The sale of numerous premises, a number with gardens or small plots of land, whilst a continuing trend established in the closing years of the old regime and, indeed, featuring a number of unsold properties from that time, represented a phase of renewal by the newly reorganised company. Having the administration of its inns and secondary retail outlets as its raison d' etre the company pursued a policy of disposal of old, outworn premises and extension and refurbishment of the remaining ones. The building of new licensed houses was not abandoned but the effect of the adverse economic conditions of recent years combined with the role of the company as a subsidiary business meant that the boom period of such construction was now past.

The schedule for the auction in December 1935 reflected the company policy for while it contained a number of premises which had failed to find buyers earlier, the schedule contained several additional lots. In addition to the Willow Tree, Ferrybridge, Anchor Inn, Brotherton and the lodging house on the former site, were a number of cottages and dwellings including two detached villas at Featherstone, two shops in Salter Row, Pontefract (formerly the Cross Swords Inn) now advertised with a newly constructed double fronted facade, and several plots of land. (1) As before, several lots failed to find a buyer, either reflecting Sides' reservations concerning the suitability of the auction date or the still depressed economic climate, and these items were eventually sold by private negotiation. (2)

By the 1930s legislative enactment concerning housing standards compelled the attention of the Board to the condition of the company's domestic housing stock. Numerous small cottages acquired as supplemental adjuncts to the purchase of licensed houses, were rented out. Many such cottages were situated in rural areas where water supply and sanitation were inadequate, rendering a number unsuitable for human habitation and fit only for conversion or demolition.

The limited financial return from such properties became increasingly uneconomical as administrative and maintenance costs rose. In addition, the enactment and enforcement of housing standards by national and local governments with the accompanying bureaucracy, increased costs, thereby compelling the company to reassess its property portfolio. In the case of public houses improvements to sanitation were cost effective being recouped in the long term through trade. The situation concerning rented cottages was less viable, however, for even increased rent was an inadequate return on capital expenditure. The sale of the cottages in their unimproved condition was unlikely to attract buyers while given the general economic situation, the expense incurred in improvement would hardly be reflected in the sale price. Consequently, many non-licensed premises were sold at knock - down prices out of expediency or in some cases, demolished. (3) Where a sale could not be effected the company often sought a grant from the relevant local authority, particularly when the improvements were undertaken in response to local authority demand. Subsidisation, however, was not always forthcoming. At Knottingley for instance, the action of the local council in compelling the installation of water closets in company houses in 1936 resulted in an unsuccessful attempt by the company to recoup 50% of the cost involved. (4) Simultaneously, an application on behalf of the company to convert a number of its cottages at Thorpe Audlin to garages following a clearance order, was rejected by Hemsworth Rural District Council and the cottages were demolished in September 1938 at a cost of £4-10-0 each to the company. (5) Similarly, in October 1938, the unsafe condition of outbuildings at the Bell & Crown Inn, Snaith, resulted in the company having to pay £32 to have them slighted to ceiling level (6) and in June that year the company were compelled to submit a scheme for four cottages at Brotherton in accordance with the demands of Osgoldcross R.D.C. and undertake the necessary

"alterations and improvements to bring [them] up to standard"

at a cost of £36-3-8 within a specified time.(7) Also, in January 1938, Doncaster R.D.C. sought the construction of three W.C.s at the Royal Hotel, Norton, and connection to the mains water supply. The work which was undertaken in March cost the Company £46-4-0. (8) On occasion the refusal of local authorities to subsidise the company was reciprocated as seen in May 1939 when a letter from Hemsworth R.D.C. seeking a contribution towards the cost of a sewage scheme for the village of Kirk Smeaton where the company had public houses, drew the response that

"The Board regret that they cannot make the same as it is a public company and the Directors would not feel justified in spending the shareholders' money. (9)

(although they were clearly not averse to seeking public money on behalf of the said shareholders).

Sometimes potential action on the part of a local authority prompted a change in the use of company property. Letters received in June 1939 regarding the likelihood of demolition orders being served concerning cottages in Back Northgate, Pontefract, and at Cridling Stubbs, were forestalled by an assurance from the company that the premises would not be used as dwelling houses in future. (10)

The sale of land, usually adjoining or close by the company's public houses, which had also commenced under the old regime was continued by the new one. As with the cottages referred to above, such land, particularly in rural locations, had usually been acquired as a job lot when licensed premises were purchased. In a few cases parcels of land had been bought in anticipation of demographic expansion, to provide sites for new inns, to facilitate the extension of existing ones, or in a few cases, to prevent competitive ventures by rival brewery companies. The advent of the economic depression of the early 1930s had adversely affected the conditions of trade, undermining policies and making anticipated plans obsolete in the process. Even when, by 1936, signs of an upturn in trade afforded hope of full economic recovery, it was clear that any upswing would require a rethink of policy, particularly in the case of the Knottingley Brewery Co., in which the boardroom dispute had further exacerbated the effect of trade depression.

The off loading of surplus land and properties under the aegis of the reconstructed company was therefore based upon expediency in the same way that the sale of Brewery plant was undertaken as much from changed circumstances as from financial considerations.

Thus, in September 1935 Sides informed the board of an offer by a Mr Mawson for land at Fenwick valued at £70 and was instructed to close a deal at the best advantage to the company. The land was sold for £55, the company retaining the mineral tights and a clause inserted within the conveyance prohibiting the sale of liquor on the site. (11)

The retention of mineral rights and where considered appropriate, prohibitive clauses concerning the sale of liquor, was standard practice by the company and in at least one instance was applied to a garden plot and the redrafting of a long established conveyance in another. (12)

In October 1935 an auction schedule included 1,670 square yards of land at Upton, 4 acres adjoining the Westfield Hotel, South Elmsall, 2 acres 2 roods at Beal and 750 square yards adjoining the Greyhound Inn, Ferrybridge, comprising a yard together with stabling then in use as a cattle and pig dealer's business but offered as building land, and an acre of land at Minsthorpe which was later withdrawn from the sale. (13) The withdrawal from sale of this plot was occasioned by a company rethink concerning the upgrading of the Minsthorpe Hotel and it is instructive of Sides’ business acumen that in connection with the changed plan he arranged for the cancellation of the original licence, issued only a few years before, in order to avoid the fourth stage payment of the monopoly value originally fixed by the magistrates. (14)

Simultaneously, the company sold land at Love Lane, Pontefract, privately being conveyed in four lots to Mr Granville Brooks subject to him paying the extra cost of conveyance. The company also disposed of small parcels of land near the Greenfield Hotel, at Wagon Lane, Upton, purchased by the Upton Colliery Co., to facilitate ease of access to Upton Colliery. (15)

A hiatus in land sales occurred in 1936, coinciding with the breakdown in health of Sides and the occurrence of several periods of indisposition due to serious illness resulting in hospitalisation for operations from which he never fully recovered and which culminated in his death in September 1937. (16) However, the sparsety of land sales thereafter suggests that the bulk of disposable land had been sold by the time of Sides’ illness and demise. Indeed, there was only one transaction of any substantial size between 1936 and 1939 which occurred in May 1938 when the manager and secretary of the Company, William Thompson, contacted Hemsworth R.D.C. to enquire if the council had any use for 5 acres of Company owned land for public housing. The land, at Longthwaite Lane, backed on to the Westfield Hotel and the company, retaining a small portion for use as a car park, offered the remaining 4.6 acres at 10d per yard. (17)

The implementation of the council's housing scheme was very opportune for the company which had been attempting to sell the land for more than three years. By September the sale had been agreed with clauses in the conveyance reserving the mineral rights for the vendor and a prohibition on any outlet for the sale of intoxicating liquors. (18) The sale included a caveat on the part of the council for since 1922 the proposed use of land for housing purposes required the sanction of the Ministry of Housing which had inherited the responsibilities of the former Local Government Board. A prerequisite of the sale therefore, was government approval subject to an evaluation of land value and a survey of the underlying mineral composition. In October the District Valuer informed both parties that the value of the land was assessed at £175 per acre, a price acceptable to both. However, delay arose from the necessity of the Ministry to scrutinise the mineral report. Consequently, the conveyance was not signed until June 1939, the legal costs being met by the purchaser. (19) The course of events is indicative of the increasing degree of government control and bureaucracy which had developed in the wake of the Great War and was to become even more of a constraint in the half century or more following the advent of the Second World War

As shown by the earlier reference to the installations demanded in connection with the Royal Hotel, Norton, many of the company's licensed premised were badly in need of refurbishment. In common with the Norton property, the Chequers Inn and the nearby Bluebell Inn at Monk Fryston, together with the Cross Keys at Hillam, were unconnected to the mains water supply even as late as September 1937 when the company paid £3-14-0 for connection to the public supply. The two former inns were subject to a private supply agreement which had been renewed as a continuation of the system in use when the Company acquired the properties in 1926 and negotiations concerning discontinuance of the existing source of supply had to be undertaken before connection to the mains could commence. (20)

Modernisation of lighting and heating systems was also a feature from the mid 'Thirties although, presumably to spread out cost, installation was often undertaken in a piecemeal fashion and more often than not in response to approaches by various licensees who claimed that such improvement would bolster custom. As the result of such a representation central heating was installed in two rooms at the Airedale Hotel in October 1938 at a cost of £30-10-0. (21) Similarly, in December 1937 electric lighting had been installed in the downstairs rooms of the Foresters Arms Inn, Norton, although the previous month the Cherry Tree Inn, Knottingley, had been fully converted, its urban location presumably being the factor which justified the cost, either because of more favourable trade or simply because of the existence of a main supply cable adjacent to the inn. (22) Again, in March 1938, the tenant of the Creyke Arms, Rawcliffe, sought alterations designed to increase the trade of the inn although the nature of the improvements is unspecified. (23) In one instance, unique in that the financial standing of the tenant permitted such action, the landlord of the Milnes Arms, Fryston, installed electricity at his own expense and upon surrender of the tenancy the company included the cost of installation as part of the property valuation, passed on to successive tenants. (24)

In addition to utilities, changes of a recreational nature were increasingly a feature of company houses at this period. In some cases change included the introduction of a concert room such as at the Gardeners Arms, Pontefract, where the piano belonged to the landlady who upon the enforced surrender of her tenancy consequent upon being in debt to the company, was allowed to take it away, leaving the Company secretary to find a replacement. (25)

The increasing prominence of billiards and snooker, promoted by the tournaments featuring professional players such as Joe and Fred Davis, Walter Lindrum and others in the 1930s, was translated into pub life. In January 1938 the tenant of the Westfield Hotel, South Elmsall, requested that three billiard tables be set in a ground floor room with basket chairs and suitable accoutrements for the purpose of creating a billiard room. The company acceded to the request on condition that costs were kept to a minimum and the items added to the overall valuation of the premises. (26) A few months later, following the realisation that the concert room established at the Turk's Head, Pontefract, was not a paying concern, the decision was taken to convert the room into an exclusive billiard room, separate from the bar room. (27)

An outdoor pursuit intended to attract public participation and provide an adjunct to trade was greyhound racing. company houses with adjacent tracts of land were ideal locations for the establishment of dog tracks, subject to the approval of the company and local authority licensing. In September 1933 a track was established alongside the Greenfield Hotel, Upton, (28) in 1935 the tenant of the Old Hall Inn, Great Houghton, followed in January 1938 by the licensee of the Willow Park Hotel, Pontefract, together with two business associates, signed a lease with the company and successfully established a dog track near the hotel. (29)

The initiatives outlined above arose as much from necessity as from the desire to stimulate trade for despite general indications of a slow recovery of trade from the mid 1930s, signs of hardship amongst some of the tenants of company houses consequent upon the economic depression are evident throughout the decade. (30)

Reference has already been made to the eviction of the tenant of the newly rebuilt Gardeners Arms Inn, Pontefract. In this case the company may have been culpable to a degree for when in October 1937 the tenant sought clarification regarding future tenure she was informed that her tenancy could continue providing she paid the sum of £100 towards the valuation of the new premises. The financial strain appears to have been the reason why by some months later the tenant was indebted to the company. (31) Doubtless the hopes of both parties that the new premises would yield enhanced trade were unfulfilled for when in December 1938, the replacement tenant gave in his notice concessions were made involving the non-payment of rent, rates and licence fee for a period to be determined at the discretion of the secretary. (32)

Earlier instances of tenant debt are on record. In August 1936 the board was informed that the late tenant of the Boat Inn, Knottingley, was willing to hand over the 'writings' deeds of conveyance of land named 'Nancy Andrews', adjoining the premises, for the sum of £100 to be set against hid indebtedness to the company. The board expressed its willingness to accept the offer, intending to auction the plot and return to the debtor any surplus funds following settlement of the debt and legal fees, providing the debtor agreed to the sale if the proceedings realised less than £100. (33) Unfortunately, resolution of the problem was delayed by misplacement of the deeds while in the company's possession, resulting some twenty months later, in the debtor being asked to sell the land himself and give an undertaking to pay the Company its due from the proceeds. The land was eventually sold for £60 with the purchaser paying the legal fees on behalf of both parties and the Company meeting the cost of a search and declaration concerning the title to the land. (34)

A not dissimilar situation arose in December 1937 when the late tenant of the Cross Keys, Hillam, to clear a debt to the company, handed over life insurance policies which were reassigned to the company by the respective insurers. (35) In a further instance, the tenant of the Queen's Head Inn, Castleford, had to obtain a second mortgage on a house at Morecambe to service the debt owing to the company for goods received. (36)

Tenant debtors with no tangible assets had no other option than bankruptcy, receiving little sympathy and less assistance from the company, the secretary being instructed to implement legal proceedings under the terms of the Bankruptcy Act of 1914 where appropriate. (37)

Tenants' accounts were appraised on a regular basis and corrective action promptly demanded of defaulters. In November 1937 the landlord of the Turk's Head, Pontefract, was given until the year end to reduce his outstanding account or face eviction. At the same time the tenant of the Sydney Hotel, Goole, received a visit from two directors and was presented with a demand for payment of debt at ×8 per month or eviction which resulted in the enforced sale of his garage and taxi business and the loss of vital supplementary income. (38)

The 'tough' attitude was evidently prompted by a boardroom decision in March 1936 that

"now that trade conditions have improved, conditions of tenancy terms be revised." (39)

However, a degree of flexibility was exercised to ensure the retention of suitable tenants and attract new ones. Thus, the decision of the board not to allow further concessions to the landlord of the Railway Hotel, Knottingley, in September 1935, was reversed the following May when in the face of his threat to quit he was allowed 10s per week to supplement his licences, lighting and rates. (40) The tenant of the Aire Street Hotel, Knottingley, was also allowed £1 per week late in 1937 due to poor trade which resulted in surrender of the licence only a few months later. (41)

Allowances were made to prospective tenants seeking to revitalise trade in houses of depreciating sales or unusual circumstances. Mention has been made of the introductory concessions to the incoming tenant of the Gardeners Arms, Pontefract, in December 1938 and simultaneously, the tenant of the New Inn, Pontefract, was provided with rates relief during a period when alterations to the property caused a decrease in custom. (42) In the case of the Sydney Hotel, Goole, where the future of the debt ridden tenant was unsure, the company appear to have anticipated the outcome, opening negotiations with a prospective successor and guaranteeing to subsidise him in the event of a delayed entry. (43)

Fluctuating trade arising from national conditions or local circumstance was a perennial problem for publicans and one which led occasionally to aberrant practices and lawlessness. The company, mindful of its commercial reputation and public image, particularly in the light of temperance critics, adopted an increasingly severe attitude towards tenants who infringed both legal and moral tenets by allowing drunkenness, gambling and lewd or violent behaviour on their premises. Economic adversity during the 1930s increased instances of illegality as desperate and less scrupulous tenants adopted a more relaxed attitude to the generally acceptable standards of public behaviour in order to stimulate trade. Consequently, a number of cases involving the police and local magistrates' courts occurred at that time. The landlord of the Aire Street Hotel, Knottingley, was sent to prison in November 1931 for purchasing boxes of matches stolen from a nearby warehouse (44) and a charge of theft against a female customer in the Couriers' Arms, Pontefract, in March 1938 resulted in more serious charges being brought against the licensee. Cases of out of hours drinking at the Black Boy Inn and the Gardeners Arms, Pontefract, were brought before the magistrates in January 1931 while in April a case of betting at the Lamb Inn, Knottingley, was also brought to court. (45) In August 1939 the beleaguered tenant of the Sydney Hotel, Goole, was reported by the Customs & Excise officers for diluting the beer. (46) Such cases appear to have initially been regarded by the Board as regretful but infrequent examples of misconduct. However, the case of theft brought against a woman in the Couriers' Arms, Pontefract, in March 1938 highlighted more serious and widespread misconduct resulting in charges being brought against the landlord and also the tenant of the Rose & Crown Inn, Pontefract, for allowing their premises to be used as a brothel while the licensee of the Black Boy Inn in the same town was charged with allowing habitual prostitution. (47) In consequence, only swift action on the part of the Company prevented loss of the licences. The tenants of the Rose & Crown and the Couriers' Arms were served with one day's notice while no less suspicious but more inconclusive evidence resulted in three month's notice being given to the landlord of the Black Boy, together with the tenants of the Pine Apple Inn and the Gardeners Arms, Inn, Pontefract. (48) Despite the 'root and branch' action by the company lingering elements remained, perhaps reinforced by the exigencies of war and the status of the Borough as a garrison town, for the writer recalls that during the period of the second world war the Gardeners' Arms was an alleged to be a disreputable place in which women of easy virtue mixed with men of wanton behaviour, though with what justification is not known.

The seriousness of the offences clearly hardened the attitude of the Board and in June 1938 the tenant of the Turk's Head, Pontefract, already the subject of an informal warning, was dismissed at a single day's notice for default in the repayment of his debt to the company. While the situation carried no implications for the loss of the licence it is obvious that the action of the company represented public notification of its disassociation from turpitude and its determination to uphold acceptable standards of behaviour. (49) The attitude was vigorously applied and when in January 1939 the landlord of the Lime Keel Inn, Knottingley, was summoned a second time for permitting drinking out of hours he was promptly served notice to quit. (50) All infringements of whatever nature were noted by the company. Disturbances at the Cross Keys, Hillam, and the Rose & Crown Inn, Pontefract, (already tinged with suspicion) although minor in nature, were noted as was the case brought against the tenant of the Greenfield Hotel, Upton, for allowing betting on the premises, even though the case was dismissed by the magistrates. (51)

The difficulty of finding suitable tenants or replacements for unsuitable ones resulted in the engagement of managers but a statement of September 1938 to the effect that most of the Company's houses were under managerial control refers principally to Pontefract where misdemeanours of tenants had resulted in abrupt dismissals and evictions (52) while there are numerous references to managerial control the company records testify to a preference for the continuation of tenancy leaseholds. (53) That the company preferred such an arrangement is evident from the approach made to the manager of the Featherstone Hotel in November 1937 who was asked to take on the tenancy, with free rent , rates and licence. In the event of the manager's refusal, the secretary was to seek an alternative tenant and exercise his discretion concerning the additional perk of free electricity, a ploy which ultimately proved successful. (54)

In its recourse to managers, the company had adopted the tendency of many brewery companies during the previous decade, the difference being that while they adopted the practice for financial reasons the Company did so solely out of administrative expediency. (55)

Just as change was frequently engendered by tenants eager to stimulate trade, pressure from local authorities dictated improvements to sanitation and hygiene, particularly but by no means exclusively, to licensed premises in rural locations. Between July 1938 and January 1939 no less than four local authorities demanded sanitary improvements affecting a dozen or more company houses, the work to be undertaken within a stipulated period of time. In addition, from the same source came demands for similar improvements to dwelling houses owned by the company. Many domestic holdings were a legacy of a myriad purchases made as a necessary adjunct to the acquisition of public houses in an earlier period when standards of public health were not subject to the intense scrutiny or enforcement of the inter war years and in like the inns were equally in need of improvement. (56) The necessity and scale of the required work may be judged by the fact that local authority demand was a continuous feature of the late 1930s and only abated with constraints arising from shortage of labour and materials consequent upon wartime conditions. (57)

The zeal of the authorities in pursuance of improving standards of building and sanitation is reflected in a request by the clerk to the Pontefract Licensing Justices in February 1939 that detailed plans be submitted by the company of all proposed alterations to its public houses within the Borough. The request was rejected by the Company on grounds of unjustifiable expense, the company offering to submit details of any specific property as desired. (58)

An indication of the nature of refurbishment and the costs involved is seen by reference to six company houses to be refitted in accordance with the demands of the Licensing Justices in May 1939.

Rose & Crown Inn, South Kirkby, Pontefract, to be rebuilt entirely, cost, £6,000.
Bay Horse Inn, Knottingley, new lavatory and general rearrangement of the interior, cost, £700, excluding redecoration and electrical fittings.
Sun Inn, Featherstone, new lavatory and rearrangement of interior, cost, circa £250, less redecoration.
Shoulder of Mutton Inn, Kirk Smeaton, new lavatory, wash house, bathroom upstairs, cost, circa £300.
Commercial Inn, Knottingley, new lavatory, partial rearrangement of interior, new bathroom, cost , circa £500.
Queen's Head, Castleford, reconstruction of interior cost, circa £1,500/£2,000. (59)

Refurbishment of licensed premises had financial implications above and beyond basic cost, increased insurance premiums and re-evaluation of rateable value being additional factors. Following the closure of the brewery the cost of insurance cover was reduced from £36,040 to £12,540. (60) However, the construction of new houses and refurbishment of existing ones increased the necessity for adequate insurance cover of which changes in the tempo and style of life emphasised the need for greater cover in respect of public liability. Thus, in April 1939 the company at a cost of £20 per year, increased its public liability insurance in respect of all public houses, off licences and clubs in the Pontefract district. A noticeable addition to the policy was a clause covering any claim against the Company for food poisoning, an indication of the emergent trend for catering within licensed premises. (61) Nevertheless, a degree of financial restraint, doubtless imposed of necessity by the substantial capital outlay incumbent upon the company by the demands of local authorities and considerations of trade, is evident in the board's rejection in March 1939, of a suggestion by the insurance broker, O.A. Jepson, that the insurance premiums on its hotels be increased. (62)

Rate reassessment of refurbished premises and in the case of new ones, assessment of both rates and monopoly value, placed on increasing burden upon company finances. With regard to the latter, the policy of the company was to appeal automatically against the sum to be levied, a somewhat protracted and attritional process of negotiation. (63) An example is seen with regard to the reassessment of the monopoly value of the Minsthorpe Hotel following its refurbishment. In February 1936 Sides anticipating a hefty valuation, seized the initiative and offered the sum of £900 to the Superintendent Valuer who rejected the offer and fixed the sum at £1,000. An appeal was then lodged with the Licensing Justices and although the larger sum was confirmed, being payable by the 1st October, Sides arranged for the cancellation of the existing licence thus obviating payment of the fourth stage payment in connection with the previous monopoly valuation thereby obtaining a saving for the company and several months' deferment of the new payment. (64)

The rates battle was undertaken against a number of local authorities according to the location of various premises. In September 1938 Side's successor, William Thompson presented the board with a list of proposed re-evaluations and was instructed to lodge objections on the grounds of excessiveness and to enlist the support of local off licence holders in support of the objections. (65) Some idea of the huge hike in rateable value may be seen by reference to two company houses at Askern. In the Spring of 1939 the company appealed unsuccessfully against the levy on the Red Lion Inn and the Railway Hotel, the net rateable value of the former having increased by 83% and the latter by 81%. (66) In June that year the board took issue with Osgoldcross R.D.C. and decided to appeal to the Rating Assessment Committee. unless a compromise could be reached. (67) The company were hopeful, a compromise concerning the valuation of some of its houses having been reached the previous month but having refused an accommodation concerning the others on the advice of the solicitor of the Yorkshire Brewers' Association. (68) The subscription to the Association of 10 shillings per licence whilst not cheap was obviously considered worthwhile in order to secure legal advice and representation with various rating authorities of whom Knottingley, Pontefract, Doncaster, Selby, Osgoldcross, Goole and Hemsworth feature in Company records, the process of assessment and appeal being a constant feature of the late 'Thirties. (69)

---

NOTES: Chapter 13
1. WYW 1415-2 Auction schedule inserted between pp231-2 and also c.f. p227
2. ibid p244, p254 & p281
3. ibid p254
4. ibid p321. Tender by Cockroft & Briggs for £39-10-0 accepted September 1937
5. ibid p305, p307 & p312. The Thorpe Audlin cottages were demolished in September 1938 at a cost to the Company of £4-10-0 each c.f. WYW 1415-3 pp9-10 & p12
6. ibid p16 & p19
7. WYW 1415-2 p366
8. ibid p352
9. WYW 1415-3 p50
10. ibid p58
11. WYW 1415-2 p225, p230, p237 & p251
12. ibid p290. The latter case concerned land near the Railway Hotel, Knottingley which had been the subject of a mortgage conveyance almost half a century earlier c.f. ibid p224, p231 & p238
13. ibid. Schedule of properties for auction at sale dated 23-10-1935 inserted between pages 231-32. Also c.f. p232
14. ibid p258
15. ibid p227-28. The land was sold to Brooks as a series of separate holdings for use as building plots.
16. ibid p275 & p281 re illnesses and pp315-16 re death and message of condolence.
17. ibid p362. The Company had been trying to sell this land since 1935
18. WYW 1415-3. pp8-9
19. ibid p21, p32 & p58. The land was also subject to an annual corn rent of £1-1-5 c.f. pp64-5
20. WYW 1415-2 pp321-22 & 324
21. WYW 1415-3 p21 & p23
22. WYW 1415-2 p337 & p331
23. ibid p353
24. ibid p331
25. WYW 1415-3 p3 & p6
26. WYW 1415-2 p342
27. WYW 1415-3 p4
28. WYW 1415-2 p224 & 231
29. ibid p150, p343, p346 & p361
30. ibid p324 & 1415-3 p3 & p27
31. ibid p324
32. WYW 1415-3 p27
33. WYW 1415-2 p268
34. ibid pp359-60
35. ibid p322, p332 & p340
36. ibid pp325-26 & p353
37. ibid pp274-75
38. ibid p332 & pp349-50
39. ibid p255
40. ibid p262 (c.f. Chapter 9 pp98-99) Notwithstanding the additional concession the tenancy was surrendered in September 1936 c.f. 1415-2 p272
41. ibid p337 & p347
42. WYW 1425-3 p27
43. WYW 1415-2 p348
44. Pontefract Advertiser 14-11-1931 p2
45. ibid 24-1-1931 p3 & 18-4-1931 p4
46. WYW 1415-3 p61. In August 1939 the tenant of the Sydney Hotel, Goole, was reported by the Excise for watering down the beer. A letter of explanation was provided, the contents of which are not disclosed. The action was noted by the Company.
47. ibid p3
48. WYW 1415-2 p355 & pp361-62
49. ibid p363
50. WYW 1415-3 p37
51. ibid p9
52. ibid p16 for references to managers of Company houses c.f. WYW 1415-2 p355 and passim.
53. WYW 1415-12 Also Spencer T ‘Knottingley Public Houses....’
54. WYW 1415-2 p330 & p334. Also WYW 1415-3 p16 & p336
55. Gourvish & Wilson, op cit, p419
56. WYW 1415-2 p336,& 1415-2 p10 & p36
57. WYW 1415-3 p46, p49 & p59
58. ibid p43
59. ibid p49
60. WYW 1415-2 p250
61. ibid p353 & p356
62. WYW 1415-3 p47
63. ibid p46 re automatic appeal by company against rate assessment of new Darrington Hotel. c.f. also negotiations re Greenfield Hotel, Upton, WYW 1415-2 p286,p289, p292 & p296 for protracted negotiations.
64. ibid p257 & p250
65. WYW 1415-3 p14
66. ibid p46
67. ibid p57
68. ibid p53
69. ibid p63.

---