Saturday 6 October 2012
Jubilee Inn 1890s
Folkestone Express 26-4-1890
Wednesday
April 23rd: Before J. Clarke and H.W. Poole Esqs.
The licence
of the Jubilee was transferred to ---- Adams.
Folkestone Chronicle 23-8-1890
Inquest
The Borough
Coroner (J. Minter Esq.) held an inquest at the Town Hall last evening, on the
body of William Smith, a pensioner, and formerly of the 77th
Regiment, who met with his death under circumstances detailed below.
The jury, of
which Mr. Fred Petts was chosen foreman, having been sworn, proceeded to view
the body, which was lying at the mortuary, and upon their return the deceased
was identified by Henry Adams, son of the landlord of the Jubilee Inn. He said
he known the deceased for three months, and last saw him about half past eight
on Thursday evening at the Jubilee. He was quite sober, and had no regular
occupation. About five weeks ago deceased gave him his discharge and other
papers produced to keep for him. He was a quiet, orderly man.
The Coroner
read the discharge, which showed that he was fifty one years of age, had served
21 years in the Army, and bore a good character. Also that he had a pension of
8d. per day.
Francis
Stanley, a railway porter, living at 32, Queen Street, deposed that he found
the body of the deceased in the harbour shortly after four o`clock, near the
first landing stage. It was floating face downwards and was quite dead. The
tide was about half way up.
George
Buckinngham, a harbour porter, corroborated the last witness, adding that at
the time the found the body the Louise Dagmar was just leaving the harbour. He
had often seen the deceased on the quays about three o`clock in the morning; he
used to work the fruit boats out.
John
Honeyman, living at 59, Sidney Street, said he was a fish hawker, and had known
the deceased about five months. He had never seen him the worse for drink, but
he was very near-sighted. He told witness he had not slept in a bed for a
month, as he used to wait about for the cargo boats.
Dr. Yunge
Bateman said he had examined the body of the deceased that morning. There were
extensive bruises on the front of the chest, whilst the lower ribs on the left
side were fractured. The left thigh bone was fractured close to the knee, and
there was an abrasion on the left hip and left hand. There were no marks of
violence on the head or face, and the whole of the injuries were on the left
side. In his opinion death was caused by drowning, and the injuries might have
been caused by a fall. He did not believe the injuries would have been caused
by anyone striking him.
The jury
returned a verdict of Found Dead In The Harbour – probably drowned
Holbein`s Visitors` List 27-8-1890
Inquest
The
mysterious death of William Smith, an army pensioner, formed the subject of an
inquiry at the Town Hall on Friday evening last, before the Borough Coroner and
a jury, of which Mr. Fred Petts was chosen foreman.
After viewing
the body, which was lying at the Mortuary, Henry Adams, son of the landlord of
the Jubilee Inn gave evidence as to deceased`s identity. Witness said he had
known the deceased about three months, and saw him last at the Jubilee about
half past eight on the previous evening. Deceased was a quiet, orderly man of
sober character. He had no regular occupation. The discharge produced was
handed to him about five weeks ago by deceased to keep for him.
The
discharge, which was then read by the Coroner, showed that deceased was fifty
one years of age, that he had served twenty one years in the army, and bore an
exemplary character. Likewise that he had a pension of 8d. per day.
Francis
Stanley, railway porter, of 32, Queen Street, said that he found the body of
deceased in the harbour near the first landing stage shortly after four
o`clock. Deceased was floating face downwards and was quite dead. The tide was
half way up.
George
Buckingham, a harbour porter, deposed to the same effect, adding that the Louise
Dagmar was just leaving the harbour at the time they discovered the body. He
(witness) had often seen deceased on the quays about 3 o`clock in the morning;
he worked the fruit boats out.
John
Honeyman, 59, Sidney Street, fish hawker, said he had known the deceased about
five months. He had never seen him the worse for drink, but he was very
near-sighted. He informed witness that he had not slept in a bed for a month as
he was in the habit of waiting about for the cargo boats.
Dr. Yunge
Bateman said he had examined the body of deceased. There were extensive bruises
on the chest and the lower ribs on the left side were fractured. The left thigh
bone was fractured close to the knee, and there was an abrasion on the left hip
and left hand. The head and face showed no marks of violence, the whole of the
injuries being on the left side. His opinion was that the cause of death was
drowning and the injuries might have been caused by a fall. He did not believe
they could have been caused by anyone striking him.
Verdict –
Found Dead in the harbour, probably drowned.
Folkestone Express 30-8-1890
Inquest
An inquest
was held on Friday afternoon by J. Minter Esq., Borough Coroner, on the body of
William Smith, a pensioner from the 77th Regiment, which was found
in the harbour early on Friday morning, and removed to the Cemetery mortuary.
Henry Adams,
son of the landlord of the Jubilee Inn on the Stade, said he had known the
deceased about three months. He last saw him alive on Thursday evening about
half past eight in his father`s house drinking twopennyworth of gin. He was
quite sober. He left after staying about ten minutes. Witness thought he had no
regular occupation, but had been at work occasionally at the harbour. About
four or five weeks ago deceased gave him some papers to keep for him. They were
a discharge from the army, and some characters. Witness knew deceased as a
quiet, orderly man. He used to suffer from some internal complaint. (The
discharge showed that the deceased was born at St. Andrews, County of Dublin,
and enlisted at Dublin. He drew his pension on July the 1st last)
Francis
Stanley, a labourer, living at 32, Queen Street, said about half past four that
morning he was on the platform of the Harbour when he heard there was a man in
the water. He ran to a ladder, got a boat, and with the assistance of
Buckingham pulled the man out of the water. The body was floating face
downwards in the outer harbour, near the bridge. The deceased appeared to be
quite dead. Means were used to resuscitate life, but without success.
Buckingham, a
harbour labourer, gave corroborative evidence. He said the Louise Dagmar had
just left the harbour to take up her berth at the pier. He had seen the
deceased frequently at the harbour early in the morning working at the fruit
boats. He was called “Patsy”. Witness was at work attending the boats all
night. The Eborall and Boulogne cargo boats came in during the night. A boat
went out at half past twelve. He heard no disturbance during the night.
John Holyman,
a fish hawker, of 49, Sidney Street, said he had known the deceased about five
months. He was a quiet, orderly man generally. He saw deceased at half past
eight on Thursday night at the Jubilee Inn, and he was quite sober. He was very
near-sighted, and had told witness he had not slept in a bed for a month, but
never said anything about sleeping on the landings at the harbour.
Mr. Marcus
George Yunge Bateman, surgeon, said he had examined the body of deceased, and
found bruises on the front of the chest, and the lower ribs of the left side
fractured. The left thigh bone was fractured close to the knee, and there were
abrasions on the left hip and left hand. There were no marks of violence on the
head or face. In his opinion death was caused by drowning. The injuries might
have been caused by falling on to a hard substance; not by physical violence.
The jury
returned a verdict that deceased was found dead floating in the harbour,
probably drowned.
Folkestone Chronicle 16-9-1893
Local News
Not many
hours had elapsed since the Town Hall was occupied by a gay and brilliant
company who were enjoying the pleasures of the terpsichorean art, when a
gathering of a very different nature took place within it`s walls at eleven
o`clock on Wednesday morning. In the short space which had elapsed the Hall had
been denuded of all it`s tasty decorations and luxurious appointments, and had
put on it`s everyday appearance for the transaction of the business of the
Special Licensing Session, which had been appointed for the purpose of dealing
with the licenses to which notice of opposition had been given by the police.
At the end of
the Hall, backed by high red baize screens, raised seats had been arranged for
the accommodation of the Licensing Justices. Here at eleven o`clock the chair
was taken by Mr. J. Clark, ho was accompanied on the Bench by Alderman Pledge,
Messrs. Holden, Hoad, Fitness, Davey, Poole, and Herbert.
Immediately
in front of the Bench were tables for the accommodation of Counsel and other
members of the legal profession, while in close proximity were seats for
Borough Magistrates who were not members of the Licensing Committee, and for
the brewers and agents interested in the cases that were to occupy the
attention of the Bench. The body of the Hall was well filled with members of
the trade and the general public, whilst there was quite an array of members of
the police force who were present to give evidence.
Objection to
a Temperance Magistrate
Mr. Glyn,
barrister, who, with Mr. Bodkin, appeared in support of the opposed licenses,
made an objection at the outset against Mr. Holden occupying a seat on the
Bench. Mr. M. Bradley (solicitor, Dover), who appeared on behalf of the
Temperance Societies, rose to address the Bench on the point, but an objection
was taken on the ground that he had no locus standi. The Magistrates retired to
consider this matter, and on their return to the court they were not
accompanied by Mr. Holden, whose place on the Committee was taken by Mr,
Pursey.
Mr. Glyn`s
Opening
Mr. Glyn said
he had consulted with the Superintendent of Police, and had agreed to take
first the case of the Queen`s Head. He accordingly had to apply for the renewal
of the licence. The Queen`s Head was probably known by all the gentlemen on the
Bench as an excellent house. The licence had been held for a considerable
number of years, and the present tenant had had it since 1889. It was a
valuable property, worth some £1,500, and the tenant had paid no less than £305
valuation on entering the house. He need hardly tell the Bench that the licence
was granted a great many years ago by their predecessors, and it had been
renewed from time to time until the present. The Superintendent of Police was
now objecting on the ground that it was not required, and that it was kept
disorderly. With regard to the objection of the Superintendent to all these
licenses, he (Mr. Glyn) thought he would admit when he went into the box that
it was not an objection he was making on his own grounds, but an objection made
in pursuance of instructions received from some of the members of the Licensing
Committee. Of course a very nice question might arise as to whether under the
circumstances the requirements of the section had been complied with, and as to
the Superintendent acting, if he might say so, as agent for some of the
justices had no locus standi at all to oppose these licenses. The
Superintendent of Police, in his report, states that he raised these objections
“in pursuance of instructions received from the Magistrates”. Therefore, those
gentlemen who gave those instructions were really in this position: That having
themselves directed an enquiry they proposed to sit and adjudicate upon it. He
knew there was not a single member of that Bench who would desire to adjudicate
upon any case which he had pre-judged by directing that the case should be
brought before him for that particular purpose, and he only drew their
attention to the matter. He did not suppose it would be the least bit necessary
to enquire into it, because he felt perfectly sure, on the grounds he was going
to put before the Bench, that they would not refuse to renew any one of these
licenses. But he thought it right to put these facts before them, in order,
when they retired, that they might consider exactly what their position was.
There was
another thing, and it applied to all these applications. There was not a single
ratepayer in the whole of this borough who had been found to oppose the renewal
of any of the licenses. The first ground of objection was that the licenses
were not required. He repeated that no ratepayer could be found who was
prepared to come before the Bench and raise such a point. No notice had been
given by anybody except by the Superintendent, who had given it acting upon the
instructions of the Bench.
He understood
that even the Watch Committee, which body one generally thought would be
expected to get the ball rolling, had declined to have anything to do with the
matter, and had declined to sanction any legal advice for the purpose of
depriving his clients of what was undoubtedly their property. He ventured to
say, with some little experience of these matters, that there never was a case
where licenses were taken away on the ground that they were not required,
simply because some of the learned Magistrates thought the matter ought to be
brought before them, without any single member of the public raising any
objection to any of the licenses, and the Watch Committee not only keeping
perfectly quiet, but declining to enter into the contest.
He was
dealing with the case of the Queen`s Head, but his remarks would also apply to
the others, with the exception of the cases of three beer-houses, the licenses
of which were granted before the passing of the 1869 Act, and his client was,
therefore, absolutely entitled to a renewal. With regard to the other licenses,
they were granted a great many years ago. Although at that time the population
of the Borough was about half of what it is now the Magistrates thought they
were required then. They had been renewed from time to time since then, and
were the Magistrates really to say that licenses which were required for a
population of 12,000 were not necessary for a population of 25,000? He ventured
to say, if such an argument were raised by the other side, that it was an absurdity.
He should ask the Bench to consider first, and if they formed an opinion on it
it would save time, whether having regard to the fact that all the licenses
were granted a great many years ago when the population was nothing what like
it is now, and also that there had not been a single conviction since the
renewals last year. They were prepared to refuse the renewal of any of the
licenses. He asked them to decide upon that point, because it decided the whole
thing.
Some of the
objections were only raised on the ground that the licenses were not required;
others referred to the fact that there had been previous convictions, or that
the houses had been kept in a disorderly manner. With regard to any conviction
before the date of the last renewal he contended that the Bench had, by making
the renewal, condoned any previous offence. In not one single instance had
there been a conviction during the past year in respect of one of the houses
for which he asked for a renewal, and he ventured to put to the Bench what he
understood to be an elementary principle of British justice, that they would
not deprive the owner of his property simply because it was suggested that the
house had not been properly conducted, and where that owner had never had an
opportunity of appearing before the Bench in answer to any charge which had
been brought against his tenant. He challenged anybody to show that there was a
single case in any Bench where a license had been taken away after renewal
without there being a criminal charge made against that house, but only a
general charge to the Licensing Committee.
Mr. Bodkin,
who followed, reminded the Bench of their legal position with regard to the
renewal of licenses, and quoted the judgement of Lord Halsbury in the case of
Sharpe v Wakefield, in which he said in cases where a licence had already been
granted, unless some change during the year was proved, they started with the
fact that such topics as the requirements of the neighbourhood had already been
considered, and one would not expect that those topics would be likely to be
re-opened. Continuing, Mr. Bodkin said that was exactly the position they were
in that morning. There had been no change with respect to these houses except
that Folkestone had increased in population, and there had been an absence of
any legal proceedings against any of the persons keeping these houses. He
ventured to say it would be inopportune at the present time to take away
licenses where they found the change had been in favour of renewing them.
Mr. Minter
said he appeared for the tenants of the houses, and he endorsed everything that
had fallen from his two learned friends, who had been addressing them on behalf
of the owners. Mr. Glyn referred to the population having increased twofold
since the licenses were granted, and he (Mr. Minter) would point out that while
the population had increased no new licenses had been granted for the past
twelve years. Mr. Minter then referred to the fact that there was not a single
record on the licenses of any one of the tenants. Was there any argument he
could use stronger than that? As to the objection that the houses were not
required for the public accommodation, he was prepared to show, by distinct
evidence, that each tenant had been doing a thriving business for the last four
or five years, and that it did not decrease. How was it possible, in the face
of that, to say they were not required for the public accommodation?
Mr. Bradley
then claimed the right to address the Bench on behalf of the Temperance
Societies, but an objection was raised by his legal opponents that he had no
locus standi, as he had given no notice of his intention to appear, and this
contention was upheld by the Bench.
The Bench
then retired for a consultation with their Clerk on the points raised in the
opening, and on their return to the Court the Chairman said the Magistrates had
decided where there were allegations of disorderly conduct the cases must be
limited to during the year, and no cases prior to the licensing meeting last
year would be gone into. They thought it was right that the Superintendent
should state the cases that they might be gone into, and that the Bench might
know what the objections were.
The Jubilee
Mr. Glyn said
this was a fully licensed house, owned by Messrs. Mackeson. Five barrels a week
were drawn, and it was an increasing trade. It was a very old licence.
Sergeant
Swift said there were six licensed houses within 100 paces of the house.
Mr. Taylor
said the approximate number of houses in Radnor Street, where the Jubilee was
situated, was 63, eight of which were licensed.
Mr. H.
Mackeson said the house was purchased by their frim of the proprietors of the
Folkestone Brewery in 1886. The present value of the house was about £1,500.
They spent £350 in 1887 on improvements. The house was exactly opposite the
Fish Market, and it had a trade averaging five barrels a week. The tenant was
Mr. Adams, whom they had found most respectable, and they had not had the
slightest complaint made against him.
Joseph Adams,
the tenant, said he had been doing a good and increasing business at the house,
which was much used by fish salesmen and others.
A Doctrine Of
Confiscation
This
concluded the list of objections, and Mr. Glyn addressed the Bench, saying the
result of the proceedings was that with regard to all the houses, except the
Tramway, there was no serious charge of any kind. As to the Tramway, he
challenged anybody to show that any Bench of Justices had ever refused to grant
licenses unless the landlords had had notices, or unless there had been a
summons and a conviction against the tenant since the last renewal. With regard
to the other houses the only question was whether they were wanted or not.
Superintendent Taylor, who, he must say, had conducted the cases most fairly
and most ably, had picked out certain houses, and he asked the Bench to deprive
the owners of their property and the tenants of their interest in respect of
those houses, while the other houses were to remain. How on earth were the
Bench to draw the line? There were seven houses in one street, and the
Superintendent objected to four, leaving the other three. In respect to one of
these there had been a conviction, and in respect of the others none. Why was
the owner of one particular house to keep his property, and the others to be
deprived of theirs? Mr. Glyn enforced some of his previous arguments, and said
if the Bench deprived his clients of their property on the grounds that had
been put forward they would be adopting a doctrine of confiscation, and setting
an example to other Benches in the county to do the same.
The Decision
The Bench
adjourned for an hour, and on their return to the Court the Chairman announced
that the Magistrates had come to the decision that all the licenses would be
granted with the exception of that of the Tramway Tavern.
Mr. Glyn
thanked the Bench for the careful attention they had given to the cases, and
asked whether, in the event of the owners of the Tramway Tavern wishing to
appeal, the Magistrates` Clerk would accept service.
Mr. Bradley:
Yes.
Folkestone Express 16-9-1893
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 Jubilee
This house
belongs to Messrs. Mackeson. Mr. Glyn said this was a very old licence.
Sergeant
Swift said there were six houses within 100 paces of it.
Superintendent
Taylor was sworn and said the house was in Radnor Street. There were 63 houses
in Radnor Street, eight of which were licensed.
Henry
Mackeson, one of the firm, said the house was their property, purchased by them
in 1886. The present value of the house was about £1,500. They spent £350 in
1887 on improvements. It was exactly opposite the fish market and did a trade
averaging five barrels a week. The tenant, Mr. Adams, was most respectable –
there had never been the slightest complaint.
Joseph Adams,
the tenant, said he had been in the house since February, 1890, and had
increased the business by conducting it properly and respectably. He sold about
five barrels a week. The house was in a good position for trade. It was much
used by fish salesmen, as they could have refreshments there in a large room.
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
Herald 16-9-1893
Editorial
The large audience who crowded into the Licensing
Justices` Court at the Town Hall on Wednesday last were evidently
representative of the interests of the liquor trade in this Borough. Every
stage of the proceeding was watched with the closest attention, and it was
impossible not to recognise the prevalent feeling that a mistake had been
committed in objecting wholesale to the renewal of licenses. Thirteen houses in
all were objected to, but as two of them, through a technical point of law,
were entitled to a renewal, there remained eleven as to which the Justices were
asked to exercise their discretionary powers. In the event, after a long
hearing, and a weighty exposition of law and equity, the decision of the
tribunal resulted in the granting of ten of these eleven licenses and the
provisional extinction of one, as to which, no doubt, there will be an appeal.
As this journal is not an organ of the trade, and as, on the other hand, it is
not inspired by the prohibitionists, we are in a position to review the
proceedings from an unprejudiced and dispassionate standpoint. At the outset,
therefore, we must express our disapproval of the manner in which the cases of
those thirteen houses have been brought up for judicial consideration. It was
rather unfortunate that a Magistrate who is so pronounced a Temperance advocate
as Mr. Holden should have taken a prominent part in having those houses
objected to. We say nothing of his official rights; we only deprecate the
manner in which he has exercised his discretion. We think it likely to do more
harm than good to the Temperance cause, inasmuch as it savours of partiality if
not persecution. We also think that Mr. Holden would have done well not to have
taken his seat on the Licensing Bench. It would be impossible to persuade any
licence holder that the trade could find an unbiased judge in the person of a
teetotal Magistrate. Conversely, it would be impossible to persuade a
Temperance advocate that a brewer or a wine merchant could be capable of
passing an unbiased judgement upon any question involving the interests of
those engaged in the liquor traffic. The presence of Mr. Holden on the Bench
was not allowed to pass without protest. Counsel for the owners handed in a
written document, the Justices retired to consider it in private, and as the
result of that consultation Mr. Holden did not resume the seat he had
originally taken. The legal and other arguments urged by the learned Counsel
for the owners and the tenants are fully set out in our report. We attach
special importance to one contention, which was urged with a degree of
earnestness that made a deep impression in Court, and will make a deeper
impression outside. All these houses, be it remembered, had had a renewal of
licence at the annual licensing meeting held last year. At that date the
discretionary power of the Court had been as firmly established in law as it is
at the present moment. At that date whatever laxity had taken place during the
previous year in respect of the conduct of any one of those thirteen houses had
been condoned by the renewal of the licence. At that date the congestion of
public houses in particular parts of the town was as notorious as it is now,
and nothing had happened in the interval to change in any material degree the
general circumstances which prevailed in 1892 when the licences were renewed.
In no single case out of the thirteen has there been a conviction recorded on
the licence since the licenses were renewed in 1892, and under these
circumstances it was argued by Counsel that to extinguish any one of these
licences would amount to an act of confiscation. There can be no pretence for
saying, therefore, that the objections raised this year to the renewal of the
licences originated in the laches of the tenants themselves. They had their
origin with either the Bench as a whole or a section of the Bench, and it was
at the instance of the whole body or of a section of the Justices that the
chief officer of police was instructed to report upon the question. So far as
the ordinary course of police supervision was concerned the houses, with one
solitary exception, appeared to have had a clear record, there being no
conviction for any infraction of the Licensing Acts. It therefore savoured of
persecution to arraign the whole of these thirteen houses and to press against
them the argument that they are not required by the population, although last
year the Justices, by renewal of the licenses, had decided that they were.
Under these circumstances it was rather unfair to throw upon the Superintendent
of Police the onerous and invidious duty of making the best case he could in
support of the objections. It is only right to say that the fair and
straightforward manner in which that officer discharged the duty elicited the
commendation of everybody in Court – Bench, advocates, and general audience.
Ultimately the Justices renewed all the licenses, with the exception of that of
the Tramway Tavern, and on this case their decision will be reviewed by an
appellate court. The impression which all these cases have created, and will
leave on the public mind, is that the Temperance party have precipitated a raid
upon the liquor shops, and that in doing so they have defeated their own
object. Persecution and confiscation are words abhorrent to Englishmen. The law
fences the publican round with restrictions and penalties in abundance, but in
teh present case the houses had not come overtly within the law. To shut up the
houses would therefore savour of confiscation, although in strict law the
licence is deemed to be terminable from year to year. In the result the victory
lies with the trade, and the ill-advised proceedings against a whole batch of
houses have created a degree of sympathy for the owners and tenants which was
given expression by the suppressed cheers that were heard on Wednesday at the
close of the investigations.
Licensing
It will be remembered that on the 23rd ult.
the Justices adjourned until the 13th inst. the hearing of
objections to the renewal of the following licensed houses – Granville, British
Colours, Folkestone Cutter, Tramway, Royal George, Oddfellows (Radnor Street),
Cinque Ports, Queen`s Head, Wonder, Ship, Harbour, Jubilee, Victoria – thirteen
in all. These cases were taken on Wednesday last at the Town Hall, the large
room having been transformed for the purpose into a courtroom. The Justices
were Messrs. Clarke, Hoad, Pledge, Holden, Fitness, Poole, Herbert, Davy,
Pursey, with the Justices` Clerk (Mr. Bradley, solicitor).
Mr. Glyn, and with him Mr. Bodkin, instructed by
Messrs. Mowll and Mowll, of Dover, appeared on gehalf of the owners of the
property affected; Mr. Minter, solicitor, appeared for the tenants; Mr.
Montague Bradley, solicitor, Dover, appeared on behalf of the Folkestone Good
Templars, Sons of Temperance, Rechabites, and the St. John`s Branch of the
Church Temperance Society. Mr. Superintendent Taylor, Chief Constable of the
borough, conducted the case for the police authorities without any legal
assistance.
Mr. Glyn, at the outset, said: I appear with my learned
friend, Mr. Bodkin, in support of all these licences except in the case of the
Royal George, for the owner of which my friend Mr. Minter appears. Before you
commence the proceedings I should like you to consider an objection which I
have here in writing, and which I do not desire to read. I would ask if you
would retire to consider it before proceeding with the business.
Mr. Montague Bradley: I appear on behalf of some
Temperance societies in Folkestone.
Mr. Glyn: I submit, sir, that this gentleman has no
locus standi.
The Justices now retired to a private room, and after
about ten minutes in consultation all the Justices except Mr. Holden returned
into Court. It was understood that the objection had reference to the
appearance of Mr. Holden as an adjudicating Magistrate, that gentleman being a
strong Temperance advocate.
Mr. Glyn then proceeded to say: Now, sir, it might be
convenient if you take the Queen`s Head first, and I have formally to apply for
the renewal of the licence of the Queen`s Head. That is a house which is well
known by everybody, and by all you gentlemen whom I have the honour of
addressing, as a most excellent house. The licence has been held for a very
considerable number of years, and the present tenant has had it since 1889. It
is worth £1,500, and the present tenant paid no less than £305 valuation when
he entered that house. I need hardly tell you that the licence was granted a
great many years ago by your predecessors and it has been renewed from time to
time until now, when the Superintendent of Police has objected on the grounds
that the house is not required and that it is kept in a disorderly manner. As
to the objection made by the Superintendent, for whom I in common with all
others have the highest possible respect, I think he will admit that the objection
in not made of his own motion but that it is made in pursuance of instructions
received from some members of the Licensing Committee. Of course the point has
occurred to my learned friend and myself, and it is a very nice one, whether
under those circumstances the requirements of the Section had been complied
with, and as to whether, the Superintendent having really been acting as
agent for the Justices, he had any locus
standi at all to oppose these licences. I must leave that to your body, guided
as you will be by your most able Clerk. He knows the Section better than I do.
He knows under what circumstances and objection can be raised, and that it must
be done in open Court and not introduced in the way these objections have been
raised. These observations apply to the whole of these renewals, and you will
find in this case, sir, indeed in all these cases, that the Superintendent of
Police in raising these objections has been raising them, as he says in his
report, in pursuance of instructions he received from the Magistrates;
therefore those gentlemen who formed that body and who give the Superintendent
these instructions are really in this position, if I may so put it to them with
humility, of people complaining, by having themselves directed an inquiry, upon
which inquiry they propose to sit, and, as I understand, to adjudicate. Now,
sir, I know from some long occasional experiences of this Bench that there is
not a single member of this Bench who desires to adjudicate upon any case which
he had prejudged by directing that the case should be brought before him for a
particular purpose, and I only draw your attention to these matters because I
am perfectly certain that on the grounds I am going to place before you this
Bench will not refuse to renew any of these licences. I think it right, after
very careful attention, to put those facts before you in order that when you
retire you will consider exactly what your position is. There is another thing
I ought to say which applies to all these applications. There is not a single
person, not a single ratepayer, in all this borough – and I don`t know exactly
what the numbers are, but they are very considerable – but there is not a
single ratepayer who has been found to object to the renewal of any of these
licences. Anyone would have a right to do it if he chose, and I feel certain
that the Justices will think that where none of the outside public care to
object, this Bench will not deprive the owners and tenants of their property
simply because they themselves think that the matter ought to be brought before
them, as I understand has happened in this case, for adjudication. Now, let us
see the first ground of objection in respect of all these licences. The first
ground in respect of each of these licences is that the licence is not needed,
and I desire to make a few observations on that. I repeat that no ratepayer can
be found here who is prepared to come before the Bench and raise this point. No
notice has been given by anybody except by my friend the Superintendent, who
has told us in his report that he has been acting upon the instructions of the
Bench. But, sir, there is another and very important matter. I understand that
in the Watch Committee, which one generally thought would be expected to get
the ball rolling, if it is to be rolled at all – if, as my friend suggests,
there is any public opinion upon it that these licences are not required – the
Watch Committee has actually been approached in this case, that is to say, by
some gentlemen connected with the Corporation. I don`t know whether it is any
of the gentlemen I have the honour of addressing, but they have declined to
have anything to do with it or to sanction any such device for the purpose of
depriving my clients of what is undoubtedly their property. Therefore I venture
to think, speaking with some little experience, that there never was a case in
which licences were taken away simply because some of the learned Magistrates
thought that the matter ought to be brought before them, and instructed the
Superintendent to do so. Now, sir, I am dealing with the Queen`s Head, but
among the licences are some beerhouses that existed before the passing of the
Act of 1869, and the owner is therefore entitled to renewal, for although
notice of objection has been given on the ground of disorderly conduct there
has been a renewal, and that renewal has condoned any misconduct there might
have been. Therefore these houses are absolutely entitled to renewal. Now, sir,
with regard to these licences that were granted a great many years ago. Of
course at that time, when the population of the borough was about half of what
it is now, the Magistrates then thought they were required. Those licences have
been renewed from time to time by your body, and are you really to say now that
although these, or some of these, licences were granted when the number of
inhabitants was 12,000, whereas it is now 25,000 – these licences were not
required or are not necessary for more than double the original population? I
venture to say that such an argument reduces the thing to absurdity. Of course
I know, with regard to these houses, that in this case the Magistrates are
clothed with authority, if they choose to deprive the owners and tenants of
their property, if they think the licences are not required. But you will allow
me to point this out to the Bench, that there is not a single Bench in this
County – I am glad to be able to say – who yet have deprived an owner or tenant
of his property simply because a suggestion has been thrown out. That is at any
rate the case as far as Kent is concerned. It was done at one Bench in this
County, but when it came on appeal at the Quarter Sessions they upset the
decision of the Magistrates who had refused the renewal of the licence on that
ground. This is the only instance I know, and I am sure that I am right, where
a Bench in this County had been found to deprive an owner of his property which
you are asked to do in this way, and a tenant of his livelihood. I venture to
express my views, and I am sure that all the Bench will coincide with me, that
it would be very unfair in such cases, when owners – whether brewers or private
individuals – have paid large sums of money in respect of licensed houses, when
those licences have been renewed from year to year, when the tenants have paid
large sums in respect of valuation, and some of them have been tenants for many
years and have gained a respectable livelihood in this business – it would be
very unfair to deprive the owners and tenants of their property without giving
them compensation of any kind for being turned adrift. That brings me again to
a consideration I must bring before you, that these licences were granted at a
time when the population of the borough was about half what it is now; but now
you are asked to say that the licences are not required when the population has
become twice as much as it was when the licences were originally granted.
Perhaps my friend Mr. Minter will coincide with me that if you should consider
this point in the first place and form an opinion on it, it would save a great
deal of time. It is now a question as to whether you are, under those
circumstances, prepared to refuse the renewal of any of these licences, having
regard to the fact that there has not been a single conviction since the last
renewal. Having regard to the fact that these licences were granted so long ago
and have been renewed from time to time, having regard to the fact that there
has been no conviction in the case of any one of them during the present year,
and that if any offence had been committed prior to the last renewal it was
condoned by that renewal – are you going to deprive the owners and tenants of
their property? Now, I only desire to say another word. Some of these
objections are made on the ground that the licences are not required; others
refer to the fact that here have been previous convictions or that the houses
have not been kept in an orderly way. Of course we shall hear what the
Superintendent says, and we know that he would be perfectly fair to all sides,
but I want to make a general observation about it, and it is this; whether or
not these houses have been disorderly. As to that I think you would say that
inasmuch as in any case where there has been a previous conviction and you had renewed
the licence, that renewal condoned any previous offence. It clearly is so, and
if there had been any offence committed since the renewal we should have to
consider what was the class of offence which had been committed. But that does
not apply in this case. In no single instance has there been a conviction in
respect to any of the houses which Mr. Minter and myself ask for the renewal of
the licence, and I am going to put to you what I understand to be an elementary
proposition of law, that you would not deprive an owner of his property because
it is suggested that a house has not been properly conducted where that owner
has never had an opportunity of appearing before the Bench or instructing some
counsel or solicitor to appear before the Bench in answer to any charge under
the Act of Parliament which had been brought against his tenant. If there had
been any charge in respect of any of these houses since your last renewal, the
tenant would have been brought here, he would be entitled to be heard by counsel,
and the question would be thrashed out before the Bench. That has not been done
in any single case since you last renewed the licences of these houses, and I
am perfectly certain that no Bench in this County, and no gentleman in
Folkestone, would deprive an owner of his property simply because it has been
suggested that since the last renewal a house has not been properly conducted,
although no charge has been made against the tenant, so that he might have a
right to put the the authorities to the proof of the charge. I am not aware of
such a case, and I challenge anybody to show that there has been any single
case before any Bench where a licence has been taken away after renewal
following a conviction when there has been no criminal charge against that
house, but only a general charge after the renewal. I submit that you are not
going to deprive the owners of their property when there has been no charge of
any kind investigated in this or any other court against the holders of those
licences, and if you would retire and consider this point and give an answer
upon it, it would save us a deal of time.
Mr. Bodkin followed on the same side dealing with the
legal questions involved in the application.
Mr. Minter then addressed the Court as follows: I appear
for the tenants of these houses. The learned Counsel have been addressing you
on behalf of the owners, and though I cordially agree with everything that has
been said by them, it will be necessary for me to make a few observations. Mr.
Glyn referred to the population having increased twofold since these licences
were granted, but there is another very important consideration, and that is
this – that although the population has increased twofold since the whole of
these licences were granted, within the last twelve years, I think I am right
in saying that no new licence has been granted. Not only were the licences now
under consideration granted when the population was half what it is now, but
there has been no increase in the number of licences since that period I have
named. The second point is with respect to the hardship which would fall upon
owners if a licence were refused on the ground of convictions against the
tenant. The learned Counsel has urged that it would be unjust to take into
consideration a conviction that took place prior to the last annual licensing
meeting, and you will feel the force of that argument. What is the intention of
the Legislature? The Legislature has provided that in all cases where the
tenants of licensed houses are convicted of a breach of the Licensing Laws the
Magistrates have power to record that conviction on the licence, and on a third
such conviction the Legislature says that the licence shall be forfeited
altogether. Appearing on behalf of the tenants, I am happy to say that there is
no such record on the licence of any one of the applicants, and notwithstanding
that a conviction may have taken place prior to the last annual licensing
meeting, the conviction was of such a trivial character that the Magistrates
did not consider it necessary to record it on the licence. Is there any
argument to be used that is stronger than that observation? You yourselves have
decided that although you were bound to convict in a certain case, it was not
of a character that required the endorsement of the licence, and after that
conviction you renewed the licence, and again on a subsequent occasion. One
other observation occurs to me, with regard to suggestions that have been put
before you by Mr. Glyn and Mr. Bodkin, and I entirely concur in what has been
said upon it. It is very pleasing to be before you, but I think it will be
pleasing to us and you will be as pleased yourselves if time can be saved, and
if you will only retire and take into consideration the points which Mr. Glyn
has suggested to you, I think you will come to the conclusion that the
applications should be granted, but I am excepting the one or two cases in
which I appear and in which I can claim as a right to have the licence renewed
as they existed before 1869, and therefore these special cases do not arise on
the notice served upon my clients. I am sure you will not take offence if I put
it in that way, but if we have to go through each one of these cases, and I
appear for nine or ten, the tenants are all here and will have to go into the
box and be examined, and their evidence will have to be considered in support
of the application I have to make. Now let me call attention for a moment to
the notice of objection. You may dismiss from your mind the previous conviction;
the suggestion is that the houses are not required for public accommodation. I
am prepared in each case with evidence to show that the public accommodation
does require it, and the test is the business that a house does. I am prepared
to show by indisputable evidence that the tenants has been doing a thriving
business for the last four or five years, that it has not decreased, and how is
it possible with that evidence before you to say that the licence is not
wanted? You may regret, possibly, that the number of houses is larger than you
like to see, but you would not refuse to entertain the application made today
unless you were satisfied that the houses were not wanted for the public
accommodation. I hope you will take the suggestion of Mr. Glyn and that you
will renew all the licences that are applied for, particularly as there is not
a single complaint against them.
Mr. Montague Bradley: I claim the right to address the
Bench.
Mr. Minter: I object.
Mr. Bodkin: My friend must prove his notice of objection.
Mr. M. Bradley: I should like Mr. Glyn to state the
Section under which he objects to my locus standi.
Mr. Glyn: I should like to know for whom my friend
appears – by whom he is instructed.
Mr. M. Bradley: I appear on behalf of Temperance
Societies of Folkestone – Good Templars and others.
Mr. Glyn: Now, sir, I submit beyond all doubt that the
practice is clear.
Mr. M. Bradley: I think, sir, that the question ought
to be argued. I should like to hear Mr. Glyn state his objection.
Mr. Minter: We have objected on the ground that you
have not given notice of objection.
Mr. Glyn: My friend should show his right – how he
proposes to establish his right.
Mr. M. Bradley referred to Section 42, subsection 2.
Eventually the Chairman said: Mr. Montague Bradley, the
Bench are of opinion that you have no locus standi.
Mr. M. Bradley: Very well, sir.
The Justices now retired to their room.
The Chairman on their return said: The Magistrates have
decided that where there is a case of disorderly conduct it is to be limited to
within the year, and that the Superintendent is not to go into any case
previous to the annual licensing day of last year. We think it right that
Superintendent should state these cases and that they should be gone into in
order that we may know what these objections are.
The cases not eliminated by this decision were then
proceeded with, seriatim, and are noticed below in the order in which they were
called.
The Jubilee
Mr. Glyn said this was one of those houses where the
only ground of objection was that it was not required. He was prepared to prove
that it was a good house with a full licence, owned by Messrs. Mackeson,
brewers, of Hythe.
Superintendent Taylor called Sergeant Swift, who stated
that within 100 paces of the Jubilee in Radnor Street there were six other
licensed houses, while the Superintendent in evidence asserted that in Radnor
Street, while the approximated number of houses were 63, eight of these had
licences.
Mr. Glyn thereupon called evidence.
First, Mr. Henry Mackeson, a member of the Mackeson
firm, and the owners of the Jubilee, who said the firm purchased this house of
the Folkestone Brewery in 1886, for £1,500; in 1887 they had spent £350 on
improvements. It was in an excellent position for business, being exactly
opposite the Fish Market, and the tenant, Mr. Adams, did a trade of five
barrels weekly.
The succeeding witness was Mr. Adams, who stated he had
been tenant of the Jubilee since February, 1890, that a good trade was done
among the salesmen, and that the house was conducted properly.
The latter fact was admitted by the Superintendent.
On the conclusion of the cases Mr. Glyn rose and said:
The result of these inquiries is, sir, that in respect to all the houses except
the Tramway Tavern there is no serious charge of any misconduct of any kind. It
is only in the case of the Tramway Tavern that a serious attack has been made,
and I have already addressed you as to the Tramway Tavern. If the brewers had
notice they might have had an opportunity of testing the case, whether the
house has been properly conducted or not, and I challenge anybody to allege
that any Bench of Justices in this County other than the Bench I have alluded
to have ever refused to grant the renewal of a licence unless the landlord had
had notice, or unless there has been a summons or conviction against the
tenant. I take that point, sir. It is a technical point, but I have not the
slightest doubt that it is conclusive against the points raised. Now, with
regard to the other houses, except the beerhouses which have a positive right
of renewal. The only other question is whether the remaining houses are wanted
or not. The Superintendent of Police has conducted his case most fairly and most
ably indeed, and he picks out certain houses and asks the Magistrates to
deprive the owners of their property and the tenants of their livelihood, and
he asks that other houses may remain. How on earth are you to draw the line? There are seven houses in one street, and how
can you deprive four of them of their licence, and grant the renewal of licence
to the other three? I must again put
before you that no Bench of Magistrates in this County have refused to renew a
licence – with the exception of the case which I put before you, and in that
case they were overruled – to any old licensed house on the ground on which you
are asked to refuse, viz., because it is suggested that the house is not
wanted. The County Magistrates, as well as the Magistrates in Boroughs, have
felt this, inasmuch as their predecessors in office have granted licences upon
the faith of which repairs have been done and expenditure has been incurred, it
would be unfair to take that property away unless – as the late Lord Chancellor
pointed out – something fresh had happened to alter the neighbourhood since the
time of the last renewal. It is not suggested here that anything has occurred
with respect to any one of these houses in order to satisfy you that they
should be taken away as not being required, and I venture to submit that this
Bench at any rate would not adopt a policy of confiscation, for I cannot call
it anything else, and, as it were, set an example to other Benches in the
County by confiscating my clients` property in any of these cases, having
regard to the fact that they are old licences, having regard to the fact that
the population has increased twofold, and having regard to the fact that
nothing fresh, in the words of the Lord Chancellor, has arisen to induce you to
deprive the owners of the licences that were renewed last year. I submit that
you, gentlemen, will not be a party to the confiscation of property. It is no
small matter that you have to consider. It is not a question of £10 or £15, for
the lowest in value of the houses before you today is £800, and the licences
have been granted by your predecessors and renewed by you. Your population has
largely increased since those licences were granted, and as my friend (Mr.
Minter) has pointed out, you have refused to grant any new licences, and under
these circumstances I venture to submit that you will not deprive my clients of
their property. My clients look to you to protect their property; they have no
other tribunal. If there had been any strong view in the Borough against these
licences the public would have expressed their views by giving notice of
opposition, but they have not done it, whereas the Watch Committee, the proper
body to raise these objections, have declined to touch it. Where does the
objection come from? It comes from a member of your body, who has not taken
part in these proceedings, but who has suggested that the Superintendent of
Police should give notice in respect of these houses and have these cases
brought before you. I thank you very much for the kind way in which you have
listened to my observations and those of my friends, and without fear of the
result I am confident that you are not going to deprive my clients of their
licences, to which, I submit, the law entitles them. (Suppressed applause in
the body of the court)
It being now 2.50, the Justices adjourned for an hour,
returning into court just before 4 o`clock.
The Chairman then said: The Magistrates have had this
question under consideration, and they have come to the decision that all the
licences be granted, with the exception of the Tramway Tavern. (Suppressed
applause)
Mr. Glyn now applied that, in the event of an appeal,
notice of appeal served on the Justices` Clerk should be accepted by the
Justices.
This was at once acceded to.
Mr. Glyn: My clients all feel, sir, what the
professional men around the table knew before, the fair way in which Mr.
Superintendent Taylor has conducted these proceedings.
Folkestone Visitors` List 20-9-1893
Licensing
That the lot
of the publican, like that of the policeman in the “Pirates of Penzance”, is
not over and above a happy one, must be conceded. There is no business to which
so many pains and penalties are attached, and to embark in which a man must be
prepared to go through so keen an enquiry into his antecedents as well as his
character at the time when he applies for his licence; and in which he has at
last, by the expenditure of much time and money, obtained permission to sell,
during certain periods out of the twenty four hours fixed for him by a
tender-hearted legislature desirous that he should not overwork himself, he is
so heavily handicapped by the restrictions which surround him. In fact, the
proverbial toad under the harrow would seem to lead almost a pleasant existence
in comparison with unfortunate Mr. Boniface. His natural enemy, the
teetotaller, is ever on the alert to worry him, and, if possible, to shut up
his shop for him, totally careless at to the ruin which may accrue to him and
his family.
In pursuance
of some of these tactics some of the members of the Folkestone Licensing
Committee a twelvemonth ago discovered all at once, after a lapse of some
fifteen years, that there are too many houses in the town. How some few weeks
back a prominent member of that Committee, and a steadfast advocate of the
Temperance movement, reverted to that decision, and announced that if the
brewers did not agree among themselves as to what houses should be closed, the
Committee would forthwith proceed to act upon their own judgement, is all a
matter of history. Between the time when this announcement was made and the
licensing day proper, the Superintendent of Police, who does not seem to have
held any pronounced opinions as to the number of houses, drew up, at the
request of the Committee, an elaborate report upon that point, showing that
there were in the town 130 houses; and in consequence of it he was directed to
give notice to the owners and occupiers of thirteen houses that they would be
objected to at the adjourned session.
On Wednesday,
the 13th, the Special Adjourned Session was held. The Magistrates
had wisely provided for the very great interest taken in the question by
holding the enquiry in the Town Hall, a great improvement on the stuffy little
apartment dignified by the name of a police court. As soon as the doors were
opened the body of the hall rapidly filled, the trade, of course, being present
in strong force, neighbouring towns also being represented. The teetotallers
also mustered pretty strongly, but it may here be stated that Mr. Montagu
Bradley, of Dover, who appeared for them, was objected to, and the Bench ruled
that he had no locus standi; or in other words the Magistrates could decide the
questions that would be submitted to them without the interference of any
outside body. So Mr. Bradley politely took his leave shortly after the
commencement of the proceedings. A somewhat singular feature in connection with
them was the large force of police in attendance in the Hall; probably the
authorities anticipated some exhibition of feeling, but none such took place,
except early in the morning a working man shouted out “How can you expect
justice from that lot? They gave me eighteen months for nothing”. He was speedily
ejected, and the business for the remainder of the day was conducted in the
most orderly manner. The Magistrates on the Bench were Messrs. Hoad, Pledge,
Pursey, Herbert, Davey, Clarke, Fitness, and Poole. Mr. Holden also took his
seat, but in deference to a written protest handed in by counsel for the owners
he retired. Mr. Glyn and Mr. Bodkin appeared for the owners, instructed by Mr.
Mowll, of Dover, Mr. F. Hall, Folkestone, and Mr. Mercer, Canterbury; Mr.
Minter, the solicitor for the Folkestone Licensed Victuallers` Association, for
the tenants.
Mr. Glyn
first opened the proceedings in a temperate and exhaustive speech, delivered
quite in the best Nisi Prius style, argumentative and without an attempt at
claptrap or sensational appeal. It was a capital forensic effort, and afforded
unmitigated pleasure to the Licensed Victuallers themselves, whilst we fancy,
from the somewhat lengthened faces of the opponents of the licenses, they must
have felt at it`s conclusion that the ground had been cut from under them.
There was just the faintest attempt at applause when the learned counsel sat
down, but this, the only manifestation of feeling throughout the day, was
speedily suppressed in the call for silence.
The
Superintendent of Police supported his own objections – or rather the
objections of the Committee – in person. Armed with a voluminous brief he made
the best of a weak case, but evidently it was not a labour of love to him.
Mr. Bodkin`s
work was chiefly confined to the examination of witnesses, and those who
attentively followed him could not have failed being struck with the fact that
not an unnecessary question was put to a single witness.
Mr. Glyn
based his arguments upon three general grounds, which he applied to all the
cases collectively. The first was that this opposition did not emanate from the
police. The Superintendent had no grounds for complaint, but was acting under
the direction of certain members of the Bench. How far that was approved of
generally was evidenced by the fact that the Watch Committee refused to grant
him legal assistance in opposing these licenses. The objection urged against
them was that they were not required. Now, up to the present time not a Bench
in the county of Kent had been found to deprive an owner of his property or a
tenant of his livelihood because someone chose to say a house was not
necessary. But what were the facts in the present case? Why, that all these
licenses were granted a dozen years ago, and if they were thought requisite
when the population was only half what it was at present, surely they could not
say they were not required now. Secondly, some of these houses had been
objected to as not having been properly conducted. To meet that assertion the
learned counsel adduced the fact that during the last twelvemonth not a single
conviction had been recorded against any one of the tenants. Any previous
conviction had been condoned by the renewal of the licence. That was common
sense. The Bench admitted that it was so by subsequently deciding not to enquire
into any laches that might have taken place previous to the last licensing
meeting in 1892.
Mr. Bodkin
followed briefly in the same vein, and Mr. Minter, on behalf of the occupiers,
addressed himself to the requirements of the town, arguing, as we have
ourselves pointed out in the List, that the very fact of their being supported
by the public was a prima facie argument in favour of the existence of these
houses.
The
Magistrates, at the conclusion of the learned gentlemen`s arguments, retired,
and after an absence of about a quarter of an hour, on their return announced
they would hear any complaints there were against any house since the last
licensing meeting. This involved the calling of a large number of witnesses –
owners, tenants, civil and military police, the examination of whom lasted well
into the afternoon.
The Jubilee:
Six houses within 100 paces. House valued at £1,500, and trade good.
Mr. Glyn
having summed up his case, the Magistrates retired for an hour to consider
their decision, and on their return the Chairman briefly announced that all the
licenses would be renewed with the exception of the Tramway.
Mr. Glyn
intimated that in all probability the owners of the house would appeal against
the decision, and having thanked the Bench for the attention they had given the
cases, and Superintendent Taylor for the fair manner in which he had conducted
the opposition, the proceedings came to an end.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)