Page Updated:- Sunday, 07 March, 2021.


Earliest 1881-

Noah's Ark

Latest 1891+

Maidstone Road

Paddock Wood


I have only found the one reference for this one so far in the 1881 census. I am not certain whether this is a pub as the only occupant in the census was an agricultural labourer and not listed as a publican.

Further information tells me the following:-


From the Sussex Express, Surrey Standard, Weald and Kent Mail, Hant and County Advertiser, Saturday, 27 June, 1891.


Joseph Cook was summoned, and pleaded not guilty to assaulting James Thomas Cook, his brother, at Paddock Wood, on the 14th June.

The complainant, a labourer, living at Yalding, said that on Sunday with some relatives he went to spend the day with some friends at Paddock Wood. They called at the "Maidstone-road Inn" for refreshments. The defendant came in, and after a wrangle, threw his hat down, and said that he would give it to him for interfering with his wife. He went to leave the house, the defendant pulled his jacket and fetched him back. They walked together to "Noah's Ark," and after agitating him his brother struck him three successive blows in the face making him bleed. When his brother came at him again he struck him in self defence. His face bled and he had to wash it.

Thomas and John Simmonds corroborated.

A cross-summons was next heard charging James Thomas Cook with assaulting Joseph Cook.

The complainant positively swore that it was his brother who was the aggressor, and that he struck him a violent blow making his nose bleed. It was not till after this that he struck him in self defence. His brother took off his coat and waste-coat to fight him.

Henry Judd, a drayman, of Tunbridge corroborated, and swore that it was James who commenced the affray. After Joseph said that he would not have any more his brother struck him again.

Stephen Cook was next summoned for assaulting Ellen Elisa Cook, at Keylands, Paddock Wood, on the 14th June.

Mrs. Cook, the wife of the first complainant, said that she was near her sister’s house about three o'clock to fetch her husband when the defendant rushed at her and struck her with his fists on both sides of the head. She was hurt and had the earache ever since. There were no words spoken before the blows were struck.

Sarah Collins, who gave her evidence in a very intelligent manner, corroborated.

Elizabeth Cook, on the other hand, swore that her son never struck her daughter-in-law at all. The complainant called witness all kinds of abusive names. The men fought with the men and the women with the women. She did strike her daughter-in-law, and if anyone ought to have been summoned it was herself.

Charles Beech was next summoned for threatening to do bodily harm to Isabella Simmonds at the same time and place.

Mr. A. H Neve, solicitor, defended.

Mrs. Simmonds a married woman, the wife of a labourer, said that on the day in question there was a row all round. She got her husband back to the garden gate, when Beech made a rush, and said that if he was a fighting man he would give it to him. Witness told him that her husband was not a fighting man, and was not going to fight. The defendant rushed in the gate, and said that he would give it to both of them. She pushed her husband indoors, and tried to close the door, but the defendant tried to force his way in. She closed the door, and told Beech to get off their premises. He returned after she locked the doors and said that he would do for some of them before they went home that night. She felt certain that if not bound over to keep the peace the defendant would do her some bodily harm.

Cross-examined by Mr, Neve:- There was a general row, and Beech and the two Cooks stripped to fight, James Thomas Cook married her husband's sister. She saw him at the Paddock Wood Club, but he did not do anything to her then.

Ellen Eliza Cook, the wife of James Thomas Cook, corroborated, and said that the defendant was more like a madman, and appeared to be in earnest.

Mr. Neve, for the defence, said that there way a deadly feud between the Simmonds and the Cooks by the marriages. On the afternoon in question there was a general row between the women and the men, and Beech was only a disinterested inactive spectator. If the language alleged was made use of by Beech it did not refer to the complainant, as she was at home. He put in a very high character which his client obtained during the seven years that he was in the army.

The bench, in the end, dismissed the case against Beech, believing that he would not be a party to committing any offence again.

With regard to the other eases, the Chairman said that they regarded them as a disgraceful family quarrel.

They fined Joseph Cook 10s., and 19s 2d. costs; James Thomas Cook 10s., and 15s. 2d, costs; and Stephen Cook 10s., and 13s, 6d. costs; or in default 14 days’ hard labour each.



HUMPHREY Walter 1881+ (agricultural labourer age 36 in 1881Census)




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