|
7a Priory Street
Dover
Known earlier as the "Royal George", that licence was
withheld in 1859 but George Baker impressed the Bench sufficiently the
following year to effect a reopening.
|
From the Dover Express and East Kent Intelligencer, 9
July, 1859.
DOVER POLICE COURT
The "Anglesey Arms" - This being a transfer day, Mr. James Pincher
applied for the transfer of the "Anglesey Arms," formerly the "Royal
George," whereupon:-
The May read a memorial address to the magistrates from the residents
of Priory Street and the vicinity, calling their worship's attention to
the fact that the memorialists were continually subject to annoyance
from the drunken and disorderly assemblages at the "Anglesey Arms,"
formerly the notorious "Royal George," after the hour of midnight, and
by such drunkards and disorderlies, after being ejected from the house,
remaining in the street, quarrelling and fighting, and crying "murder!"
as was the case (a report in our last) on the night of the 25th June.
The memorialists concluded by requesting that their worships would cause
such enquiries to be made and such instructions given as would abate the
nuisance. The memorial was signed by thirteen persons.
The application denied that the house was conducted in a disorderly
manner.
The Mayor, however, said the magistrate had taken pains to enquire
into the point, and as the result of their investigations they had
determined not to transfer the license.
|
|
From the Dover Express and East Kent Intelligencer, 10
September, 1859.
ANNUAL LICENSING
The "Anglesea Arms," formerly he notorious "Royal George," in Priory
Street, a petition against the renewal of the license, signed by thirty
residence of that street and its neighbourhood, was read. It spoke of the
frequent midnight broils created by disorderly persons who were turned out
of the house, accompanied by fighting and screaming and cries of "Murder,"
awakening the petitioners from their slumbers and alarming them; and they
therefore desired that such instructions should be given as would lead to
the abatement of the nuisance. The Superintendent, in reply to questions by
the Bench, said he had received no reports against the house since June
last, when some parties were brought up who had created a disturbance and
sentenced to 14 days' imprisonment; but the Town Sergeant (Frowe), who lived
next door, stated that even since June the house had been very badly
conducted and that he had reason to believe prostitutes were harboured
there.
The landlord said that the women who lived there at his house were merely
lodgers and gained their livelihood by taking in needlework.
The Mayor told him the Magistrates had determined, whenever complaints
against a house had been received, as in this case, to withhold the license.
"The Duke of Cornwall," in Oxenden Street, shared a similar fate.
|
The name would have changed at that
time and the public still drank there in 1866. My searches never revealed it
again after that year although I did find mention of an "Anglesey Arms" in
York Street in 1870. I have presumed that to be the "Marquis of Anglesey".
|
From the Dover Express and East Kent Intelligencer, 7 May, 1859.
DRUNK AND DISORDERLY
Charles Elton and Esther Elton were brought up by police-constable
Faith, the first charge with being drunk and disorderly in Priory
Street, and the woman, with abetting him in his violence.
From the evidence of the constable it appeared that he was called in
to clear the "Anglesey Arms" public-house, Priory Street, shortly before
12 o'clock on Saturday night, the landlord being desirous of closing the
house. The defendant's were two of the noisiest of a very noisy party in
the taproom, an it was with great difficulty they were got out of the
house. After the emerged into the street they were very abusive, and the
man, who had in his possession a stick as thick as a constable's staff,
struck the officer a blow on the arm, by which he was completely
stunned. He still felt the effects of the blow, he said, and was unable
to raise his arm to his head. The woman clung to her husband and
prevented him from being taken into custody for some time; but further
assistance was obtained by the constable, and the defendants were
ultimately conveyed to the station-house.
The female defendant was discharged, but the man was committed for
seven days in default of paying 1s. and 6s. costs.
|
|
From the Dover Express and East Kent Intelligencer, 2
July, 1859.
DRUNK AND DISORDERLY
Helen Fitzpatrick, an Irishwoman, was brought up by the
police-constable Bowles charged with being drunk, using obscene
language, and causing an obstruction of the footway in Priory Street
early on Sunday morning.
Bowles said that about half-past 12 o'clock on Sunday morning he met
a man who told him there was a "jolly row" in Priory Street; and hearing
cries of murder he hastened to the spot, where he found the prisoner
with her back against the wall and surrounded by about a hundred
persons, each and all of whom she was challenging to fight. She actually
wanted to fight him (the constable) when he made his appearance on the
scene. She obstinately refused to go to the station-house, and expressed
her intention of returning to the "Anglesey Arms," where she had been
staying, and of breaking every ------- thing in the house. It was not
without considerable difficulty she was conveyed to the police-station.
Mr. Coram said the conduct of the prisoner at the station was
considerably bad. She had three young children with her, one of whom
fainted at the police-station. He had since had them conveyed to the
Union.
Mr. Stride said he could answer for the cries of "murder," as he was
alarmed and got up to see what was the matter.
In defence the prisoner said she was on the road to Folkestone, where
her late husband had died, with the view of getting to the Union there.
She protested that she did not occasion the disturbance, but that it was
caused by another Irish family who were turned out of the "Anglesey
Arms" about the same time.
Mr. Coram said the eldest of the prisoner's children was a girl
twelve years of age.
Capt. Knocker - Ah! Already "on the town," I suppose?
The prisoner indignantly repudiated his worship's charitable
assumption, saying that her children, although poor, were honest. She
was then committed for seven days' hard labour, in default of paying a
fine of 10s., including costs.
|
|
Canterbury Journal, Kentish Times and Farmers' Gazette, Saturday 22 February 1862.
THE GREAT ROBBERY OF LACE AT THE CAVALRY BARRACKS.
Thomas Morgan James, alias William Jackson, and James Henley, were
charged, on remand from Monday, with stealing 57 yards of lace and other
articles from the Cavalry Barracks on the 4th inst.
The depositions taken on Monday were read over, and the following
additions made:-
Charles Chandler:- When Henly told me his chum was apprehended, I asked
if he had any of the property on him. He replied, "Yes, a scarf, and
that will sell him."
By Henly:- You told me you believed your chum was apprehended. I do not
recollect that you told me that you would not let an innocent man suffer
for a guilty one.
Eliza Whiting:- It was the 5th inst. that the prisoners came to our
house.
The Superintendent:- On Sunday the prisoner Henly said to me, "I hear my
chum was taken with one of the scarf’s on his neck."
Henly:- Where did you get that news from. You've taken it from the
papers, I suppose.
The Superintendent:- When I mentioned the night of the 4th, or morning
of the 5th, the prisoner Henley went to the almanac and said, "You're
right; Tuesday was the 4th."
Henly:- How many times did you ask me if any one was in my company.
The Superintendent:- I asked you once, and you replied no one.
Henley:- Did you not tell me that Jackson was in custody at Dover, and
that you had taken that piece of alpaca to match with his coat.
The Superintendent:- I told you that I had taken it to Dover.
Henley:- You say that I noticed the alpaca first.
Superintendent:- Yes.
Henly:- Did you not say to me, do you know anything of that.
Superintendent:- No.
Henley:- Let us have the truth right through, now we have had it so far.
My word will not be taken for yours. Did you not ask me all sorts of
questions as to whether Jackson was in my company.
Superintendent:- No, certainly not.
The following fresh evidence was then taken:-
George Baker:- I keep the "Anglesey Arms" public house, at Dover. On
Saturday the 1st inst., the two prisoners came to my house, and stayed
till Monday. They slept at different parts of the house, and did not
enter into conversation with each other.
By the Clerk:- I have told a person that I did not like to give evidence
against soldiers.
Mr. Brown stepped forward and said there was one circumstance he had
forgotten, and that was, that on the outside of the window sill there
was some wet clay, and the marks of a man's knees in it, as if he wore
corduroy trousers.
The prisoner Jackson had corduroys on, and Mr. Brown said that the
marks, he thought, would nearly correspond with them.
The Court was then cleared, and on the admission of the public, in about
ten minutes time, the prisoners were cautioned in the usual manner, when
Henly said that Jackson was innocent, and he only was guilty.
Jackson:- I was in Dover, at the "Anglesey Arms," at six o'clock. I went
from there to the "Robin Hood," where I stopped till it closed. I went
there to see if I could sleep there, but was told I could not, and I
then slept in a hay-stack. I got up about three hours after, and went to
the "Anglesey Arms" and knocked, between five and six. It is not
possible that I could leave Dover at eleven o'clock, some into
Canterbury and commit a robbery, and be back there by three.
Both prisoners were committed for trial.
|
|
From the Dover Telegraph, 3 January 1863.
THE BURGLARY AT CHARLTON.
John Henry Woodhouse, 26, an artilleryman, pleaded "Not Guilty" to a charge of
stealing one gold pin, the property of Mr. Wm. Brewster, in his dwelling-house
at Charlton, on the 25th October; there was a second indictment charging
prisoner with dealing with stolen property.
Mr. Addison for the prosecution.
The evidence of Mr. and Mrs. Brewster proved the discovery of the robbery at the
house in Charlton, and the loss of a considerable portion of jewellery. The
following week prisoner offered her pin in question for sale at Mr. Brewster's
shop in Snargate Street, stating that it had been given to him by one
Christopher Rawlinson, of the 90th Foot, some rive months since. Upon being
asked his name he said it was William Tayler of the 2nd battery, 5th brigade;
and upon Mr. Brewster endeavouring to detain him, he ran away, but was
ultimately captured by Sergeant Back.
Prisoner cross-examined the witnesses upon what "sign or token" they could
identify the property produced, and to show that similar pins could he procured
at any jeweller's shop in the town — Mr. Brewster knew the pin from its peculiar
make — it was manufactured by Mears of Birmingham.
Prisoner:- I wish the first witness to be called back, and the gentleman there
who wrote down what she said before the Mayor
Mrs. Brewster re-called.
Prisoner:- Did she not say they had not lost any pins at first?
Mrs. Brewster:- I did when the question was first asked — I thought they meant
hair-pins, and do not wear any. I did not know at that time how much jewellery
there was in the drawer.
Mrs. Mary Chetwynd did not think the Artilleryman she saw near Mr. Brewster's
house in the Charlton Back-road was quite so tall as the prisoner.
Thomas Cattermole, landlord of the "Recruiting Sergeant," Buckland Road, when
the prisoner offered to sell him a gold pin, on the 1st November, refused to buy
anything of a soldier.
Charles Williams p.c., deposed that an entrance had been effected by the
breaking of a kitchen window at the residence.
Prisoner in defence called two of his comrades to prove an alibi, and further
stated that another soldier named Taylor had given him the pin to sell.
Gunners Thompson and Hopper were closely cross examined by the Recorder and Mr.
Addison, but there was no discrepancy in either statement that they had left the
Castle at five o'clock, visited the "Anglesey Arms" in Priory Street, and left
it for the "Ale Shades" in Snargate Street, returned to the "Anglesey Arms," and
started at 8.40 for their barracks. Prisoner was with them the whole time. They
had not had curiosity enough to ascertain how far the house where the robbery
was committed was from the "Anglesey Arms."
Gunner Taylor denied all knowledge of the pin; he had never given it to the
prisoner.
Prisoner:- Ask him whether he did not state that he gave it to me, before the
Superintendent, Sergeant Back, and the policeman Williams.
Recorder:- I cannot consistently — you called him to prove that he gave you the
pin and he has failed to do so.
Lieut. James Jenkins stated that prisoner had been in his battery about three
years, and up to the present time nothing was against him — his character had
been generally good.
Mr. Addison then addressed the jury upon the second count - admitting the
possibility that the prisoner’s comrades had given truthful evidence, and that
being in their company about the time the robbery had been committed, it would
have been impossible for the prisoner to have perpetrated it; still there was
the fact that he had been found most improperly dealing with it, and his acts
were such as exhibited a knowledge that it had been improperly come by.
The Recorder summed up at length, and with concise remarks thought it would be
better for the jury to dismiss the first count of the indictment from their
minds, and to find upon the second one. The misrepresentations of the prisoner,
and the failure of his own witness to prove the statement they had heard him
make that the pin was given to him by Taylor were certainly not in his favour.
The jury having returned a verdict of Guilty, the Recorder called upon Sergeant
Back and Superintendent Coram, the latter of whom had heard Taylor say to the
prisoner "I'll get you out of it!" but nothing about his ownership of the pin,
or he would have ordered him into custody.
The Recorder in passing sentence, said the prisoner had been convicted upon very
clear evidence, although the circumstances connected with this robbery were
under suspicious and it was certainly a most audacious robber under the most
atrocious circumstance; and he felt it his duty to sentence him to a period of
18 calendar months.
|
|
From the Dover Express and East Kent Intelligencer,
20 April, 1866.
ROBBERY FROM A COACH-HOUSE
Charles Hammond, a powerful looking labourer, was charged with
stealing from a coach-house in Townwall Street, one coat of the value of
5s., the property of Richard Shilling, fly driver.
The prosecutor said he lived in Woolcomber Lane, and was in the
employ of Mr. Laws, fly proprietor, of Townwall Street. On the previous
morning the door of the coach-house was left partially open, and a coat
belonging to him was lying in a pony carriage. He left it there between
nine and ten o'clock, and when he wanted to put it on, between twelve
and one, he discovered that it had gone. The coat produced by
police-sergeant Stevens was the same. He valued it at 5s.
George baker, the landlord of the "Anglesey Arms," priory Street,
said he saw the coat produced on the previous morning, when it was
brought to his house, about eleven o'clock, by the prisoner. He said he
was going to work at the "Clarence Hotel" next day, and he asked witness
if he would let him have a shilling on the jacket till Monday or
Tuesday, as he wanted to get some food. Witness asked him if it was his
own, and on his saying that it was, he let him have a shilling, and
prisoner left the jacket. He then went away - to get something to eat,
he said. At one o'clock, when the house was opened, the police came in,
and in consequence of their enquiries witness gave the jacket up to
them.
Police-sergeant Stevens said that on the previous day he went into
the "Anglesey Arms," and the landlord gave up to him the coat produced.
Police-constable Corrie took the prisoner into custody in High
Street, Charlton, on the previous evening. On being told what he was
charged with, he said he knew nothing about it.
The prisoner, who did not desire to put any questions to any of the
witnesses, begged that the case might be dealt with by the Magistrates,
and pleaded guilty.
The bench sent him to prison, with hard labour, for one month.
|
LICENSEE LIST
BAKER George 1860-66+
(age 39 in 1861 )
ROBBINS Jacob 1861? (age 40 in 1861,
Publican)
Census
|
