Page Updated:- Wednesday, 08 June, 2022.


Earliest Sept 1848


Closed 9 Mar 2014

Marsh Green


Wheatsheaf 1909

Above postcard, 1909.

Wheatsheaf 1909

Above postcard, 1909, kindly sent by Rory Kehoe.

Wheatsheaf 2006

Above photo, 2006.

Wheatsheaf 2009

Above photo May 2009.

Wheatsheaf 2009 inside

Above photo, January 2009.


Above photo date unknown.

Wheatsheaf sign 2007

Above sign 2007.


The 1841 census gives Ambrose Bryant aged 45 as being a show-maker of the same address.

Although Ambrose only appears to have ran the beer-house for three years the 1861 census give a Thomas May as running a pub, possibly this one in that year, unfortunately no name of the pub was given. I am assuming it is this till proved otherwise.


South Eastern Gazette 05 September 1848.


Ambrose Bryant applied for a license for a house called the "Wheatsheaf", at Marsh Green, in the parish of Edenbridge. The application was supported by a strong array of local authorities, including the minister, churchwardens, surveyors, overseers, etc., and many owners of property in the parish. It appeared that the "Wheatsheaf" was situated two miles from the nearest licensed house, and that the traffic had lately considerably increased, owing to the proximity to the railroad. The answers to the inquiries of the magistrates being satisfactory, and no opposition being offered, the license was granted.


Kentish Gazette, 2 April 1850.


This was an action for seduction.

Mr. M. Chambers and Mr. Simmons were for the plaintiff Mr. Serjeant Shee and Mr. Creasy for the defendant.

Mr. Chambers said that the plaintiff in this action was Ambrose Bryant, an innkeeper at Edenbridge, in this county, and the defendant was Henry Leigh, who carried on the business of farmer, surveyor, and land agent, in the same neighbourhood; and the action was brought to recover damages from the defendant for having seduced Mary Anne Bryant, the daughter of the plaintiff.

It would appear that there had been no intimacy between the parties until the month of August, 1847, and at this time the plaintiff’s
daughter was about 24 years old, and the defendant nearly 50. In that month the young woman had gone on a visit to a relation, and upon her return by the train the defendant got into the same carriage, entered into conversation with her, asked permission to accompany her home, and expressed his intention to visit her on the following day. He did so, and from this time an intimacy sprang up between them, and the defendant was a constant visitor at the house of the plaintiff, and he repeatedly promised to marry the daughter.

In the month of January, 1848, the plaintiff was unfortunately from home upon business, and the defendant took advantage of the opportunity afforded by his absence to overcome the scruples of his daughter, and succeeded in accomplishing her ruin, and the result was that she became in the family way. The defendant continued to profess honourable intentions, and upon one occasion he fixed the period for the marriage, but postponed it upon some excuse of business, and he went so far as to give the young woman money to purchase a wedding ring. At length she entertained a suspicion that he was upon intimate terms with a widow lady named Stevens, residing in the same neighbourhood, but upon her taxing him with it he indignantly denied it, and asserted that he would never marry any other woman than herself. The suspicion, however, turned out to he well founded, for shortly afterwards the defendant married this lady, and upon an application being made to him to make some reparation for the injury he had inflicted upon the plaintiff and his daughter, he very coolly remarked that she ought to affiliate the child; and he afterwards said that he had consulted his lawyer, and he would rather spend 200 than settle the matter or make any compensation.

The learned counsel then stated that the young woman was delivered of a child, which was still alive, in the month of October, 1848, and he said, that owing to the conduct of the defendant towards the young woman shortly before, and which would he detailed to them in evidence, her delivery was of the most painful description, and for six months afterwards she suffered most severely from illness; and, under these circumstances, the plaintiff came before a jury to obtain compensation in damages from the defendant for the very serious injury he had received at his hands.

Mary Ann Bryant confirmed the above statement, and added the following particulars:— There were four other children at present living at home. Her mother died eight years ago, and since her death witness had managed the domestic business of the house, and she was to be paid 14 a-year wages. Knew the defendant, who is a farmer, builder, and surveyor of timber. He occupies five farms. The defendant told her that he was upwards of fifty years of age. This was before her misfortune. On the 18th of January, 1848, her father was away from home on business, and she and three brothers were left in charge of the house. The defendant came in about seven o’clock, and remained until two o'clock the next morning; and in the course of that evening he told her that he fully intended to make her his wife, and there was no one else he could be happy with, and she unfortunately yielded to his solicitations. The family were all gone to bed; this took place in a little back parlour. The defendant, after this, appeared more attentive than before, and visited her more frequently, and she believed more than ever that he intended to make her his wife. The defendant afterwards asked her to go to London to get married, and she consented to do so as soon as she could prepare her dress. The defendant said her clothes would do, and she then told him to appoint his own time and she would be ready, and he said the marriage should take place at the end of a fortnight; but when the time arrived he made an excuse for not going, as he had business with a gentleman named Streatfield, to whom he was agent. After this he continued his visits, but kept postponing the day for the marriage. In August she saw the defendant driving by in his cart with a widow lady named Stevens, and she reproached him for doing so. He told her not to fret, and said he could not bear to see her weep. Witness said she could not help it, as he was deceiving her, and she had heard he was going to be married to Mrs. Stevens. The defendant replied, "No, my dear, it is not likely I shall leave my babe and you." Witness continued crying, and said if her father came to know it, he would banish her for ever, and she had no mother to take her part. The defendant, upon this occasion, told her that he had 2,000 besides his farming business, and he cried, and said he would never marry any one else. Shortly after this conversation the defendant called her attention to the report of a trial for seduction-. "Brown v. Yardley"— and asked her what she thought of it, and she replied that she thought it was very cruel, and the defendant said he should be ashamed to treat any young woman so. On the 5th of October the defendant was at her father's house, and he wanted to kiss her, but she told him she would not permit him to do so while he carried that widow woman about in the manner he did. The defendant said he should never think of having Mrs. Stevens while she lived. At this time she was far advanced in pregnancy, and the defendant said if it was a boy it should have his name, and if it was a girl it should be christened Martha, which was his mother's name. She told him she should never live to see it, and the defendant became angry, and shook her, and squeezed her violently. In consequence of this violence she was taken very ill, and was obliged to go to her bed; and on the 20th of October she was confined of a male child. She continued ill for upwards of six months, and was unable to do any work, and during this period she had a nurse and medical attendant, and was supported by her father.

Mary Jenner proved that she nursed the daughter of the plaintiff during her confinement, and that she was in attendance upon her from October, 1848, to the succeeding January, and during that period she said that she was unable to do anything for herself or to assist in any way in the household affairs.

Samuel Munday, a schoolmaster at Edenbridge, deposed that in October, 1849, he went to serve a writ of summons upon the defendant, and he asked him not to do so at that lime, as his wife was by, and also to try and hush up the matter; and he said he thought the plaintiffs daughter ought to have affiliated the child, and not have brought an action. The defendant made an appointment to meet him lhe same evening, but he did not keep it; and he could not serve the writ upon him for several days; and when he did so, the defendant said he had consulted his lawyer, and his money was all tied up, and he would spend 200 rather than settle the matter. The widow Stevens, who at this time was married to the defendant, was present, and she said she had given orders to the workmen on the farm not to go to the plaintiff's public-house, on pain of dismissal; and she added, that the action should not do him any good.

This was the plaintiff's case.

Mr. Serjeant Shee then addressed the jury for the defendant, and said that the defence he was instructed to offer, and which according to those instructions, he was bound to lay before them was, that the statement of the plaintiff's daughter with regard to the conduct of the defendant was not true, and that, in point of fact, no such intimacy or connexion as that which had been spoken to by her had ever taken place between them. The case rested entirely upon the evidence of the young woman herself; there was not the slightest attempt at corroboration. If, however, the jury should think that they could place reliance upon the evidence of the daughter of the plaintiff, it appeared to him that they must be of opinion at the same time that this was not a case of deliberate seduction; but that the defendant by going lo the house of the plaintiff to take refreshment had fallen into company with this young woman, and that she had listened to his improper proposals, and was as much to blame as he was, and that in such a case a very small amount of damages would cover the injury that had been sustained by the plaintiff in the present action.

Mr. Justice Maule having summed up, the jury, after a very short deliberation, returned a verdict for the plaintiff:— Damages 200.


South Eastern Gazette 18 November 1851.


To be heard at the Sessions House, Maidstone, before the Judge of the County Court of Kent, on Tuesday, the Second day of December, 1851, at Twelve o'clock at noon precisely.

Ambrose Bryant, formerly of Marsh-green, Edenbridge, Kent, shoemaker and farm labourer; then also a beer-seller; and late of the "Wheatsheaf" public-house, at Marsh-green, aforesaid, licensed victualler and shoemaker.


From the Maidstone Telegraph and West Kent Messenger, 18 December 1869.

Tunbridge Intelligence. PETTY SESSIONS.—TUESDAY.

Before Sir David Salomons (in the chair), Major Scoones, C. Powell, Esq, and A. Powell, Esq.


An application was made by Mr Shorter executor to the late Mrs May, formerly landlady of the “Wheatsheaf Inn,” Edenbridge, for the transfer of the license to Mr John Peters.

Supt. Dance said there had been no complaint against the house.

The Bench granted the application.


From the Kent and Sussex Courier, 25 August, 1876.


Thomas Longley, landlord of the “Wheat Sheaf” public-house, Marsh Green, Edenbridge, was summoned for unlawfully selling intoxicating liquor to a drunken person (John Shee, the man committed for manslaughter), at Edenbridge, on the 8th inst.

Mr Rogers, solicitor, applied for a remand, in order that witnesses might be summoned to give evidence on behalf of the defendant, and the application was granted.


From the Kent and Sussex Courier, 30 August 1876.


Thomas Longley, landlord of the "Wheat Sheaf Inn," Marsh Green, Edenbridge, was summoned for selling intoxicating liquor to one John Shee, on the 8th August, he being drunk.

Mr Rogers defended.

Thomas Beckett said the man Shee called at the defendant's public-house between seven and eight o'clock, and remained there till three minutes to ten o’clock. Shee appeared to be the worse for drink when he arrived at the house. The defendant served him with a pint of beer, but he could not say whether Shee was served with any more drink that evening, but the man was drinking there all the evening. Shee sat quietly on the bench outside the house, and did not interfere with any one.

In answer to Mr Rogers, witness said he believed Shee was drunk because he "rossled" up against another man when he sat down on the bench.

John Hickey said he saw Shee drinking outside the house, and when Shee left at ten o’clock, he was drunk.

Mr Rogers submitted that there was no case for him to reply to, but the Bench said they preferred hearing the evidence for the defence, and as he said he should call the defendant, and the witnesses had been ordered out of court, the Bench asked that the defendant should be first called, as otherwise he would have the advantage of hearing the evidence of his witnesses. Mr Rogers said he should call his witnesses in order, and he ordered the defendant out of court.

Charles Mallion, labourer, said that at half-past seven, on the night of the 8th, he met Shee and conversed with him. He believed the man was not drunk, and he walked perfectly straight.

By Supt. Dance:- Had not made a different statement to anyone else. Had said to I.C. Millen, when served with a summons, that the man might have been suffering from drink.

George Gibbons, game keeper, said he saw Shee at about a quarter to eight o’clock, and had some conversation with him. Shee was then sober.

Thomas Longley, the defendant, said that when Shee came to his house he sat on a form in front of the house. Tatnall and Bignell were then he believed in front of the house. Shee was sober, and on asking for a pint of porter, was served with it. That was all that Shee had served to him that evening. He had charge of the bar during the evening. There was no quarrelling or disorderly conduct during the evening, Shee never entered the house. In answer to Supt. Dance and the Bench, witness said he was sure the man Shee was only served with one pint of beer, or else he would have heard about it. Did not recollect seeing Supt. Dance the day after the murder, and having any conversation with him.

George Tatnall, Thomas Bignell, and Thomas Humphrey Roberts gave corroborative testimony, all saying that the man Shee was sober.

The magistrates retired for some time, and on their return they fined the defendant 3 and costs.

Mr Rogers gave notice of appeal, and that he hoped the case would not be heard in the court over which Mr Talbot presided, as it would be a manifest injustice to the appellant to have to appeal to the same tribunal, as Mr Talbot had taken part in the hearing of the case.


Kent & Sussex Courier 02 June 1916.


Colonel Stanley C. Williams, J.P., presided at a meeting of this Tribunal, held at the Station Hotel, Penshurst, on Friday.

C. Trinder, licensed victualler, "Wheatsheaf Inn," Marsh Green. Two Months exemption War Service.


Was still open in 2013 by was reported to have closed on 9 March 2014 for redevelopment.


Wheatsheaf last night

Last night at the Wheatsheaf, 9 March 2014.

Pub on the Green 2014

Pub on the Green get together June 2014.


The locals followed up by trying to gain local support for the reopening of the pub and organised an evening titled the "Pub on the Green" where they held evenings of merriment and opened their "temporary local" outside on the village green. Participants were encouraged to bring their own refreshments as no licence was held. Larkin's brewery offered their help with some free ale. They followed this up with another get together called the "Pub in the Lane".   Unfortunately the pub still remains closed today (2019).



BRYANT Ambrose Sept/1848-Nov/1851 (age 44 in 1851Census)

MAY Thomas 1861-64+ (age 60 in 1861Census)

MAY Mrs to Dec 1869 dec'd

PETERS John Dec/1869-71+ (age 25 in 1871Census)

LONGLEY Thomas 1874-76+

BATT Elizabeth (widow) 1881+ (age 55 in 1881Census)

DIVALL Francis 1891-1903+ (age 38 in 1901Census) Kelly's 1903

TRINDER Charles 1911-16+ (age 31 in 1911Census)

TRINDER Ethel Mrs 1918+

COLE John 1930

LITTLE Annie Mrs 1938+

SNELLING Stephen 1986+


Kelly's 1903From the Kelly's Directory 1903



If anyone should have any further information, or indeed any pictures or photographs of the above licensed premises, please email:-