Sort file:- Charlton, July, 2021.

Page Updated:- Monday, 05 July, 2021.


Earliest 1840-

White Horse Inn

Open 2020

704 Woolwich Road

New Charlton

020 8854 2646

hite Horse 1890s

Above photo circa 1890.

White Horse Inn

Photo taken from by Matt Martin, March 2007.

White Horse 2016

Above photo 30 October 2016, by kind permission Chris Mansfield.


The original building was rebuilt in 1897. Currently (2020) closed, but being renovated.

I am informed that the pub is again open as of October 2020.


Dover Telegraph and Cinque Ports General Advertiser, Saturday 25 August 1849.

Robbery by a licensed victualler and his son.

At the Central Criminal Court on Tuesday last, James Watson, 53, a licensed victualler, Jonathan Richard Watson, 23, labourer, and Robert Hawley, 29, a labourer, where indicted for stealing 500 bricks, the property of John Brogden, the master of Hawley.

Mr. Prendergast prosecuted; Mr. Clarkson and Mr. Parnell defended the Watson's, who are father and son; and Mr. Payne appeared for Hawley.

The case, which lasted nearly the whole day, excited a great amount of interest, on account of the respectable position filled by the prisoners Watson, and the Court was very full.

The evidence adduced in support of the charge, although of great lengths, merely established the following simple facts:- The elder Watson is a licence victualler keeping the "White Horse," New Charlton, Kent, and where he had resided for nearly 20-years, hitherto enjoying and unblemished reputation, as also had his son, who stood indicted with him; and the prisoner Hawley was in the employ of the prosecutor, who is the contractor for the New North Kent branch of railway open to Gravesend. In the course of constructing the line, it became necessary to pull down some houses at Woolwich, which, preceded their removal, were sold by auction, and, about the middle of April, the elder Watson, who is a builder as well as a publican, bought one of the houses for 40, and taking advantage of the opportunity afforded him in the removal of materials so bought, he removed a stack of bricks, the subject of the present indictment, to his own premises, which was clearly not included in the purchase; and the younger Watson was on the premises, directing them to be taken away. The circumstance having been found out, mention was made of it to the auctioneer, who had sold the the premise brought by the elder prisoner, and he (the auctioneer) immediately went to the Watson's, and asked them how they came to take away those bricks, when the Elder Whatson said he had bought and paid for them, and it was no matter from whom. Mr. Davis, auctioneer, then said that if he did not tell him from whom he had brought them, he should give him in custody, and he then said he had bought them from a man at the engineers office, who was understood to be the prisoner Hawley.

In the course of examination it turned out that, besides the house that Whatson bought, the clerk to the auctioneer had sold to him an unclaimed lot of old bricks, which, although not those claimed by the prosecutor, were placed near to them.

The Court said they did not think that there was a any case against Hawley.

Mr. Clarkson, for the elder Watson, contended that the affair was a mistake, the bricks being sufficiently near those his client had brought to have been taken by accident.

Mr. Parnell, for the son, adopted the same line of defence, adding that the son had also acted under the advice of the father.

The Common Sergeant said there could not be a case against Hawley, and there was not any evidence to show that the son might not have thought his father had bought the bricks, and the only real defence he could see for the elder Watson was that he might have taken them by mistake.

The jury, after a short consultation, acquitted them.

The Watsons were again indicted in conjunction with a labouring man named John Record, for having stolen, on the 26th of May, at Woolwich, 1,000 bricks, the property of the same prosecutor.

In this case it appeared that, near the spot where the houses before mentioned are situated, the railway companies works were being carried on, and a vast number of new bricks were continually received and carted from there to the tunnel at Charlton. About a week before the date named in the indictment the elder Watson asked Mr. Barnes, a builder, living at Sandhill, Plumstead, if he wanted to buy any new bricks, and he agreed to take 4,000 or 5,000, at 1 8s. a thousand, and about a third of the quantity were sent in, but the rest not arriving, Mr. Barnes called, on the 25th, at Watson's, to know why they had not come, and he (Watson) said they should be there the next morning. The Watsons then engage the man Record to go to the brick-stack in question and bring away 1,000 bricks, at the same time that the other carters were taking them, and if any questions are asked, to say they were for the works at the Charlton tunnel. One of the men connected with the works seeing the cart engaged by the Watson's, made some enquiries, and the answer not satisfying him communicated with the foreman of the works, that once instituted enquiries, and the result was that the cart, which had at first started off in the direction of the tunnel works, was traced to Watson's premises, and a quantity of new bricks were there found stacked over with old ones. Upon being taxed with the robbery, the elder Whatson said there must have been some mistake, and wished to pay for them. The police were then called in, and the elder Watson seemed extremely anxious to have the affair hushed up.

The jury found both of Watson's guilty, recommending them to mercy on account of their previous good character, and, by the direction of the Court, acquitted Record.

The Common Serjeant said it was an extremely bad case, especially against the Elder prisoner; still the younger one had taken an active part in the matter, which he had most likely been led into by his father.

The younger Watson said he had.

The Common Serjeant:-. But you were old enough to know you were doing wrong, and it is a very bad case; here is no poverty, want, or excuse of any kind, and a person in good circumstances carrying on a wholesale system of robbery. However, the jury and the prosecutor have both recommended them to mercy, and the sentence was, that the younger prisoner being prison for 6, and the elder one for 18 months, and kept to hard labour.




WATSON James 1840-49+

WATSON George 1858+

RHEINLANDER Philip Adolphus 1861-62+ (age 54 in 1861Census)

HOWLETT James Aug/1866-74+

HOWLETT Charles 1878+

PROCHOWNICK Maximillian William 1878+

HARPER Joseph 1882-85

RICH John 1885-Nov/90 Woolwich Gazette

OVERTON Arthur Henry Nov/1890-93 (widow age 58 in 1891Census) Woolwich Gazette

EARLE E Mrs 1896+

BUSHELL John 1901-08+ (age 35 in 1901Census)

DIXON Edward 1919+

PATRICK Henry Joseph 1934-44+

FARMER A 1988-90+



Woolwich GazetteWoolwich Gazette


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