Page Updated:- Sunday, 07 March, 2021.


Earliest 1874-


Latest 1874+




I have only found this mentioned the once so far from the Kent and Sussex Courier of 1874 when licensee changes were mentioned in the 30 September issue.

However, there is another "Crown" I have found mentioned as being in Tonbridge.


From the Kent and Sussex Courier, 1 July 1874.

Capel. A Beerhouse Keeper Summoned for Permitting Drunkenness.

John Holman, beerhouse keeper, was summoned for permitting drunkenness in his house - the "Crown," - Capel, on the 16th June.

Mr. Warner, solicitor, defended.

Instructing Constable Holman deposed that at 8 o'clock on the evening of 16th June, he found a man named Humphrey and a prostitute drunk and behaving in a very indecent manner in the tap-room of defendants house. Humphrey went out, and after staggering about fell into a pool of water. He did not see the man have anything to drink in the house. He saw the woman drink, and heard her make use of most disgusting language, at which the defendant and his family laughed. When spoken to on the subject, the defendant said the man and woman had not been drinking at his house.

Cross-examined by Mr. Warner:- He had summoned Humphrey for being drunk, but not the woman, as she had no fixed place of abode.

P.C. Whibly corroborated, and said that Humphrey went out into the road, but he was so drunk that he fell in some water. The landlord told him that Humphrey and Smith had been lodging at his house, and denied that they bought any drink at his house. Did not see either the man or the woman drinking in the house. Had received complaints from Mr. Crispe about the woman. Humphrey was at the house in the morning between 8 and 9 o'clock drunk.

Mr. Warner, For the defence, argued that the prosecution had not shown that the defendant was the legal holder of the license, and, therefore, the case must fail, because this being a criminal case everything must be strictly proved.

The Chairman said the defendant was summoned as John Holman of the "Crown" beer house, and he had attended to it, that was prima facie evidence that he was the holder of the license.

The Bench refused to allow the objection.

John Holman, the defendant, was then called, and said he was the landlord of the "Crown," and remembered the man Humphrey being in his house between 6 and 7 o'clock on the evening in question. Humphrey asked him to draw some beer and he replied, "Ask the missus." Humphrey said, "I have asked her, and she won't draw me any." He then told Humphrey that he should not, as he considered that he had had enough. He refused Humphrey several times to draw him any beer, and he also refused to draw beer for the woman Smith. He draw a pot of beer for the woman's husband, and that was the only quantity he drew during the evening.

By the Bench:- My wife is in charge of the tap during my absence.

By Superintendent Dance:- I don't know that I have power to turn any drunken man out of the house; besides it depends upon the size. I asked the man to leave several times.

By Mr. Cazalet:- I did not send for the police. I thought he would go by my persuading him. It might have been 2 hours before the police came.

Jane Holman, wife of the defendant, said she remembered Humphrey coming to her house on the evening in question, at about 6 o'clock. Her husband was not there at the time. Humphrey was drunk, and she refused to draw him any beer. The woman was not drunk.

Superintendent Dance said defendant was fined 5s. and costs on the 30th September, 1873, and was cautioned in April last in consequence of a report being made of his permitting drunkenness.
The Bench said they had no hesitation in convicting, and they fined defendant 10s. and 16s. 6d. costs.



HOLMAN John to Aug/1874 Kent and Sussex Courier

DOLDING Richard Aug/1874+ Kent and Sussex Courier


Kent and Sussex CourierKent and Sussex Courier


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