From the Dover Express and East Kent News, 11 March, 1938.

DOVER LICENSING SESSIONS

Corporation and a License.

An application was made by the Town Clerk (Mr. S. R. H. Loxton) for the license of the "Wheatsheaf" Inn, Ladywell, which was being acquired by the Dover Corporation under a Compulsory Purchase Order, to be referred to the Compensation Authority.

Mr. Harold Tuffee, (of Harold Tuffee and Smith, Gravesend), appeared on behalf of the Kent Brewers' Union to object.

The Town Clerk said that the position with regard to the house was that the Corporation, some little time ago, made a Compulsory Purchase Order for the acquisition of the house, the "Wheatsheaf," Ladywell, and certain other properties, as they desired to erect a new Police Station on the site. All the properties except the "Wheatsheaf" and one other, had now been acquired by the Corporation, as the Compulsory Purchase Order had been confirmed. As regard the "Wheatsheaf," a price had been agreed with the owners for the acquisition of the property, and the draft contract was in course of preparation. Notice to treat had been served and the Corporation could serve notice of entry, which would enable them to take possession within 21 days. That had not been done yet, but he could tell them the reason why. The agreed price included the full value of the licence attached to it, and, when the purchase was completed, the Corporation would own not only the "Wheatsheaf" but the license and all the rights and privileges which by law were attached to licenses property, but as they were going to demolish it for police station purposes the licence was not of very much use to them. The Corporation would, accordingly be in possession of a valuable asset, for which they had paid full value, and not be able to use it for their own benefit. Under those circumstances it was the duty of the Corporation to do all they could to recover for the ratepayers such money as possible in order to reimburse the ratepayers for what they had spent in acquiring the licence. The Corporation as trustees of the ratepayers, would not be justified nor would hey be carrying out their duty if they allowed the licence to lapse and made no effort to recover any part of the cost. Really, the purchase price could be split into two parts, one in respect of the property and the other in respect of the licence. There were to ways in which the Corporation could recover the cost which they paid in the acquisition of the licence. One was by applying for the removal of the licence. The Corporation would, without doubt, be at liberty to apply for a special removal and the grounds for refusing were very limited. They were limited to the structural unsuitability of the premises to which the licence was to be transferred or the unsuitability of the character or otherwise of the proposed licence holder, and then of course, the licence would be void. However, one of the objectives of the Licensing Consolidation Act, 1910, had been to reduce, so far as practical, the number of licences and the number of licensed premises. The Corporation, bearing that in mind, had decided that would be the better course for them to adopt than for them to apply to the magistrates for the removal of the licence. Therefore, he asked the magistrates to refer the house to the Compensation Authority, who would then consider whether the licence was or was not to be renewed, and if the Corporation Authority decided that the licence was not to be renewed the Corporation would be entitled to receive compensation from the Compensation Fund. The Notice of Objection which had been served in that case contained two grounds of objection. The first was that Mayor, Alderman and Burgesses having under the Ladywell Place Compulsory Purchase Order, power to acquire these premises and the licence, had resolved to exercise the power and demolish the house for a new police station, and accordingly the renewal of the licence was unnecessary and undesirable, and not in the interests of the public. That was his first and main ground of objection. His second ground was that, having regard to the character of the neighbourhood, the number of licences there and in the immediate vicinity, was excessive, and the licence was unnecessary. He did not for one moment suggest that the house was redundant in the usual accepted sense of the word. He understood that the trade of the house was good, and on the trade question, he admitted there would be no grounds for asking the magistrates to refer it to the Compensation Authority on the grounds of redundancy. It could be argued, and he submitted with some force, that the house might be regarded as redundant on account of other licensed houses. There were seven fully licensed houses within two-hundred yards - two extremely close, more or less on the other side of the road - five within three hundred yards and nine or more within a distance of 400 yards. There was little doubt that, at any rate, the two nearer houses would be in  a position adequately to carry such trade as the "Wheatsheaf" carried, when the property was demolished. Moreover, it was reasonable to anticipate that the trade at the "Wheatsheaf" might be, in the future, slightly less than it was at the moment, or had been recently on account of the demolition of property in Ladywell and the re-housing of the tenants elsewhere. His main ground was that the property was to be demolished and the Corporation were going to use the site as a police station, and according to the renewal was unnecessary and undesirable, and not in the public interest. The Licensing Act of 1910 set out the grounds on which Justices could refuse to renew a licence and, without a doubt, Justices had power legally to refer the "Wheatsheaf" to the Compensation Authority on any ground they saw fit. They had complete discretion in every manner, and did not have to prove in law that it was redundant before they referred it to the Compensation Authority. It was perfectly clear in law that the Justices were entitled to accept his first objection as being sound and refer the licence to the Compensation Authority on the grounds that it was to be demolished and the renewal of the licence was unnecessary and undesirable. That was what he was asking them to do. Of course, the argument might be put forward that it was unfair that the Corporation should seek to benefit from the Compensation Fund, as they had not, in fact, contributed to it. In reply to that he would suggest that the Town Council - that was the ratepayers of the town - had purchased these licensed premises, and purchased them with the licence, and if that were surrendered without any compensation it would be the grossest possible injustice to the ratepayers. The surrender of the licence would be a direct gain to other licensees, and it would be most unfair to allow the benefits which occurred from the surrender of the licence to go to other licensed house in the district without payment or compensation. In asking the Justices to refer this matter, he would point out that it was not for them to decide whether the licence should be ultimately renewed. If they referred it to the Compensation Authority the whole matter would be considered by hose who might, in that instance, be regarded as a higher authority. He suggested that if the Justices declined to refer the house for compensation they would be taking the matter out of the hands of the higher authority without giving them a chance to adjudicate on it. Having regard to the circumstances he suggested that the Corporation's case was by no means unreasonable. In conclusion, he would like to give the reasons for that application being made. The Corporation, as he had said, desired to demolish the building and desired to demolish it soon. Although the Corporation had not actually purchased they were is a position to obtain possession at any time within twenty-one days and if they waited until they actually acquired the property before they made the application it would, in effect, mean waiting until this time next year, and it was hoped that by this time next year, unless something went wrong, the house would not be in existence. He understood that Messrs. George Beer and Rigden, the owners, and whose representative was also the licensee, were not offering any objections to his application in the matter.

Inspector Saddleton gave formal evidence in regard to the number of licensed houses in the vicinity, as detailed by the Town Clerk.

In replying to Mr. Tuffee, witness said that there were twenty-one licensed houses within the radius of four hundred yards of the "Wheatsheaf." He thought there were sufficient houses for that area, and he was of the opinion that one or perhaps more could be dispersed with. He understood that the weekly takings at the "Wheatsheaf" were about £30.

Mr Tuffee said that his objections were on behalf of the Kent Brewers' Union, which comprised the whole of the brewers in Kent, with two exceptions. He did not think it was necessary for him to refer to the Town Clerk's second ground of objection, because he had no confidence in it himself. The Town Clerk said that the trade of the house was satisfactory, and the only thing was that it was near other licensed premises, but of course, it was no nearer to the other houses than they were to it, and there was no reason why this one should be regarded as redundant as opposed to the others. The Town Clerk spoke about the Corporation's duty to the ratepayers, to whom they were trustees, but, surely, it was not the duty of the Corporation to dip their fingers into a fund which was raised for an entirely different purpose. The Corporation were going to buy the property and licence, and pay for it and said, "We can get some of that back, if we are lucky!" But why should they choose to come on the Compensation Fund to recoup themselves when they could easily be recouped by applying for a special removal of the licence? He was going to say straight away that it was not a proper thing to refer this licence to the Compensation Authority. The Compensation Fund was raised or invented to compensate the owners and licensees where the licence was declared and found to be redundant, and it was contributed to by the whole business of licensees and brewers and everyone connected with the trade. He knew he would be referred to another case, the Leeds Corporation v. Rider, of 1907, where the Lord Chancellor said that he saw no objection to arrangements being made between the owners of public houses and the members of the Licensing Committee, with a view to the suppression of licences, under Section 1 of the Act of 1904, and that he regarded that as an obvious and legitimate means of carrying out the intentions of the Act. But it had been held in various ways that that was not necessarily what should be done in every particular case. If they referred to the housing Act of 1936, that contained special provisions for cases where land purchases by the local authority for slum clearance, to development areas or improvement areas is included licensed premises. The provisions stated that if the local authority intimated to the Licensing Justices that they were wishing to surrender the licence, the Licensing Justices might refer the matter to the Compensation Authority, who on being satisfied that if the licence had not been surrendered it might properly have been dealt with as redundant, they should contribute out of the Compensation Fund. The Town Clerk would say that that was nothing to do with the case in point. But was not the law as it stood relating to reasons for referring a licence which was not redundant and why was it passed if they could have gone under some other provision? But if the Town Clerk should convince them that they had authority to refer the licence to the Compensation Authority he suggested that was an authority which they should not exercise. The Corporation had bought an article which was worth money, and why should they not pay for it? What member of the public could properly object to paying a proper price for an article which they required and were empowered to have? He asked the Bench to renew the license unconditionally. That would give the Town Council and the Corporation an opportunity to come before them if they thought fit and ask for a special removal of the licence, or, perhaps what they should do, surrender it.

The Town Clerk said that the fact that there might have been some doubt cast on the ruling of the Lord Chancellor in the Leeds Corporation case, did not override the decision, and if it was not amended by subsequent statutory enactment, whatever doubts there may be, must remain as doubts only. With regards to the Housing Act, this was not a housing matter at all, and because the Housing Act made special provisions, it did not mean that the ordinary common sense ruling of the Licensing Consolidation Act could not be relied upon.

The Magistrates, after they had retired, announced that the licence would be referred to the Compensation Authority.

From the Dover Express and East Kent News, 17 June, 1938.

CLOSING DOWN PUBLIC HOUSES

APPEAL THREAT IN "WHEATSHEAF" CASE

The East Kent Licensing Authority met at Canterbury on Friday last, when the four Dover houses referred to by the licensing Justices came up.

THE "WHEATSHEAF"

In the "Wheatsheaf" case, Mr. B. H. Waddy appeared on behalf of the Renewal Authority and the Dover Corporation. Mr. Tuffee appeared for the East Kent Brewers' Union, Messrs. Truman, Fremlin, Shephard Neame, Cobb an Co., Charrington, etc.

Mr. Waddy said that the Corporation obtained power for the compulsory acquisition of the "Wheatsheaf," and agreed to a figure for the purchase of the premises and the licence as well. Of course the problem arose where licensed premises were to be pulled down as to what was to happen to the licence, which was a valuable asset. There were various ways of dealing with it, and one was the way that the Corporation had adopted. Hey had said to the Licensing Justices, "We object to the renewal of this licence, and ask you to refer it to the Compensation Authority with a view to its being extinguished, because the "Wheatsheaf" is no longer required by the public. There are other houses in the vicinity, and it is in the public interest that the licence should be entirely extinguished as the premises are going to be pulled down and turned into a police station." Another way to deal with the matter was to go before the Licensing Justices for a special removal of the licence to other premises. There could have been anywhere - even next door to another public house - providing they were proper premises. The Corporation could then have carried on the licensed business themselves, as other Corporations did, or they could have sold their house with the licence to some person in the trade. What the Corporation said was that the licence was not required, and there should be recovered for the ratepayers as much as the Compensation Authority should pay having agreed to the value of the licence. Opposition to the scheme did not come from any Dover people at all. It had been suggested that it was an improper arrangement for the Corporation to acquire licensed premises which they were going to pull down and go to the Licensing Authority to ask for compensation. In answer to that, he quoted a similar case, in which Leeds Corporation acquired licensed premises.

Mr. S. R. H. Loxton, Town Clerk of Dover, gave evidence in support of Mt. Waddy's statements.

In answer to Mr. Tuffee's cross-examination, Mr. Loxton said that the price had been fixed at £4,000. He did not know ho much for the licence.

Mr. Tuffee: You do not contend that these premises are redundant in the usual sense of the word?

Mr. Loxton: No, I do not think I can.

Mr. Tuffee: The only reason for asking for this house to be referred to the Compensation Authority is because the Corporation have bought it and do not want to continue it? - Yes.

Cross-examined by Mr. Tuffee, Inspector Saddleton, who gave evidence as to the neighbourhood, said that the "Wheatsheaf" was not included in the Chief Constable's annual report as a house to be referred.

Mr. Tuffee said that neither he nor his clients were making any suggestions that the Justices acted improperly in anything they did in referring that matter. One of the strong points made in the Leeds case, which went to the House of Lords, was that the Magistrates had acted improperly and had not exercised any judicial discretion in the way it should be done. He did not challenge hat the Magistrates had a right in this case to refer it to the Compensation Authority, but he did not think that it was proper. What right had the Corporation to assume the duties of the Licensing Authority? They must come there with their tongue in their cheek when they said, "We consider it an unnecessary license." The only reason they could suggest was that they had to pay for it. The Authority had to consider whether the licence could be said to be redundant; and that had to be considered on the evidence. There was not one jot of tittle or evidence before them that it was redundant. It had been suggested my Mr. Waddy that the trade would go elsewhere, but he suggested that the reason the matter was not brought forward as a "Special removal" was because it was not brought up on time. The Corporation were keeping the premises open merely for the purpose of getting some of the compensation money. What the Corporation were saying was, "We have bound ourselves to a sum of £4,000. Here is a chance of getting someone else to pay for it."

Following a retirement, the Chairman announced that a renewal of the licence would be refused.

Mr. Tuffee: Subject to compensation?

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Tuffee: I shall ask you in due course to state a case.

From the Dover Express and East Kent News, 10 February 1939.

The Union Hall, the "Wheatsheaf Inn," and the shop adjoining which is about to be demolished in connection with the widening of Ladywell where it will abut on the new Police Station. The Union Hall (recently used for A.R.P. purposes has had its contents removed  to Woodlands Factory in Bridge Street, which the Town bought. A sale of effects at the "Wheatsheaf" took place on Tuesday.

From the Dover Express and East Kent News. 24 February 1939.

THE END OF THE "WHEATSHEAF" INN.

Demolishing the remaining properties in Ladywell adjoining the site of the new Police Station. The shop formally on the corner of Ladywell Place, the "Wheatsheaf" Inn, and the Union Hall are involved, the intention being to improve the alignment of the road.

From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 17 November, 1939.

Their many friends in Dover will congratulate Mr. and Mrs. W. E. Shave, of Reading, who celebrated their golden wedding on Monday. Mr. "Dollar" Shave was formerly at the "Wheatsheaf," Ladywell, and later had a tobacconist's business in High Street.