred carrying the can, which appeared to be empty. At 10.35, defendant came back carrying a can, and re-entered the works. About two minutes later he went into the works and saw defendant surrounded by about 20 men. Defendant Frederick was drawing beer, and defendant Alfred appeared to be taking money. Cheeseman called for a pint and handed defendant Alfred sixpence, and received 4d. change. Several of the other men had pints and paid for them. One man had a pint, which was served in a pint glass, and laid a penny on the top of the urn. Then Sergt. Lilley tapped the defendant Alfred on the top of the shoulder and said “You don't deny taking the money, I suppose, Skinner?” Defendant replied “If we didn't take some of it, we should not get any at all”. He then took the names of two of the men who were there, and came away. About five minutes later he saw the defendants coming away from the works and carrying the can. Defendant Alfred said “Someone has been putting you on to this. Still, I suppose we shall get off by paying. It won't be a hanging matter”. Defendant then went into the Victoria and brought out a book, which he showed to the sergeant.

Mr. Minter then addressed the Bench for the defence, and in the course of a speech extending over nearly three quarters of an hour he hit out very vigorously at times. He began with a little passage of arms with Mr. Bradley, contending that defendant should have been served with a notice to produce his licence.

Mr. Bradley replied that the production of the register was sufficient, but if Mr. Minter persisted in his objection the case could be adjourned.

Mr. Minter: We'll have a little fair play, Mr. Bradley. The case is closed.

He then proceeded to address the Bench on the section under which the proceedings were taken, viz., Section 3 of the Licensing Act of 1872, and, pointing out the penalties, asked them whether they thought that any respectable licence holder, as he claimed defendant to be, conducting his house in an exemplary manner, was likely to wilfully go and commit a breach of the law in the sense in which he was charged there, knowing the penalties he would incur under the Act, with the still further penalty of being kicked out of his tenancy by the landlords, who would naturally decline to have their property imperilled by improper conduct on the part of the tenant. Turning aside to describe P.S. Lilley as “the all-sufficient man who knew more about the law than the Bench or the Clerk to the Magistrates”, he went on with his remarks that there was an old saying “If you want to know anything ask a policeman”, and that was just what his client did. He asked the advice of one of the most important authorities in the town – Supt. Taylor. All he had done was actually under the advice and with the sanction of Supt. Taylor, and judging by a case he would refer to he should say that Supt. Taylor was right in thinking that defendant should sell beer in the way that he did. This was one of those cases where, although a man was a publican it did not necessarily follow that he was a sinner; although he was a publican it did not necessarily follow that he would go into the witness box to perjure himself, and that being so, he thought his client's word could be taken on oath just as well as that of the professional swearers who had been called before them. His client would say that he went to the highest authority in the borough and said “There is all this work going on at the Pavilion, and the men like my beer. I am close to the works, but I don't want to get into trouble, and I come to ask you whether I can serve them legally”. Supt. Taylor replied “You are perfectly justified in supplying these men if you get the orders while they are on your premises”. Having got this sanction, which of course was not binding upon the Bench, and having received the orders for the beer on his premises, defendant, continued the speaker, was quite justified in taking the money the way that he did. The defendants would deny most emphatically using the words attributed to them by the police, and expanding upon this point he described the evidence respecting these remarks as a concoction on the part of the constables to effect a conviction, and finally asked the Bench if they were going to say that these two eminently respectable men, the defendants, would perjure themselves, and that the policemen were the only ones that told the truth. Continuing, he pointed out that the beer was carried by a licensed holder to licensed premises, and delivered and consumed there. He should say that it was more a case for the Excise authorities, and if they were satisfied that there was no infringement of the law, surely there was no necessity for interference by the police? He quoted the case of Platts v Beattie in support of his contention that the sale having taken place on the premises of defendant, the delivery and receiving of money was immaterial. The defendants were charged there with selling – not delivering – and the point for them to decide was: Where did the sale take place? He should bring evidence to prove that the sale took place on licensed premises – the Victoria Inn, South Street. It had been ruled that the delivery and payment was of no consequence, and as it would be proved that defendant refused to supply any beer, except it had been previously ordered on his premises, he claimed the dismissal of the case.

At this point, Mr. F. Hall, who said he was watching the case on behalf of the owners of the Victoria Inn, Messrs. Mackeson and Co., rose with the intention of pointing out to the Bench that the defendant came with the highest testimonials, and had always conducted his house to the entire satisfaction of Messrs. Mackeson and Co., but was informed by Mr. Bradley that he was quite out of order.

Mr. Hall, however, persisted to the extent of completing his sentence, and Mr. Bradley told him that it was a “most unwarrantable intrusion”.

Mr. Hall: But I have not interrupted any part of the proceedings.

Mr. Minter then called Frederick Skinner, who said he was the landlord of the Victoria in South Street. He saw Supt. Taylor with reference to selling beer at the Pavilion works and followed his instructions. He did not supply any beer to any man on the Pavilion works on the Tuesday named by the police, except that which had been previously ordered in his house. Every pint of beer which he supplied had been previously ordered on his licensed premises in South Street. It was not true that he said to Sergt. Lilley “This is just what I expected. I suppose I shall get off by paying”, or anything to that effect. He never spoke to Johnson on the subject at all. He never used the words mentioned by Johnson in his evidence.

Supt. Reeve: How much did the urn hold? – About four gallons.

How can you tell who has ordered the beer? – I have the names in a book.

Can you produce the book? – Yes.

The book was produced and handed to Supt. Reeve, who inspected it.

Witness said he did not use the book on the morning in question. He knew his regular customers. He did not ask each man as he came up whether he had ordered the beer or not.

Alfred Skinner, the brother of the defendant, said he was helping him on this occasion. He had seen the names of those who ordered beer entered in the book, and he knew them all personally. He did not supply anyone who had not ordered the beer before at the house. He did not use the words attributed to him by P.S. Lilley. He spoke to Johnson about a window breaking affair.

By Supt. Reeve: He was quite sure that no-one had been served that morning who had not ordered it.

Harry Cheeseman, a labourer working on the Pavilion works, said he had some beer there last Tuesday, which he ordered at the Victoria Inn. He ordered a pint to be supplied every morning.

By Supt. Reeve: I gave the order for the beer at two minutes past six that morning.

William Baker, a labourer, said he had a pint of beer, which was supplied in accordance with an order he gave at the Victoria on Monday morning for a pint to be taken every morning.

By Supt. Reeve: I pay for the beer every Saturday.

John Amos, a labourer, deposed to having a pint of beer on the morning in question, which he ordered at the Victoria Inn at breakfast time that morning.

Frank Finn, a labourer, said the beer he had on Tuesday he ordered at the Victoria Inn at breakfast time that morning.

By Supt. Reeve: He paid for it on Saturday.

The Bench retired for several minutes, and on their return Mr. Wightwick said they considered that an offence had been committed, but as it was a first offence they would impose a mitigated penalty of £5 and 11s. 6d. costs in each case, or in default one month's hard labour.

Mr. Minter: I will ask the Bench to state a case upon a point of law.

Mr. Bradley: What i the point of law?

Mr. Minter: That defendants were justified in selling in the way which they did, because the beer was sold on licensed premises.

The Bench decided to state a case.

Folkestone Express 24 January 1903.

Monday, January 19th: Before E.T. Ward Esq., Col. Westropp, Alderman Vaughan, G. Peden, J. Stainer, and W.C. Carpenter Esqs.

Daniel Thompson was charged with being drunk and disorderly.

P.C. Taylor said about 6.45 p.m. on the 17th inst., he was in Harbour Street, where prisoner was drunk. Witness followed him into South Street, where he went into a public house, but the landlord refused to serve him. As prisoner was incapable of taking care of himself, witness took him into custody.

Prisoner told the Bench he had been working in the dock at Chatham, but the hands had been paid off in consequence of the frost.

As prisoner had been in the cells since Saturday, the Magistrates dismissed him with a caution.

Folkestone Express 13 February 1904.

Annual Licensing Meeting.

Wednesday, February 10th: Before W. Wightwick Esq., Lieut. Col. Hamilton, Lieut. Col. Fynmore, Lieut. Colonel Westropp, and W.G. Herbert, E.T. Ward, and C.J. Pursey Esqs.

The following was the report of Supt. Reeve: Chief Constable's Office, Folkestone, 10th February, 1904. To the Chairman and Members of the Licensing Committee of the Borough of Folkestone. Gentlemen, I have the honour to report for your information that there are at present within your jurisdiction 139 premises licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquors, namely: Full licences 87; Beer on 11; Beer off 6; Beer and Spirits (dealers) 16; Grocers 12; Confectioners 3; Chemists 4; Total 139 – an average of one licence to every 220 persons, or one “on” licence to every 313. This is a decrease of one full licence as compared with last year's return, the licence of the Marquis Of Lorne having been refused at the adjourned meeting in March. Twenty of the licences have been transferred during the year, namely, 14 full licences, two beer on, two beer off, and two grocers. One beer off licence was transferred twice during the year. One licence holder has been convicted since the last annual meeting of committing drunkenness on his licensed premises. He has since transferred his licence and left the house. The alterations which the Justices at the adjourned meeting last year directed to be made to the Packet Boat, Castle, Tramway, Bricklayers' Arms, Granville, and Star Inns have all been carried out in a satisfactory manner, and none of the licensed houses are now used as common lodging houses. Ten occasional licences, and extensions of hours on 21 occasions, have been granted to licence holders during the year. There are 14 places licensed for music and dancing, and two for public billiard playing. Eleven clubs where intoxicating liquors are sold are registered in accordance with the Licensing Act of 1902. For the year ending 31st December last year, 154 persons (131 males and 23 females) were proceeded against for drunkenness. 131 were convicted and 23 discharged. This is an increase of 65 persons proceeded against, and 51 convicted, as compared with 1902. The increase is chiefly due to the additional powers given to the police under the Licensing Act, 1902. Up to the present time no person within the Borough has been convicted the necessary number of times within the 12 months to be placed on the “black list” as provided by Section 6 of the Act of 1902. With very few exceptions the whole of the licensed houses have been conducted in a satisfactory manner. The only objection I have to make to the renewal of any of the present licences is that of the Swan Inn, Dover Road, and I would ask that the renewal of this licence be deferred until the adjourned meeting. I have the honour to be, gentlemen, your obedient servant, H. Reeve (Chief Constable).

The Chairman: I think, gentlemen, you will agree that the report of the Superintendent is a satisfactory one – in fact, I may say very satisfactory – for the whole year. With your permission I well read the report we now make to you. At the adjournment of the last general licensing meeting we stated that in our opinion the number of licences for the sale of intoxicating liquor then existing in the borough of Folkestone, especially in the part of the immediate neighbourhood of the Harbour, was out of all proportion to the population, and that we proposed between then and the general annual licensing meeting of this year to obtain information on various matters, to enable us to determine what reduction would be made in the number of licences. We invited the owners of licensed houses in the meantime to meet and agree among themselves for the voluntary surrender at this general meeting of a substantial number of licences in the borough, and to submit the result of their united action to the Licensing Justices for acceptance. Failing any satisfactory proposal for reduction by the owners, the Licensing Justices last year intimated that in the exercise of their discretionary powers they would at this year's meeting decide in a fair and equitable spirit what reduction should be made. But at the opening of Parliament last week it was announced in the King's speech that the Government intended to introduce in the House of Commons during the present session a Bill to amend the Licensing Laws. In view of this legislation we are of opinion we ought not, pending the passage of this Bill through Parliament, exercise the discretionary powers vested in us, and take measures for effecting a further reduction in the number of licences within the borough on the ground that certain licensed premises are not required for the public accommodation. We have recently inspected certain houses known as the Imperial Brewery Tap, the Hope, East Cliff Tavern, Victoria, Lifeboat, Duke Of Edinburgh, Railway Tavern, and Channel Inn.

As to the Victoria, these premises are structurally unfit, and not adapted for the purpose of fully licensed premises. There is no urinal, except one opening out of the bar parlour by means of a doorway, the smell from which is offensive. The bar parlour is badly lighted. We direct that the holder of the licence shall, within fourteen days from this date, properly ventilate the urinal, and remove the window looking into, and the door leading into, the adjoining yard, and substitute therefore a large plate glass window, with circular ventilator.

Folkestone Express 21 May 1904.

Saturday, May 14th: Before Alderman Vaughan, Lieut. Col. Westropp, and Lieut. Col. Fynmore.

William Spearpoint was summoned for being drunk and disorderly in South Street on May 12th. Defendant did not appear.

P.C. Watson said the defendant was about the town drunk that morning. At 10.45 on Thursday night he was on duty in South Street when he saw the defendant being ejected from the Victoria Inn. Defendant was very drunk, and was shouting about and using filthy language. Witness requested him to go home, and a friend took him home. Defendant was not in the Victoria Inn very long, and as far as witness knew he had not been served with ale.

The Chief Constable said the man was well-known to the Bench. There were many previous convictions against him. On the 11th of last month he was sentenced to 14 days' hard labour for a similar offence.

Defendant was sentenced to a month's hard labour.

Folkestone Express 11 February 1905.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

Wednesday, February 8th: Before E.T. Ward Esq., Colonel Hamilton, Colonel Fynmore, W.G. Herbert Esq., and W.C. Carpenter Esq.

The Chief Constable's report was read (see Chronicle for full report).

The Chairman said the report was of a most satisfactory nature. The Magistrates were pleased to fine there were no complaints against any of the houses. It was, however, an unfortunate thing that there was an increase in drunkenness during the year, and they hoped that the licence holders would, in the coming year, be still more careful in trying to help the Bench and the police as much as possible in keeping down drunkenness, so that next year they might have a better report from the Chief Constable. With regard to the houses the Chief Constable referred to in what he called the congested area, there was no question that there were too many public houses there. By the new Act they were empowered to report to the County Quarter Sessions those houses which they thought were not required in the borough. They would therefore direct the Chief Constable to serve notices of objection against those six houses – the Victoria Inn, the Duke of Edinburgh, the Cinque Ports, the Providence Inn, the Star, and the Perseverance – so that they might report to the Quarter Sessions that those houses were unnecessary in the borough. Of course, if the Quarter Sessions upheld their decision with regard to those houses, or any one of them, then the owner would be compensated. If the Chief Constable would kindly serve the notices, the licences would be dealt with at the next Sessions.

The adjourned meeting was fixed for Monday, March 6th.

Folkestone Express 11 March 1905.

Adjourned Licensing Sessions.

Monday, March 6th: Before E.T. Ward Esq., Lieut. Col. Fynmore, Lieut. Col. Hamilton, W.G. Herbert, W.C. Carpenter, and C.J. Pursey Esqs.

The first objection dealt with was that against the licence of Alfred Skinner of the Victoria Inn, in South Street. Mr. Minter, on behalf of Messrs. Mackeson and Co., Ltd., admitted receiving notice of objection.

The Chief Constable said he first of all put in a map showing the congested area. The whole of the “on” licensed premises were marked in red. The area he had marked was from the bottom of the steps leading to The Bayle, across the top of High Street, Rendezvous Street, Grace Hill, Dover Road, along Radnor Bridge Road, to the sea. Within that area there were 916 houses for a population approximately of 4,580. That included 46 “on” licensed houses, giving a proportion of one “on” licence to about every 313 inhabitants. There were also within the area six “off” licence holders. He should also like to point out that within the borough during the past year they had 171 charges of drunkenness. He had found that 94 of those charges arose within that particular area. The Victoria Inn was situate in South Street. It was a fully licensed house. The present licensee obtained a transfer of the licence on August 2nd, 1899. The registered owners were Messrs. Mackeson and Co., Ltd., of Hythe. The rateable value of the house was £24 a year. South Street was simply a paved passageway from the bottom of High Street to the Lower Sandgate Road. There were five fully licensed houses opening into the street, all at the Lower Sandgate Road end.Three of them adjoined each other on one side – the London and Paris, the True Briton, and the Harbour. The other two on the opposite side were the Princess Royal and the house in question. Directly opposite the end of the street was the Royal Pavilion Hotel, with a large bar opening into the Lower Sandgate Road. The accommodation was a front bar, divided into two compartments, with separate entrances. There was also a tap room at the back. The private apartments of the licensee were on the first floor, and were approached by a narrow staircase from a door in the tap room. Within a radius of 100 yards there were 18 other “on” licensed houses, within 150 yards, 26, and within 200 yards, 34. At the annual licensing meeting last year an order was made to close up a back entrance opening into a small yard at the rear of the house, and also to improve the ventilation and the urinal which opened directly from the tap room at the back of the bar. That order was complied with. It appeared to him at present there was very little trade to the house. In his opinion it was quite unnecessary for the needs of the neighbourhood.

Cross-examined, witness said there was no provision made for vehicular traffic in the street. The entrances in South Street of the Harbour and True Briton were only back entrances.

Det. Sergeant Burniston said he knew the Victoria Inn. Very few residents used the house. The class of people who used it were the workmen employed on the harbour. He considered the house was unnecessary for the requirements of the neighbourhood.

Mr. Minter said the tenant did not want to lose his licence, nor did the owners want to lose their licences. The opposition which had been given was that the licences were not needed, and therefore the police were asking the justices to report to the Quarter Sessions. He simply protested against it being sent to the Quarter Sessions upon the evidence, which he submitted did not justify them in doing so.

The Chairman said they had unanimously decided to report the licence to the Quarter Sessions. The tenant would be granted a provisional licence until that date.

Folkestone Express 3 June 1905.

East Kent Licensing.

The Special Committee of Licensing Justices of East Kent considered on Friday, at the Canterbury Sessions Hall, five Folkestone licences which had been referred to them under the Licensing Act of 1904. The Chairman was Sir William Lucius Selfe. Mr. Pitman, barrister, appeared for the licensing justices, and Mr. H.C. Bodkin, barrister, for the owners of the Victoria (Messrs. Mackeson and Co.), the Perseverance and the Duke of Edinburgh (Messrs. Flint and Co.); Mr. Hohler for the owners of the Star (Messrs. Ash and Co.); Mr. G.W. Haines for the tenant of the Perseverance, and Mr. R. Mowll (Dover) for the owners of the Cinque Ports Arms (Messrs. Leney and Co.).

Mr. Pitman said that in 1903 the licensing justices announced their intention of exercising the power which they then had of reducing the number of licensed houses in the area of Folkestone, and especially in the neighbourhood of the Harbour district. In the beginning of 1904, in the King's Speech, there was mentioned a prospect of the present Licensing Act coming into force, and the justices determined therefore to hold their hand, and nothing was done in 1904. At the annual meeting that year, the Chief Constable gave notice that he intended to oppose the renewal of the five licensed houses which had been mentioned, and one other, the Providence. At the adjourned meeting the Chief Constable and the detective who assisted him in the enquiries made gave evidence, in which they stated that the area which the Chief Constable had marked off was a congested area, there being 915 houses for a population of 4,580. There were 46 on-licensed houses and 6 off-licensed houses, so there was rather more than one licence to every 100 of the population. He did not think that there could be any doubt that in such circumstances some reduction was necessary. The renewal authority recommended that the renewal of the six houses mentioned should be considered, but at a preliminary meeting it was decided that the Providence should not be proceeded against. He might mention that the Chief Constable, in selecting those houses for his opposition, was guided by the fact that they were the houses doing the least trade, and that he had selected in each case one out of a cluster of houses, and that which appeared the worst of each cluster.

Mr. H. Reeve, the Chief Constable, was the first witness, and he repeated his evidence given before the local licensing justices. In cross-examination by Mr. Bodkin, he said he received his instructions with regard to the houses from the whole of the Licensing Justices. With regard to the Victoria Inn, South Street, he had no definite knowledge of the state of trade, his opinion being gathered by what he saw as he went by. The licensee had been in occupation for six years, and while the population might not have altered in eight years, the population of the borough had increased very considerably. In 1881 there were 18,000, in 1891, 24,000, until in 1901 it was 31,200. It had not increased much of late years, though it had not gone back much. The Victoria had been repaired during the last few months, and he believed it was in an excellent state of repair.

Det. Sergt. Burniston also gave similar evidence to that given before the licensing justices.

Mr. Bodkin said he submitted under that particular jurisdiction precisely the same duty fell upon that tribunal as was upon the Court of Quarter Sessions in deciding whether or not the licences should be renewed. He submitted there must be as careful and as exhaustive an enquiry as to each house as there had been under the Licensing Act of 1868. Therefore it was necessary to say what the law was with regard to those cases, and whether there had been any difference of distinction made between the procedure under that Act to what there was under the earlier legislation. The chief case upon which one must rely as interpreting the duties of the Quarter Sessions was the well-known Farnham case. In that case there was a statement made by the Master of the Rolls which really gave the key to the whole position. The justices in that case formed themselves into a committee, or rather appointed a committee, and after an exhaustive enquiry made personally by themselves, they declined to select from the houses generally within their area any particular house which they might oppose prima facie before going round on their tour of inspection and trying to find out what was unnecessary for the requirements of the locality. What they did was described as the only possible and fair way of dealing with the question, which was just as difficult as it ever had been. Instead of giving a notice of objection to individual houses selected out of court, they gave notice of objection to every single house in the division. The Master of the Rolls then said that the justices were of the opinion that the only fair and satisfactory way of dealing with the question was to cause objections to be served on all the owners of licensed houses, so that the cases of all might be formally inquired into. That course gave the justices an opportunity of weighing the merits and acting judicially in the matter of which public houses should remain and which licences should be taken. That was the one course which might be taken, and it was a most authoritative statement. It was the statement which was made, and it seemed to him (the Master of the Rolls) the reasonable and proper course. That was a procedure which was described as a fair, reasonable, and satisfactory procedure. It was not adopted in that case; far from it. The procedure apparently had been to adopt the view of the Chief Constable, and to instruct him to serve notice of objection solely on houses which he had selected without giving any opportunity to the occupiers of such houses to show by way of comparison of their trade, accommodation, situation, state of repair, or matters of that kind, how discrimination should be made by the justices as to the houses to be retained and which ought to be referred to the Quarter Sessions. In not doing so, he submitted that the Folkestone Justices had not followed the proper legal course. They might have given just as easily instructions to the Chief Constable to serve notices on all the houses in the selected area. How was a Quarter Sessions sitting 20 or 100 miles away from a town to differentiate between those and other houses in a selected area? Before any decision was come to, it was essential that there should be an enquiry into the needs of the neighbourhood and the pros and cons of the other houses by the justices below.

The Chairman: I should certainly say that the course had been sanctioned by the King's Bench Division in the case The King v Tolhurst.

After further argument by Mr. Bodkin, the Chairman said it was suggested that the course in the Farnham way was a proper way, but not the only way. He ruled Mr. Bodkin's contention out, so far as he was concerned. The justices below had made a prima facie case out against the houses, and it was for them to answer the case.

Mr. Bodkin asked if the Committee would state a case upon that point.

The Chairman said they could not stay their hands on the possibility of an appeal.

Mr. Bodkin then addressed the Committee on behalf of the Perseverance, the Victoria, and the Duke of Edinburgh.

The Victoria.

Mr. G.L. Mackeson gave evidence with respect to the Victoria, which was the freehold property of Messrs. Mackeson, of Hythe. He said the house was assessed at £30. Skinner had been the landlord for nine years. The price of beer was 33s. per barrel. During the last three years the trade had been well maintained. During the past year the trade done was 199 barrels, and about 380 dozen bottles of beer, which, converted into barrels, would amount to about 218 barrels. The trade, therefore, would be over four barrels a week. The spirit trade was about a gallon a week.

Cross-examined, he said the trade in 1902 was 200 barrels, and the bottled beer trade corresponded. In 1903 it was rather less. He considered four barrels a week was very good. He had suggested that the licence was not necessary when they applied for a removal two or three years ago.

Alfred Skinner, the landlord, said during the time he had been landlord he had never had any complaint against him. He paid £25 rent, and £17 5s. 3d. for the excise licence. He did not do anything else but look after the house. He maintained himself, wife, and two children out of the house, which was his sole support. The trade was well maintained and increasing.

The Committee retired, and on their return the Chairman said he still held that the procedure of the justices below was in accordance with the law. The Committee had considered each case separately without regard to any of the other cases which had been heard, and they decided to refuse the renewal of the licences except that of the Perseverance, which they would renew.