Folkestone Herald 9 June 1894.

John Rackley, aged 29, and of no settled abode, and formerly an Artillery soldier, was charged before the Folkestone Justices on Monday with stealing two chickens and a tame rabbit, altogether worth 11s., the property of Edward Quested, of the Shorncliffe Inn, Coolinge Road, on the night of the 1st inst.

He was sentenced to a month's hard labour.

The man, who was apprehended at the Wellington public house by P.C. Gardner, is to be charged with rabbit stealing in the county when his sentence expires.

Folkestone Herald 27 April 1895.

Police Court Record.

On Saturday last James Cannan appeared before the Borough Magistrates charged with wilfully breaking two squares of glass, value 9s. 6d., the property of Mr. C.E. Gatley, landlord of the Wellington public house, in Beach Street.

It seems that the defendant went into the public house, and, as he did not order anything, was told to leave. As he would not go, the landlord put him out. He returned, and being again ejected, he broke two panes of glass in the door with his fist.

Defendant said he slipped outside the door.

He was fined 20s. including costs, and value of the glass.

Folkestone Herald 23 January 1897.

Local News.

On Thursday an inquest was held by the Borough Coroner (Mr. J. Minter) on the death of Jacob Johannson, an able seaman on the brig Charity, of West Hartlepool.

From the evidence it appeared that on Wednesday evening the deceased and a shipmate got drunk, the latter went on board, but the deceased did not. He was afterwards found lying on his back on the pavement in Marine Crescent. The medical evidence showed that death was due to fracture of the skull, and blood running into the lungs, causing suffocation.

The jury returned a verdict accordingly, adding that there was nothing to show what caused the fall.

Folkestone Herald 18 March 1899.

Folkestone Police Court.

On Saturday Michael Mannix, a soldier, who had been summoned under the name of Sarsfield, was charged with being found drunk on licensed premises, in the occupation of William Woodgate, on the 8th March.

P.S. Lilley deposed that about 25 past eight on the evening of the previous Wednesday, whilst in company with P.C. Watson in Dover Street, he saw the defendant, accompanied by another soldier, come down Dover Street. The defendant was very drunk. His cap was off. He could not keep upright, and had a narrow escape of going through Mr. Iverson's shop windows. They both turned round. He went into the Wellington. After waiting four or five minutes, witness went inside in a small bar. He had some difficulty in opening the door. When he had got in, the defendant's companion was holding him up. There were three glasses on the bar counter. Two contained ale, about half consumed. As he was speaking to the barmaid, the defendant took one glass up and drank the remainder. He was so drunk that he could scarcely stand in the bar. Witness called the barmaid's attention to it. She said she was aware of his condition now, but was not when defendant came in. Ultimately they left the premises. He followed them up High Street. He went to find the military provost. It was half past eight when he went in.

The Bench fined defendant 2s. 6d., 9s. costs, or 7 days' hard labour.

Folkestone Herald 25 March 1899.

Folkestone Police Court.

William Woodgate, landlord of the Wellington public house, Beach Street, was summoned for unlawfully selling intoxicating liquor to an intoxicated person. He pleaded Not Guilty. Mr. Minter represented the defendant.

P.S. Lilley deposed that on Wednesday, the 8th inst., about 8.25 p.m., he was in Dover Street, in company with P.C. Watson. He saw two soldiers come down the street; one was drunk. He was rolling about all over the street, and was obviously drunk. They both went into the Wellington public house in Beach Street. Witness waited about three or four minutes. Accompanied by the police constable he went in. In a small side bar he saw the two soldiers, one of whom was holding the other up. There were three glasses on the counter, two containing a quantity of ale. No-one was in the bar besides these two men. Witness said to a barmaid “Who served this man?” She said “I did”. Witness said “You see this one's condition?” She said “Yes, but I did not notice it when he came in”. Witness took the names and addresses of the soldier. The one who was drunk gave the name of William Sarsfield, and whilst doing so he took up some ale. He consumed the portion remaining in the glass. He asked the barmaid for the landlady, being under the impression that the licence was held by a woman. She went upstairs and returned with a woman named Mrs. Blake. Witness said “You see this man's condition?” She said “Yes”, and turning to the barmaid, she said “Who served them?” The barmaid answered “I did”. Witness then told her she would be reported for selling intoxicating liquor to a drunken person. He left the premises, and the soldiers followed soon after. He afterwards found out that the drunken man's name was Michael Mannix.

Cross-examined: The soldier in court was the sober one. The drunken soldier nearly fell into Mr. Iverson's window. The soldier was not interfering with anyone; he was simply drunk, creating no disturbance. Witness was out of sight of the public house. He, however, watched them go in. He did not interfere, because he did not consider it part of his business to conduct a public house. He expected to be called in to expel the soldier. He saw a woman come out. As to Mannix passing the military authorities, he said he did not take much notice of it.

P.C. Edward Robert Watson deposed that at 8.25 on Wednesday evening, 8th inst., he was in Dover Street, in company with P.S. Lilley. He saw two soldiers coming down there. One of them was very drunk, rolling about all over the place. They both went into the Wellington. A few minuts afterwards he went, with P.S. Lilley, to the small bar of the Wellington. He there saw the two soldiers. The sober one was holding up the drunken one. There were three glasses on the counter, two the contents of which were partly consumed, and one empty. P.S. Lilley asked the barmaid if she had served the drunken man. She said “Yes. I did not notice his condition until after he was served”. The barmaid said “I will go and fetch the landlady”. She brought a woman, who asked the barmaid if she had served the soldier. She said “Yes”. P.S. Lilley then told the woman she would be reported for serving a drunken soldier.

Cross-examined: The question put was “Did you serve that drunken soldier?” and that was repeated.

Mr. Minter said the landlord had not the slightest desire, never had had, to break the law with regard to the conditions under which he held his licence. He had always conducted his house in a proper manner, and in this instance, if what the police constable had said was true, there was no case to convict the landlord of the offence with which he was charged. It was not because – although he was going to deny it if necessary – his barmaid had made a mistake, that he was to be convicted of an offence never intended to be committed. They contended the girl said that she had supplied this drunken soldier, but did not observe his condition. If that was true, there was no offence.

The Clerk to the Justices (Mr. H.B. Bradley) said that the word “knowingly” was omitted from that section.

Mr. Minter said it was not intended a person should be convicted who served someone by mistake. He considered that there was no case here, supposing what the police constable said was true. He was in hopes that the Bench would at once say that was the view they took. It was an unpleasant duty for him to attack the veracity of the police. He was satisfied that the Bench would not accept the statement of the police if it was contradicted by credible witnesses, whom they could trust. The witnesses he would call were equally entitled to belief as Sergeant Lilley and the other policeman. It seemed to him to be a most extraordinary thing that a police constable, who saw a soldier coming down the street, did not prevent him from going into the public house, or follow him at once. One would have thought that would have been the duty of a police constable, seeing such a drunken man coming into the place. But he did nothing of the kind. He waited out there four minutes before he went in. He left the Bench to draw the inference as to why. To an ordinary person, the inference was perfectly plain. When the speaker cautioned him, he told the truth. The speaker asked him whether the sober one went in first. He admitted that. The speaker would show the Bench that independent of anything else, there was no offence committed by the landlord through the barmaid. The sober soldier went into the house, and there was a girl in the bar as well. He called for two glasses of beer and at the same time he ordered those two glasses the other man, the drunken soldier, was not in the house. There was no offence. She executed the order of the sober man. It was true that the other man came in afterwards. Then the police followed and complained about beer being supplied. The barmaid would tell the Bench that she was never asked whether she supplied the drunken soldier, and the landlady would inform them it was untrue that the girl said that she supplied this drunken soldier with the beer. The girl said she supplied the sober soldier with two glasses of beer, and the drunken soldier was in the house. That was confirmed by P.S. Lilley, who said that the drunken man did not go in until afterwards. There was no offence. Looking at the case as it stood, he asked the Bench to say, considering the character of the house, that there had been no offence committed, and that the landlord was entitled to the dismissal of the summons.

Rebecca Palmer, barmaid, deposed that on the occasion in question there were other people on the other side of the bar; it was full. McDermott, the sober soldier, came first in the little bar. She was busy. The soldier came in alone. He said “Two glasses of beer, please”. She drew it and put it on the counter. He paid her for it. The other soldier had not come in; she was sure of it. There was a woman in the little bar. On account of her conduct witness opened the door and put her out. The two policemen faced her. When she saw the drunken soldier, he was sitting down on a seat. She had not served him; she served McDermott. Both the policemen came in, and P.S. Lilley took their names. After that he asked witness if she had served this man with drink. She said “Yes I did. I served this man with two glasses”. The Sergeant was talking to the drunken soldier, who had not touched the glass. He had not had the chance. He said “Where is the landlady or the landlord?” The landlady was called. She did not notice that the so-called drunken man was drunk. There was no room for the man to stumble. He had been sitting down. After the Sergeant took his name, he said “Well, if you call me drunk, I will drink more to make me drunk”, and he drank the beer. Before, he had not touched it.

Driver McDermott, Royal Artillery, deposed that on the day in question he went into the public house first. Mannix's hat fell off, and he stayed outside to pick it up. Witness ordered two glasses of beer, and when he did so Mannix was not in the house. Witness paid for the beer. Mannix came in and sat on a seat. He saw the barmaid turn a woman out. The beer had not been touched. The police came in four or five minutes after they had been in. He asked the young woman if he was sober, and she said “Yes”. He told the policeman that he paid for the beer. She said “I served you. I did not know that he was behind”. It was untrue that witness held his comrade up because he was so helplessly drunk he could not stand. He had been with Mannix all the evening, but the latter had not had more than he. (Mr. Minter: You had a stronger head than he had”. Laughter) Mannix came and answered his name as a sober man. Witness reached the barracks about 11 o'clock. The barmaid had no means of knowing who the beer was for.

The Chairman said the Bench gave defendant the benefit of the doubt, and they dismissed the case.

Folkestone Herald 14 September 1901.

Saturday, September 7th: Before Alderman G. Spurgen, Councillors Vaughan and Carpenter, Mr. Stainer, and Lieut. Colonel Westropp.

John Marsh applied for and was granted the temporary transfer of the Wellington Inn.

Folkestone Herald 26 October 1901.

Wednesday, October 23rd: Before Messrs. W. Wightwick, W.G. Herbert, G.I. Swofer, and Lieut. Colonel Hamilton.

John Marsh was granted the transfer of the Wellington Inn.

Folkestone Herald 11 November 1905.

Saturday, November 4th: Before Alderman G. Spurgen, Alderman T.J. Vaughan, Lieut. Colonel R.J. Fynmore, and Mr. W.C. Carpenter.

Robert Jas. Smart, Patrick Maloney, and Robt. Richd. Fitzgerald were charged, on remand, with stealing a mackintosh, a coat, a scarf, and a pair of gloves from the residence of Major General W. Jackson, at 6, Castle Hill Avenue. The evidence previously given was read over and confirmed.

Detective Sergeant Burniston stated that at midnight on Wednesday, the 1st inst., he called on Alfred Howard, who handed him the coat produced, which was afterwards identified by Miss Hutter. The value of the mackintosh and overcoat was 30s.

Henry Boorman, the licensee of the Hope Inn, Great Fenchurch Street, said he recognised all the men except Fitzgerald. Smart and Maloney came to his house on Sunday and asked him to buy the coat produced. Maloney said a “man on the road” stopped him at the Radnor and asked him 4s. for it; he (Maloney) refused, but said if he had had the money he would have bought it. He went down Fenchurch Street, and about a minute afterwards Smart and a short man joined him.

Alfred Howard stated that he lived at the Tramway Tavern. On the previous Sunday he saw the prisoner Smart in Tontine Street with a party with whom witness worked, opposite the Clarendon Hotel. He asked him to buy a coat which he was wearing, saying he could have it for 4s. On being asked if the coat belonged to him, he replied that it did, and that he had not had it long. He also said he was hard up, wanted to go to Canterbury, and wanted food. He (witness) said he would give him 3s. for it, but if, when the prisoner got to Canterbury, he could pull himself round, he could have the coat back for the same money. He (witness) felt pity for the man, seeing his two badges (meaning his medal ribbons), and the position he was in. On the 1st inst., he handed the coat to D.S. Burniston.

Prisoners elected to be dealt with summarily. Smart pleaded Guilty to helping to steal the articles. Maloney pleaded Not Guilty, stating that he met Smart, who asked him to sell a coat, and he requested witness Boorman to buy it. Fitzgerald pleaded Guilty.

Inspector Swift stated that nothing was known against Maloney and Smart, but Fitzgerald was believed to be a Wm. Murray, who had many previous convictions for larceny against him.

Prisoners were sentenced to six weeks' imprisonment with hard labour, Alderman Spurgen remarking that people should be more careful in buying articles offered them by strangers, as they might find themselves in a serious position. He cautioned the witness Howard.

Folkestone Herald 20 October 1906.

Saturday, October 13th: Before Alderman J. Banks, Lieut. Colonel Hamilton, Major Leggett, Alderman W.G. Herbert, Councillor R.J. Fynmore, and Messrs. G.I. Swoffer, J. Stainer, R.J. Linton, and T. Ames.

Charles Bradshaw, a private in the 2nd Leicestershire Regiment, was charged with stealing a pair of socks.

Frederick Craker, a bricklayer, living in Greenfield Road, said he was standing opposite the shop belonging to Mr. Godden, the outfitter, on Saturday evening. Prisoner came out of a cookshop and was joined by two other soldiers. The three stood laughing and talking outside Mr. Godden's shop. Prisoner pulled down a bundle of sock that were hanging in the door and put one pair under his serge. He then walked away in the direction of Beach Street, but afterwards returned to the other two soldiers, and they all went into the Wellington public house together. Witness then gave information to P.C. Johnson.

Mrs. Marsh, the wife of Jno. Marsh, landlord of the Wellington beerhouse, said that during the previous afternoon, in consequence of what her daughter told her, she went into the bar, and found the socks produced.

Mr. Godden said he was in partnership with Mr. Horace Addison, and they carried on business as outfitters. The previous afternoon he saw prisoner and two other soldiers outside the Wellington, and on going out of his shop he found a bundle of socks lying on the footway. The pair produced was shown to him by P.C. Johnson, and he identified them as his property by the mark upon them. The value was 4½d.

P.C. Johnson said at 5.45 p.m. the previous day from information received from the witness Craker, he went to the Wellington public house. He there saw the prisoner, accompanied by two other soldiers, and said to them “I suspect you of having stolen a pair of socks from the shop opposite”. They all three said “We don't know anything about any socks”. They then accompanied him across to Mr. Godden's shop. Witness there searched them, but could not find any socks on them, and accordingly allowed them to go. Craker pointed out prisoner to witness, and said “That is the man who took the socks”. Prisoner was within hearing. Shortly afterwards the socks produced were handed to witness by Mrs. Marsh. He then went after the prisoner, and found him in Harvey Street. He told him he should take him to the police station and charge him with stealing the socks from Mr. Godden's shop.

Prisoner pleaded Guilty, and elected to be dealt with summarily. He said he was very sorry; he had always borne a good character.

An officer said prisoner held a very good character. He had been with the regiment two years, and had no entries against him at all.

The Chairman, addressing Bradshaw, said the Bench had taken a very lenient view of the case. Prisoner had done a very stupid thing indeed. He was wearing His Majesty's clothes, and yet he stupidly went and took a pair of socks which were of no use to him whatever. He would be discharged.

Folkestone Herald 8 December 1906.

Wednesday, December 5th: Before Alderman W.G. Herbert, Lieut. Colonel Hamilton, Major Leggett, Councillor R.J. Fynmore, and Messrs. T. Ames, J. Stainer, C.J. Pursey, and R.J. Linton.

Mr. Charles Coppin Skinner applied to have the licence of the Wellington beerhouse transferred to him from John Marsh.

The Chief Constable mentioned that Mr. Skinner was now holding the licence of the Tramway Tavern, which was cancelled at the Licensing Sessions, but he would be holding the two licences for a time if the Bench granted his application.

Mr. Cobay said the question of compensation to all the houses in the district whose licences had been refused at the Sessions had been settled the day before, and the Tramway Tavern would be closed on the 30th of the present month.

The application was granted.

Folkestone Herald 6 July 1907.

Monday, July 1st: Before Aldermen G. Spurgen and T.J. Vaughan, Councillor W.C. Carpenter, Lieut. Col. Fynmore, and Mr. T. Ames.

Chas. Fredk. Finn was charged, on warrant, with living wholly or partly on the earnings received from prostitution.

D.S. Burniston deposed that he had known the prisoner from the 20th May to the 12th June. He had resided with a woman named Kathleen Franklin, who was a prostitute. During that time prisoner had done no work, and witness had seen him standing morning, afternoon, and evening at the bottom of Tontine Street. He was frequently in the Wellington public house, and always dressed respectably, as he appeared there that day. On several occasions he had seen the woman Franklin in Harbour and South Streets in the afternoon, and had seen the prisoner meet her and receive something from her, and then go into the Wellington public house. He (witness) had seen prisoner late at night walking to 18, Fenchurch Street, where they lived. He last saw the accused on the 12th June at 11 a.m. in Tontine Street, and on the 13th, when a warrant was issued for his arrest, he left the borough. On the 12th the woman was arrested, and he disappeared the following morning.

Accused stated that he never received anything from the woman.

P.C. Sharpe stated that he, too, had known the accused since May, and during that time accused had lived with the woman Franklin at 18, Fenchurch Street. He kept observation on the woman, and had seen the man meet her and receive something from her. He used to go out of the Wellington, walk a few minutes, and sometimes went in the direction of Harbour or South Street, where he met the woman. They then went a little way up Dover Street, and he (witness) saw her hand something to the prisoner. The man afterwards returned to the public house, while the woman went in the direction of the Lower Sandgate Road. She was frequently in the Lower Sandgate Road. To his (witness's) knowledge the accused had done no work. On Saturday night last, he (witness) went to 18, Fenchurch Street at about 10 p.m., in company with Sergt. Dunster, and said to the accused “I have a warrant for your arrest”. He then charged the accused, who said that he was working now.

Mrs. Frances Jane Whiting, of 15, Fenchurch Street, deposed that she owned certain cottages, which she let out. She recognised the man, who came to her in May, and asked for a furnished room. He said that he was married, and was going to get some work at the brickfield. He took possession of the room, and the woman joined him. His tools came from Ashford, but she had never seen the man use them.

Defendant stated that he got his discharge from the Army about twelve months ago. He had always lived honestly, and had always paid his own way.

The Bench sentenced prisoner to six weeks' hard labour.

Folkestone Herald 11 April 1908.

Wednesday, May 8th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Lieut. Colonel Fynmore, Councillor R.G. Wood, and Mr. R.J. Linton.

George Robert Clark was summoned for being drunk on licensed premises. He pleaded Not Guilty.

P.C. Sales deposed that shortly after 10 o'clock on the night of the 26th March he saw defendant drunk in Beach Street. He saw him go into the Wellington beerhouse, but immediately afterwards he came out without being served. Witness cautioned him about being drunk on licensed premises. At 10.20 he saw him go into the Royal George public house, and witness, in company with P.C. Prebble, went into the house and told the barmaid not to serve him, and she did not. Witness asked him to leave the premises. At first he refused to go, but afterwards he left.

P.C. Styles stated that at 8 p.m. on the 26th March he saw defendant, with another man, go into the Princess Royal. Clark was drunk. Witness went in and told the barmaid not to serve him. He came out, and went towards the harbour.

A fine of 5s. and 10s. costs was imposed, or 7 days' hard labour.

Folkestone Herald 12 February 1910.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

Wednesday, February 9th: Before The Mayor, Lieut. Col. Hamilton, Lieut. Col. Fynmore, Major Leggett, Messrs. R.J. Linton, E.T. Ward, and J. Stainer.

The Chief Constable (Mr. Harry Reeve) presented his report. (For details see Folkestone Express)

The licences were then renewed, with the following exceptions, the consideration of which was referred to the Adjourned Licensing Sessions on March 7th next; The Chequers Inn, 3, Seagate Street; full licence; licensee Mr. Howlett; opposed by the Chief Constable on the ground of redundancy. The Wellington Tavern, 1, Beach Street; beer licence; licensee Mr. Skinner; opposed by the Chief Constable on the ground of redundancy.

The Rose Hotel, 24, Rendezvous Street, full licence, (licensee Mr. Hunt), was referred by the Bench to the adjourned sessions on account of the conviction recorded against the licensee during the year for permitting gaming on the premises.

Folkestone Herald 12 March 1910.

Adjourned Licensing Sessions.

Monday, March 7th: Before The Mayor, Lieut. Col. C.J. Hamilton, Major Leggett, Messrs. J. Stainer, W.G. Herbert, T. Ames, R.J. Linton, and G. Boyd.

The Wellington.

The renewal of the licence of the Wellington beerhouse, 1, Beach Street, had also been referred to these sessions. Mr. Warner appeared for the landlords, Messrs. Bushell, Watkins and Smith, of Westerham, and the licensee, Mr. Charles Copping Skinner.

The Chief Constable said that the Wellington Inn was situated in Beach Street, and was an ante 1869 beerhouse. He put in the figures as to the number of licences given in the last case. This house was situated in the congested area. The present tenant was Charles Copping Skinner, who obtained a transfer of the licence on December 5th, 1906. The registered owners were Messrs. Bushell, Watkins and Smith, of Westerham. The rateable value of the house was £32. There were two doors at the front of the house, one leading to the bar, and the other to a small bottle and jug department, which also opened into a small tap room at the side. That was the only accommodation. There was a side door to the house, which opened to Dover Street, and which the licensee had assured him was only used by his family and persons staying at the house. The house was situated at the corner of Beach Street, South Street, and Harbour Street. The Clarendon Inn and the South Foreland were each only 32 yards away. The South Foreland was rated at £72, and the Clarendon at £120. The Chequers, just at the back was rated at £28. In Beach Street there were only 34 houses, of which four were on licensed houses, two full licences and two beer licences. Within a radius of 100 yards there were twelve other on licensed houses; within a radius of 150 yards 17 others, and within a radius of 200 yards, 25 others. The trade of the house was rather a low class – chiefly hawkers and so on, and soldiers in the evening. He had no complaint to make, and no fault to find with the way in which the house was conducted by the present licensee.

In answer to Mr. Warner, the Chief Constable said that the Clarendon was a fully licensed house, and was a large place, belonging to Mr. Venner. The South Foreland was also a fully licensed house, and was also privately owned. He did not know who supplied the South Foreland, but very likely it was Messrs. Leney. In the congested area Messrs. Leney had six licensed houses, and they supplied others. He knew that there were rooms to let at the Wellington, and there might possibly be ten. The landlord had let lodgings there, and the rooms supplied a want so far as lodgings were concerned. He thought that both the Chequers and the Wellington could be spared from this district.

This concluded the case for the refusal of the licence, and in giving his reasons why it should be renewed, Mr. Warner said that the house was of value because it was situated at the corner of the street. It was a very old-established house, as the licence was originally granted in the seventeenth century. For some reason it was considered that a poor man should go to a beerhouse, and the better class man to a fully licensed house, so for that reason a beerhouse was necessary. He also thought that the licence should not be extinguished on the ground that it was the only on licence owned by Messrs. Bushell in Folkestone, and he considered that competition was good for trade.

Mr. Charles Copping Skinner said that he had been lessee of this house since December, 1906. He had been in the trade before, and paid a valuation of some £120 to go into these premises. There was a cork club, with 65 members, held on the premises. There were ten bedrooms in the house that could be let, and he found plenty of people to take them, especially in the summer time. There was a fair trade at the house, and he had no desire to leave it. They were working people who frequented the house, men from the Harbour and Fish Market, and the tradesmen around.

In answer to the Chief Constable, this witness said that the whole of the 65 members of the cork club did not go to the house at once, or there would be considerable difficulty in accommodating them. There were two off licences belonging to Messrs. Bushell in the town.

Mr. Herbert Armstrong said that he lived at 33, Garden Road, and was a postman. He frequently went to the Wellington Inn of an evening, and found that it was well attended. He identified his signature on a memorial signed by a number of people to the effect that the licence was required. (This document was put in) He considered that this house was required.

Mr. Warner was about to call other evidence from among the signatories to the petition to the effect that the house was necessary, but the Magistrates' Clerk (Mr. Bradley) intimated that the Bench did not want to hear other witnesses on that point.

Mr. Frank Newton said he was the Secretary and Manager of Messrs. Bushell's brewery, and he gave figures from the books of the company of the trade of the house. This showed the trade in 1904 to have been 108 barrels; 1905, 100 barrels; 1906, 120 barrels and 21 dozen; 1907, 189barrels and 189 dozen; 1908, 176 barrels and 236 dozen; 1909, 222 barrels, 217 dozen, and 158 crates. That worked out at 235 barrels last year. 4½ barrels a week were sold in 1909. His firm had no other on licences at Folkestone; there was one off licence at Bridge Street, and another in the Bradstone Road. In 1889 his firm spent £295 in improving these premises. His firm were most anxious to obtain the licence.

At the conclusion of the evidence the Bench decided, without retiring, that they would refer the house to the East Kent Compensation Committee.

Folkestone Herald 23 July 1910.

East Kent Licensing.

The principal meeting of the East Kent Licensing Committee was held at Canterbury on Monday; Lord Harris presided.

Only one house in Folkestone was down for consideration, viz., the Wellington, Beach Street, an ante 1869 beerhouse, of which Mr. Charles Copping Skinner is the tenant, and Messrs. Bushell, Watkins and Smith Ltd., Westerham, are the registered owners. Mr. Matthew appeared for the Licensing Justices, and Mr. Travers Humphrey for the owners.

Mr. Matthew said this house was situated in an area which, although there had been a large number of reductions made there, was still largely over-supplied with houses. There were 31 on licensed houses, of which 27 were filly licensed and 4 on-beer, and 3 off, making in all 38 (sic) licensed houses in the vicinity. These figures gave one licence to every 117 persons, or one on licence to every 144. In comparing this congested area with other parts, they had one in 117 as compared with one at 249 in other parts, or one on licence to every 144 as compared with one on licence to every 369 elsewhere. The accommodation of the Wellington was poor, and the class of trade done was also poor. Those who patronised the house were mainly hawkers and soldiers. Persons living in the locality did not seem to care for it, and there was ample other accommodation in Beach Street. Beach Street was a street of 24 houses, and of these four were licensed houses, including the Wellington. The other three were considerably larger than the Wellington. There were also three licensed houses in the adjoining street, all of considerably higher rateable value. Within 100 yards of the Wellington there were twelve licensed houses, within 150 yards, 17, and within 200 yards, 25. Therefore there could be no inconvenience to the public at large, or to the immediate neighbourhood, if this licence was taken away. Although he had said the trade was poor, it had no doubt of late years been increasing, and this was the result of closing a number of licensed houses in the district. In late years twelve licences altogether had been taken away. The figures of the trade which were placed before the justices were:- in 1903, 125 barrels; in 1904, 108; in 1905, 120; in 1906, 189; in 1907, 176; and last year 221 barrels. But if the matter was to rest entirely upon whether the trade was increasing or not in the congested area, then there could be no more taking away of licences. If they took away one house in the congested area, it would only have the effect of increasing the trade at the other houses. Therefore he asked the Committee not to rely on those figures, but to have regard to the ample accommodation there was without this licence.

Mr. H. Reeve, the Chief Constable of Folkestone, in the course of his evidence, said the congested area also had two registered clubs in it. The charges of drunkenness for the year ending the 30th of December were 93 for the whole borough, and 37 of these came from the congested area. The rateable value of the Wellington was £32, and directly behind it was the Chequers, a fully licensed house, while the Clarendon was only 32 yards away, and the South Foreland also 32 yards in the other direction. The rateable value of the South Foreland was £72, and of the Clarendon £120. There were three other licensed houses in Beach Street besides the Wellington; the Royal George (rateable value £56), the Alexandra (£76), and the Wonder Tavern (£36). In the adjoining street, Harbour Street, there were three licensed houses; the Harbour (rateable value £56), the True Briton (£60), and the London and Paris (£60). All these houses were within 60 or 80 yards of the Wellington, with the exception of the London and Paris.

In reply to Mr. Humphreys, Mr. Reeve said although the Chequers was a fully licensed house, it was rated lower than the Wellington, which was in a very good position. There were no complaints against the tenant's character, or the way the place was conducted.

Mr. Humphreys: Is it your experience that since so many houses have been closed – no fewer than nine within a distance of 100 yards – that the trade has generally gone up at the others? – I should say that would be so, sir.

That would seem to be the result of the working of the Act? – In a small area like this, yes.

You know, of course, who are the brewers who supply most of the remaining houses? – Yes. Sir.

And I believe this is the only house which is supplied by Messrs. Bushell, Watkins and Smith? – It is the only on licence.

And they supply two other places in Folkestone? – Yes, but not in this neighbourhood.

And of the remaining houses in this neighbourhood, five are supplied by one firm of brewers? – I would not go so far as to say that, sir. There are several brewers in this neighbourhood.

There are a number of bedrooms at the Wellington? – Nine or ten.

And they let well in the summer? – I think he does do well with his letting.

Therefore, so far as the bedrooms are concerned, they rather supply a need in the neighbourhood? – I don't say they are necessary to a licensed house.

But some people prefer to have their bedrooms at a public house? – Yes, there are some. (Laughter)

The Chief Constable further stated that the Chequers had a better class customer than the Wellington, and was used by the people employed in the Harbour, and who were always in regular employment.

Detective Sergt. Burniston gave corroborative evidence.

Lord Harris: Where are the hawkers going if this licence is taken away? – There are other houses, my Lord.

Are there other houses which would like the hawkers to come to them? – Yes, sir.

And you think that the incursion of the hawkers into those other houses would not frighten other customers away? – No, sir.

If the hawkers invade the Chequers, for instance, will the harbour hands still go there? – I think so, sir.

Has that been your experience – that where a house has been closed the customers of that house have distributed themselves among the other houses? – Yes, sir.

Without inconvenience to the regular customers of those other houses? – Yes, sir.

Mr. Humphreys, in support of the application for the renewal, said it was very desirable that there should be different classes of house – a house that catered for the tradesmen, and one for such a class as hawkers. These people would not go without their beer, and no-one would contend that they should. They might go somewhere where their presence would not be welcome, and he submitted that so long as the house they patronised was well conducted, there was the strongest possible argument for the retention of the licence. Another reason was that this was the only house where the special kind of beer sold there could be obtained in that part of town, and to close this house would therefore be hard upon those wishing to procure Messrs. Bushell's beer, and would also be a little hard upon the owners as well. Then again, the Committee might consider that sufficient houses had already been taken away from this particular neighbourhood. The result of closing some of the houses had been to increase the trade done by the other houses. Therefore it had not met the purposes for which the Act was passed, namely, to diminish drinking. The trade done at the Wellington was unquestionably a large one, and had gone up and up as there had been fewer and fewer competitors. Last year it had gone up to 235 barrels, including the bottle and crate trade, whereas it was only 100 to 120 in the year that the Act to diminish drinking was passed. It was still increasing, moreover, and this year would undoubtedly be larger than ever.

Mr. Skinner, the tenant, stated that he had been at the house since December, 1906. He paid £20 a year rent, and was assessed at £32. He had a benefit club at the house, with a membership of 65. He also had ten bedrooms, which let well in the season. He never at any time had any difficulty in controlling the hawkers, his usual class of customer. He was doing a good trade there, and it was increasing. There were also two or three restaurants in the vicinity, and they had the refreshments required by their customers from his house.

In reply to Mr. Matthew, witness said his usual charge for a bed was 1s. 6d., although he sometimes let beds for sixpence in the winter time.

Mr. Frank Baker Newton, secretary and manager to Messrs. Bushell, Watkins and Smith, stated that the Wellington was a very old-established house, and was said to date back to 1700. In 1889 his firm spent £300 on it, and it was the only on licence the firm had in Folkestone. They served two off licensed houses as well, but they were some distance away from the Wellington. Their barrelage for this year, if the increase went on in proportion, would be 282 barrels. This would mean an average of 5½ barrels a week, which was a very good trade indeed. Three barrels a week for a public house was always regarded as a good trade.

Mr. Ernest Marwood, of 5, Harbour Street, stated that he lived close to the Wellington, and kept a restaurant. He had no licence for intoxicating liquors, and got his customers' requirements from the Wellington. But for the Wellington he would have to go up the Foord Road for this firm's beer, when asked for it, as he often was.

The Committee decided to renew the licence.

Folkestone Herald 15 February 1913.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

Wednesday, February 12th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Lieut. Col. Fynmore, Lieut. Col. Hamilton, Major Leggett, Mr. W.G. Herbert, Mr. J. Stainer, and Mr. G. Boyd.

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

The Chairman remarked that the report was a very satisfactory one, but, in the opinion of the Bench, there were still too many public houses in certain portions of the town, and they would defer the renewal of certain of the licences to the adjourned sessions, so that they might have evidence as to what trade they were doing, and see if any of them were to be referred to the compensation authority.

The licensees of the Raglan Tavern, the Oddfellows, Dover Street, the Royal Oak, North Street, the Isle of Cyprus, the Lord Nelson, the Lifeboat, and the Wellington were called forward.

The Chairman said the renewal of the licences of those public houses would be deferred until the adjourned licensing sessions, and notice of opposition would be served in the meantime on the ground of redundancy. The Chief Constable would be directed to serve the notices.

The licences of all the other houses were then renewed.

Folkestone Herald 15 March 1913.

Adjourned Licensing Sessions.

The adjourned Annual Folkestone Licensing Sessions were held at the Police Court on Monday, when the licences of the seven houses deferred at the Annual General Sessions came up for hearing. Mr. E.T. Ward was in the chair, and he was supported by Mr. W.G. Herbert, Lieut. Colonel C.J. Hamilton, Mr. J. Stainer, Mr. R.J. Linton, Mr. G. Boyd, Alderman C. Jenner, Captain Chamier, Mr. J.J. Giles, Councillor W.J. Harrison, Mr. E.T. Morrison and Councillor A. Stace.

The Wellington.

The licence of the Wellington was next considered. Mr. Warner, of Tonbridge, appeared for the owners.

The Chief Constable said that this was an ante-1869 beerhouse, formerly known as the British Colours, and situated in Beach Street, at the corner of Dover Street. The licensee was Charles Skinner, who had held the licence since December of 1906. The owners were Messrs. Bushell, Watkin and Smith, of Westerham, and the rateable value was £29. Here were two front doors leading into the house from Beach Street, one opening into the front bar, and the other into a small bottle and jug department, which also led to a tap room on the right hand side. There was a side door which opened into Dover Street, but which the licensee had told him was only used by himself and his family and persons who might be staying in the house. The urinal provided was in a very small back yard, and was approached only through the kitchen of the licensee. The Chequers, in Seagate Street, had an entrance to the yard directly by the side of the Wellington. The Clarendon Hotel, with a rateable value of £120, was only thirty two yards away in Tontine Street. There were altogether twenty three houses in Beach Street. Four of them were on licensed houses, two full licensed, and two had beer licences. In the adjoining street there were the Harbour Inn, the True Briton, and the London and Paris Hotel. All these had large public bars, and ample accommodation for the customers using the Wellington. This house was really situated about the centre of the congested area, and within a radius of one hundred yards there were twelve other on-licensed premises. Within 150 yards there were 17 houses, and within 200 yards there were 25 houses. He had no complaint to make as to the conduct of the Wellington, but he certainly felt that it was one of the houses that could be spared, and the customers who used it could find ample accommodation elsewhere.

Cross-examined by Mr. Warner: The Clarendon was in some measure a house which would serve different people to the Wellington. The same applied to the South Foreland. The Chequers was next to the South Foreland on one side, and the Wonder was on the other. He considered these three houses in a row to be congestion. He thought that the Wellington should go first because it was the least suitable in his opinion, as the urinal accommodation was very bad, the public having to go through the licensee's kitchen. That, he admitted, was a question of structure, and had nothing to do with the question of redundancy. There was a congestion of public houses there, and he held that the Wellington was the least suitable for the purposes of licensed premises. He considered that it was inferior to the surrounding houses. In the case of the Chequers, they had a large open yard, but in that of the Wellington they had nothing of that sort behind. If the owners altered the urinal one of his objections would be done away with. He remembered something about plans being put in to alter this urinal. He knew that this was the only house which Messrs. Bushell had in Folkestone. It was treated as their ewe lamb. (Laughter) If it was taken away the customers would not be able to enjoy Bushell's beer. (Laughter) The house was well situated for police supervision.

The Chairman asked whether, supposing this house was closed, there would be a similar house for people to go to.

The Chief Constable: Yes. All the others in Dover Street.

Mr. Chas. Skinner, the licensee, said he paid as valuation when he went into the house the sum of £112 14s., and there was the stock in addition. The rent was £20, and the assessment £29. He had ten letting bedrooms, and had a good class letting trade. The trade of the house was middle class in character. Amongst their customers they had the restaurants in Beach Street. Directly opposite to this house there were premises being offered for the use of Territorials, and he hoped for custom from them. He had a petition signed by 247 people, some of whom were customers. His takings averaged £2 10s. a day. In 1912 he paid over £24 for minerals. He sold about three dozen meat pies a day. The takings for lunch biscuits, sandwiches and pies were about £2 a week - £106 a year. He was doing a good business, which had increased since the date of the previous hearing, and was still increasing.

Cross-examined by the Chief Constable: If the licence was taken away, there was nothing to prevent him still letting the bedrooms.

Mr. F. Newton said the average for the last three years was 238½ barrels a year, whereas for the previous three years it was only 205 barrels. This was the only on-licensed house that Messrs. Bushell had in the town. They had spent £300 on the house a few years back. He was satisfied with the trade of this house. The trade was more than double than when Mr. Marsh had the house. He left in 1906. His average for 1903 to 1906 was 108 barrels a year.

Mr. Warner said that the house had been previously referred to the Quarter Sessions by the Bench, and the licence had been renewed at the Quarter Sessions. He admitted that the urinal accommodation was not as satisfactory as it might be, but when the Chief Constable made a point of that it became a matter of structural alteration, whereas the question before them was one of redundancy. They had had plans drawn up regarding this urinal, but they were unfortunately mislaid some time past in the Magistrates' Clerk's Office. This was his clients' only house in Folkestone, and if they were going to disallow the licence they would be doing his clients a serious injury. If they took a licence away the trade of other houses would increase. He did not suppose that any member of the Bench would think that by taking away this licence they would be doing anything to reduce drunkenness. If people could not go to this house, they would certainly go somewhere else. He could see no reason why this house should be chosen to be referred to Quarter Sessions. He produced a petition signed by 243 people.

The Magistrates retired for a period to consider their decisions. On their return the Chairman said that the licence of the Wellington would be renewed, but they thought it was as well that the question of the urinals should be considered, and the Bench suggested that plans in that connection should be submitted.

Folkestone Herald 24 February 1917.

Friday, February 23rd: Before Mr. G.I. Swoffer, Councillor G. Boyd, Councillor W.J. Harrison, Councillor A. Stace, Councillor C.Ed. Mumford, and the Rev. H. Epworth Thompson.

John Salmon, licensee of the Wellington public house, was summoned for serving beer to a soldier at Folkestone for embarkation on February 18th. Mr. H.J. Myers represented defendant, who pleaded Not Guilty.

Lieut. Albert C. Holmes, in charge of the Canadian Military Police, said that at 7.45 on the evening of February 18th he went into the Wellington, in Beach Street, and saw a soldier of the King's Yorks Light Infantry, to whom defendant was handing a glass of beer. The soldier said, when questioned, that he was an overseas man, and had not been asked by the landlord as to whether he was an overseas man or not. Witness handed the soldier over to the picket, and told the landlord it would mean prosecution, and possibly his house being put out of bounds. Defendant said he had asked some troops if they were overseas, and if they said they were not, he could not help it. Witness told him there was no difficulty in telling an overseas man.

By Mr. Myers: There was a picket close to the Wellington. It was not possible for the picket to prevent overseas men going into bars. On this evening witness went into several hotels, probably a dozen, and when he found in the bar overseas men who said they had been questioned and not served by the publican, he did not report the publican. An overseas Imperial soldier would not look like a Canadian; his collar was different, his khaki was a different shade, and the badges were different.

Lieut. Crowther said the soldier was an overseas man.

Defendant, on oath, said he had held the licence since November 15th last year. He always asked soldiers if they were men for overseas, and, if so, they were not served. Owing to the shading of the lights he was not able to distinguish the uniform of soldiers from his own side of the bar. Witness could not exactly identify the man concerned in the summons, but he asked every soldier he served whether he was an overseas man.

By the Magistrates' Clerk: The only means he had of telling whether a man was overseas was that he asked them.

Mr. Andrew: And you are satisfied with that? – Yes.

Has any man ever told you he was an overseas man? – Yes, and I have refused to serve them.

Mrs. Lily Salmon, wife of the defendant, said on this evening she repeatedly told the men: If any of you are for overseas, I can't serve you.

Mr. Myers: Have any of the men told you they are overseas? – No, they don't do so if they want a drink. (Laughter)

Continuing, witness said the men were all in khaki, and she could not tell one from another. She knew a Canadian by his buttons and badges. She served the man in question with one pint, which he was drinking when Lieut. Holmes came in. The soldier told Lieut. Holmes that witness had asked him if he was overseas, and he had said “No”.

By the Magistrates' Clerk: She always took the men's words. An Englishman's word was his bond.

The Clerk: Oh, is it?

By the Chief Constable: Witness knew the soldier was not a Canadian, and that was why she asked him if he was an overseas man.

Jas. Small, a cutler, of New Bridge Street, said he was in the bar and heard the troops asked as they came in if they were overseas men. All the men said they were not.

Geo. Seymour, marine store dealer, 16, Radnor Street, gave similar evidence.

Mr. Myers submitted that defendant and his wife were not experienced in the licensed trade. If the Bench were satisfied that the defendant took precautions, and was told by the soldiers they were not for overseas, then the case should be dismissed.

Defendant was fined £5, the Chairman remarking that the Bench had very grave doubts whether defendant was a proper man to hold a licence.

Folkestone Herald 9 February 1918.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

Wednesday, March 6th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Lieut. Col. R.J. Fynmore, Mr. G.I. Swoffer, Councillor G. Boyd, Colonel G.P. Owen, Councillor E. Stace, Mr. H. Kirke, and the Rev. H. Epworth Thompson.

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

The Chairman observed that the number of cases of drunkenness was few compared with any previous year, a matter upon which all were to be congratulated. There were some offences against licence holders for supplying overseas soldiers, but there was no doubt whatever licensees had very great difficulty in the matter. Mr. Ward added that the whole of the licences would be renewed, with the exception of those of the Queen's Hotel and the Wellington, which would be considered at the adjourned sessions.

The adjourned licensing meeting was fixed for 6th March.

Folkestone Herald 3 October 1925.

Saturday, September 26th: Before Mr. G.I. Swoffer, Alderman C. Ed. Mumford, Mr. W.R. Boughton, Dr. W.W. Nuttall, and Col. P. Broome-Giles.

Harry Andrews was charged with being drunk and disorderly in Tontine Street.

The Magistrates' Clerk (Mr. J. Andrew): Are you Guilty or Not Guilty?

Prisoner: I admit I had a few drinks.

The Magistrates' Clerk: What about being disorderly?

Prisoner: I was not. I could walk straight.

P.C. Simpson said at 2.05 p.m. on the previous afternoon he was on duty in Tontine Street when he noticed a large crowd near the Wellington Inn. On going there he saw the prisoner, who was very drunk, struggling with his wife for possession of a pram. Accused was using most filthy language. He cautioned him, and prisoner went up the street with his wife. About half way up the street his wife left him, and prisoner took possession of the pram, swerving from side to side of the street, and swearing at everyone who got in the way. Witness spoke to defendant, who used obscene language, and threatened to strike him with a trowel. He took him into custody. On searching him at the police station he found 18s. 7d. in his possession. There were various odds and ends in the pram.

Defendant said he had had a few half pints. He was very sorry. He met a few friends he had not seen for a long time and had a few drinks. He was a bricklayer. He did not use obscene language.

Inspector Pittock said prisoner had been in Folkestone about a month with his wife. They were staying at a common lodging house.

A fine of 5s. was imposed.

Folkestone Herald 10 March 1928.

Adjourned Licensing Meeting.

Wednesday, March 6th: Before Mr. G.I. Swoffer, Mr. A. Stace, Mr. J.H. Blamey, Mr. W. Griffin, Dr. W.W. Nuttall, and Col. P. Broome-Giles.

The Magistrates sanctioned the transfer of the following licence: Wellington Inn, from Lily Salmon to James V. Salmon.

Folkestone Herald 27 September 1930.

Obituary.

We regret to record the death of Mr. John Marsh, aged 71, for 25 years the licensee of the Alexandra Tavern, Bridge Street, which occurred at his residence on Sunday after a painful illness patiently borne. Mr. Marsh was a Folkestonian, having lived in the town practically all his life. Previous to taking the Alexandra Tavern, he held a licence at The Wellington, Harbour Street and at Alkham. He was a blacksmith by trade and had been employed in that capacity by the Earl of Radnor for about 30 years. Mr. Marsh was very well-known in the town although of a quiet disposition.

He leaves a widow, three sons, seven daughters, and 23 grandchildren. Early next year Mr. and Mrs. Marsh would have celebrated their golden wedding. Much sympathy will be felt for the relatives in their sad bereavement.

The funeral took place very quietly at the Folkestone Cemetery (Hawkinge).

Folkestone Herald 22 June 1946.

Local News.

Demolition work by the Corporation has been started in the Beach Street area. Men were yesterday engaged in pulling down the badly damaged Wellington Hotel, at the bottom of Dover Street.

The Borough Engineer (Mr. E.L. Allman) told the Folkestone Herald yesterday “We are pulling down war damaged buildings which the War Damage Commission say can be demolished. After doing a few buildings in the Beach Street area we are going to deal with damaged property in the Brockman Road area, returning later to the Harbour area. We have made a complete clearance in the Bridge Street area”.

Folkestone Herald 11 February 1956.

Notice.

In the County of Kent, Broough of Folkestone.

To: The Clerk to the Rating Authority for the Borough of Folkestone in the County of Kent.

The Clerk to the Licensing Justices for the Borough of Folkestone in the County of Kent,

The Chief Constable of Kent,

And to all whom it may concern.

I, Harry Frederick May, now residing at The Lifeboat Inn Folkestone in the County of Kent, Beerhouse Keeper, do hereby give notice that it is my intention to apply at the second session of the General Annual Licensing Meeting for the said Borough, to be holden at the Town Hall, Folkestone, on Wednesday the 29th day of February 1956 for the grant to me of a Justices Licence authorising me to apply for and hold an Excise Licence to sell by retail any intoxicating liquor which may be sold under a Spirit Retailers (or Publican's) Licence for consumption either on or off the premises situate at The Lifeboat Inn, North Street, Folkestone aforesaid of which premises Messrs. Mackeson & Company Limited of Brewery, Hythe, in the said County, are the owners of whom I rent them and it is my intention at the hearing of the application for the new licence to offer to surrender the following licences:-

(a) The licence now in suspense relating to the premises known as “The Wellington”, Beach Street, Folkestone, of which premises Messrs. Bushell Watkins & Smith Limited of The Black Eagle Brewery, Westerham is the registered owner.

(b) The licence now in suspense relating to the premises known as “The Wonder Tavern”, Beach Street, Folkestone, of which premises Messrs. Flint & Co. of 58, Castle Street, Dover is the registered owner.

Given under my hand this 2nd day of February, 1956.

H. F. May.

Folkestone Herald 3 March 1956.

Adjourned Licensing Sessions.

The grant of a full licence to the Lifeboat Inn, North Street, and the surrender of the suspended licences of the Wonder Tavern and the Wellington, Beach Street, were agreed at the adjourned Folkestone Licensing Sessions on Wednesday.

Mr. P. Bracher, making the applications, said there appeared to be no objection. There was a beer licence at the Lifeboat Inn, but facilities were wanted to supply all types of alcohol. He said there was a definite demand for it because there were more people living in the area, and because of the summer trade. The matter had been before the Licensing Planning Committee, and no objection was raised by them to the application. Mr. Bracher said the present premises of the Lifeboat Inn were not what the brewers desired. The cottage next door was coming down, and it was the brewers' immediate intention to improve the Lifeboat Inn. Arrangements were made with the Corporation for the acquisition of the property and for the setting back of the road. Plans for the improvement of the premises would come before the Justices for approval in the very near future. He said the premises on the sea side, only partially protected from the weather, were going to be temporarily rebuilt at once. When the cottage came down a wall, with windows in it, would be erected. It would be a comparatively temporary arrangement while plans for the better siting of the house were being prepared. Something had to be done for the comfort of the tenant and the customers as soon as the adjoining cottage was demolished. Mr. Bracher went on to explain that it was proposed that two other licences in suspense should be surrendered. Arrangements and discussions had gone on with the Customs and Excise that the value of the licences should not be paid to the owners of the premises, but be taken by the Customs and Excise in consideration of the additional monopoly value which would be payable in respect of the Lifeboat Inn. The two licences which it was proposed to surrender were in respect of the Wellington and the Wonder Tavern, in Beach Street. Dealing with the figure, Mr. Bracher said if no surrender had been made of any other licence, it was agreed with the Customs and Excise that it should be £600, the additional monopoly value payable on the grant of a full licence in respect of the Lifeboat Inn. After that had been settled the value of the two other licences was agreed at £250 and £350, a total of £600. There was no alteration in the monopoly value payable on the Lifeboat Inn simply because the two other licences were being surrendered to satisfy the payment. He said the owners and holders of the other two licences had authorised him to say they had consented to the surrender.

Harry Frederick May, the licensee of the Lifeboat Inn for eight years, said there was a demand for wines and spirits. Nearby was the W.T.A. Hostel, where there were 140 visitors in the summer. In addition a block of flats had been built in North Street and many visitors used the area in the summer. He said ladies' darts matches were held at the Lifeboat Inn, and the secretary of the team told him there was difficulty in arranging matches with other houses because wines and spirits were not obtainable.