58 Strond Street
Snargate Street, Pentside
The picture above was taken, date unknown. The Barley Mow is indicated by the "X".
The picture below is date unknown
Facing the dockside, numbers 51 to 58 were a continuation
of Commercial Quay and were removed with those properties in 1929-30.
A sheaf suggests an appropriate sign but the name could
have associations with Barley Mow Passage which separated 81 and 83 Snargate
Street. Its neighbour would have been the "Union Hotel" which disappeared in
the same purge, apparently going first, because early in 1930, the "Barley
Mow" and the "New Commercial Quay Inn" were the only two pubs still open in
the area designated for clearance.
An outlet of George Beer at the close, it was in the care
of Jack Cesar in 1805.
In 1848 John Herbert the son of landlord William Herbert, and recently
employed in the police, drowned in the pent, and a Coroner's Inquest took
place at the "Cumberland Hotel."
(Click for details.)
From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday,
18 September, 1868.
PERMISSION TO SELL.
Permission to sell at the "Barley Mow" until the adjourned licensing
day was granted to Mr. H. J. Meadows, as brewer's agent.
From the Dover Express and East Kent
News, Friday, 10 June, 1870.
ROBBING A WORKMATE.
Josiah Jones, a labourer, was charged with stealing 6s. the money of
James Epps, a man with whom he had been employed.
James Epps: I am a labourer and live at Finnis's Hill. I have
recently been employed on board a steam collier in company with the
prisoner. Last Saturday evening, I was at the "Barley Mow," with the
prisoner, and got very tipsy. When I went into the public-house I had
about seven shillings in the left hand pocket of my jacket .While
sitting there I lost the whole of the money, and I saw the prisoner's
hand come out of the pocket. I asked him to give me the money back
again, and he said he had not got it. We then got to blows, and after we
had done fighting he went into the packet yard. I afterwards gave
information to a policeman who came along at the time, and the prisoner
was then taken into custody.
By the Bench: I had been drinking with the prisoner for about an hour
and a half. We had been working together that day, and on getting paid
we went to the public-house.
John McSchane, a private in the 97th Regiment, said that about five
o'clock on Saturday evening he was in the "Barley Mow" public-house,
where he saw the prisoner and the other man. They were drinking together
and afterwards got to blows. In the course of the scuffle the prisoner
took hold of the other man and declared he would put him on the fire
place; and as he had hold of the prosecutor witness saw him put his hand
in his pocket and take out some money. Among the money were two
two-shilling pieces, a shilling, and some coppers. The prisoner
afterwards ran out of the house and the prosecutor followed him, and
they commenced fighting again. The prisoner afterwards went into a coal
yard, where he was found by the police, in a little shed.
Police-constable John Sabin: On Saturday evening I went into the
packet yard, in consequence of what I heard, and found the prisoner in a
shed. He was very drunk; but he understood the nature of the charge made
against him, and said he was not guilty. I told him I should see what
money he had about him, and on searching him I found among his money two
two-shilling pieces, and some coppers. The complainant was also drunk.
The soldier, however, was sober; and on his telling me that he saw the
prisoner take the money out of the other man's pocket, I detained the
The prisoner denied the charge; but said he was very drunk at the
The Magistrates committed him for trial at the next Quarter Sessions.
From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 27 September, 1889. Price 1d.
ASSAULTING THE POLICE
On Monday at the Police Court, George Hayes was charged with being
drunk, using obscene language, and assaulting Police-constable Cadman
whilst in the execution of his duty. Police-sergeant Nash said on
Saturday night about a quarter past eleven he was on duty in Strond
Street when his attention was called to Commercial Quay by there being a
crowd of people near the “Barley Mow” public house. He went there and
saw the prisoner lying in the road drunk, blood trickling down his face
from a cut over the right eye. A woman who was with the man, said that a
sailor had struck him. The Constable got him up, and as soon as he was
on his feet he placed himself in a fighting attitude towards a sailor.
They got the prisoner away, and the woman and some civilians tried to
get him home. When he got over Limekiln Bridge he commenced fighting
with a man, and the Police then took him into custody. He put his leg
around Police-constable Cadman and tripped him to the ground. After that
he walked quietly a little way then tripped Cadman again, both falling
to the ground. With the assistance of the Military Police the man was
handcuffed, and whilst this was being done he knocked Cadman in the head
with his knee. When we got up, he attempted to trip Cadman again, and
they had to frogmarch him until the ambulance was obtained, and they
placed him in it and brought him to the station. The prisoner was
sentenced to fourteen days’ hard labour for being drunk and disorderly,
and one month for assaulting the Police.
Five a.m. opening was allowed from 1881 but by 1900 that
was extended to three thirty a.m.
David Torr, in 1890 had fourteen pounds of tobacco on the
premises which the revenue men considered he had not declared. Apart from
his fine of £5.10s. and the loss of his right to draw, the Bench seem to
have overstepped their authority when they refused the licence transfer to
another member of the trade. By access to higher channels, James Dolbear
effected a reopening here in October that year.
From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday 7 March, 1890.
ALLEGED INFRINGEMENT OF REVENUE LAWS
David Torr, the landlord of the “Barley Mow Inn,” was charged at
yesterday’s Police Court, before T. V. Brown, Esq. (in the chair), and
M. Pepper Esq., with having concealed on his premises 14 pounds of
smuggled foreign manufactured Cavendish tobacco. The court was crowded,
a good deal of interest being manifested in this case.
Mr. J. Titterton said he appeared on behalf of the Customs House
authorities. He asked that the treble value and duty should be
inflicted, instead of the £100 which the defendant was liable to pay.
James Hutchinson, Custom House officer, belonging to the detective staff
of London, said: On Tuesday I received a telegram from Mr. Titterton,
who was at Dover. I proceeded to Dover and arrived here about ten
o’clock on Tuesday night. On Wednesday morning, about eleven o’clock, I
proceeded, under the supervision of Mr. Titterton, to the “Barley Mow,”
Strond Street, for the purpose of searching the premises for contraband
tobacco. Mr. Titterton asked the defendant, who is landlord of the
house, if he had any foreign tobacco or cigars on the premises for which
duty had not been paid. He replied that he had nothing on which duty had
not been paid. He produced some tobacco and a few cigars, and the
receipts for the same. By Mr. Titterton’s suggestion, I then searched
the bar and back parlour. The defendant seemed very agitated whilst I
was doing this, and repeatedly asked Mr. Titterton to have some
refreshment, which was declined. I then proceeded to rummage the smoking
room. After searching for some time, I found under the sofa, the tobacco
produced, spread out on the floor. I immediately called Mr. Titterton’s
attention to the discovery. He questioned the defendant, who said he
knew nothing about it, but that there had been a couple of sailors in
the room a short time before, and they must have left it there. I
searched the other parts of the house, but did not find anything else.
The weight of the tobacco is 14 pounds, and the single value and duty is
By the defendant: I searched your rooms, but did not find anything else
there. The room where the tobacco was found seems to be a public smoking
James Titterton, detective examining officer of Her Majesty’s Customs,
London, said: At about eleven o’clock on Wednesday morning, acting under
instructions received from the Commissioner of Customs, I proceeded to
the “Barley Mow.” I told the landlord who I was , and that I had come to
search his house, producing my authority to search for smuggled goods. I
asked him to produce to me all the goods liable to duty he had on the
premises. He produced some goods for which he had invoices. He said he
had no others. The men who were with me, then searched the house.
Hutchison, who was in the front room downstairs, which is entered from
the bar, asked me to step inside, as he had found something under the
sofa. On stooping down, I saw the tobacco produced. I called the
defendant, and asked him if he could give any explanation as to how it
came there. He said he knew nothing about it, but there had been some
sailors in the room that morning, and they must have left it there. The
tobacco was packed after the fashion of a cork belt, so that it can be
tied round a person’s body, and not be noticed.
By the defendant: About an hour after we found the tobacco, several
foreign sailors came in, I searched them, but did not find anything
Mr. Titterton then said that was all the evidence he was prepared to
offer that day, and if their Worships were not satisfied he would like
an adjournment, when the Crown solicitor would appear.
The defendant said he would also like an adjournment so that he could
have legal aid.
The Magistrates accordingly adjourned the case till next Tuesday.
From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday 14 March, 1890.
THE BARLEY MOW CASE
Yesterday at the Police Court, before T. V. brown, Esq., and Mr. M.
Pepper, Esq., the remanded case of D. Lorr, landlord of the “Barley
Mow,” who was charged with having in his possession, smuggled tobacco,
was heard. The Court was densely crowded, great interest being
manifested in the case.
Mr. J. Macklin barrister of the Solicitors department, Custom House,
appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. Martyn Mowll for the defendant.
James Hutchinson was recalled, and the evidence he gave at the last
sitting was read over.
By Mr. Macklin: The 15 packages of tobacco were, as he stated before,
not placed, as if they had been thrown hastily under the sofa. There was
one window in the room, the light of which was obstructed by a screen
and a blind. The sofa was right against a window.
By Mr. Mowll: Whilst they searched the defendant seemed agitated, he
walked about and repeatedly asked Mr. Titterton to have something to
drink. When they went into the house the defendant said, “Search
wherever you like; I have no contraband goods.”
Re-examined by Mr. Macklin: He did not think anyone could go from or
come into the room without being seen in the bar.
Mr. Titterton was also re-called and his previous evidence was read
In reply to Mr. Maclin, he said that the smoking room is entered from
the public bar.
By Mr. Mowll: When I told Mr. Torr that I had found the tobacco he said
“Go and ask the servant who cleans the room out every morning, and she
will tell you if it was under there this morning. I asked her, before
Mr. Torr could speak to her, and she said that there was not anything
under there that morning.
The Chairman said that they had carefully considered the case, and had
come to the conclusion that it had been proved. But taking into
consideration that, whilst the defendant was in possession of the house,
there had been no complaints, they had come to the decision of
inflicting a minimal penalty. He would be fined the single value and the
costs of the court, amounting altogether to £5 10s.
The money was paid.
From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday 29 August, 1890.
DOVER BREWSTER SESSIONS
THE BARLEY MOW CASE
The licence for this house had been allowed to stand over, notice of
opposition having been given by the Superintendent of Police.
Sergeant Nash proved having served the notice on the landlord, David
Torr, on the 16th of August. The grounds of the objection were, that the
landlord was not a fit person to hold a licence, that he and his wife
were frequently drunk, and that on the 13th of March, 14lbs of smuggled
tobacco was found concealed in his house.
Mr. Torr said he appeared for himself.
Mr. Worsfold Mowll said he appeared for Messrs. G. Beer & Co. and said
it was understood that Torr was going out , and that the matter should
be adjourned to Broadstairs for a suitable tenant to be put forward.
Mr. Torr said he was there to defend himself against the complaints made
against his management of the house.
The Magistrates decided to hear the case.
Sir Richard Dickeson said that they could not alter the rule in this
case. A special notice of the rule had been sent to each one holding a
The Superintendent of the Police said that on the 18th of July this
year, he was in Snargate Street, when his attention was called to a
child named Maud Torr, about eight years of age. She was very wet and
cold, it being a wet day. He took her to her father’s house, the “Barley
Mow Inn,” and there he found that the mother was in bed drunk, and the
father not sober. He told the father to give the child food, but he said
he had no fire in the house, and was going to give her port wine. The
Superintendent then took the child to a coffee shop, and got her proper
food. He could not get any guarantee that the child would be properly
treated, so he sent her to a relation, who took charge of her for the
night. Torr and his wife were summoned for neglecting the child, and the
case was adjourned for two or three months, for him to put the child
where it would be properly treated.
Police-constable Knott was called, and corroborated Superintendent
Sander’s evidence. Witness said he had been called to the house on two
or three occasions when there was disturbances between Mr. Torr and his
wife. Neither of them were sober when witness had gone to the house.
Police-constable Fogg deposed: On July 10th, in consequence of something
I was told, I went to Strond Street, and saw a large crowd of people
outside the “Barley Mow” public-house. Mrs. Torr was the worse for
drink, and was standing near the door with her face covered with blood.
I went into the house, and saw the landlord, who was also drunk. I have
seen Mr. Torr the worse for drink on more than one occasion, and also
Mr. Torr said he did not see why he should have to leave his house
through his wife misbehaving herself. He had been nearly twelve years
From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday 12 September, 1890.
BROADSTAIRS LICENSING MEETING
INAUGURATION OF AN IMPORTANT POLICY
The adjourned annual Licensing Session was held on Wednesday, at
Broadstairs, for Dover and its liberties. Sir Richard Dickenson was in
the chair, and there were present Dr. E. F. Astley, T. V. Brown, J. LO.
Bradley, W. J. Adcock, and Matthew Pepper, Esqrs.
The usual list of licenses for Broadstairs, and the other portion of the
adjacent Liberties of Dover were renewed except in one case, reserved
for consideration; and the Deputies were, as usual, re-appointed.
THE BARLEY MOW CASE – LICENCE REFUSED
It will be recollected that this case was heard at Dover, when the
Superintendent of the Police objected to the renewal of the license,
because, during the year, the house had been badly conducted. On account
of the evidence then given, the Bench decided to refuse to renew the
license to Mr. D. Torr, the occupier, who was the applicant. Since the
sitting at Dover, the tenant, Mr. Torr, had given up the house, and Mr.
Dolbear, late of the “Mechanic’s Arms,” who had already obtained
permission to draw, now applied to have the license granted to him, and
Mr. Worsfold Mowll, on behalf of the owners of the house, Messrs. Beer
and Co., appeared to support the application.
Sir Richard Dickeson, on giving the decision of the Bench, said that
they had given the matter their careful consideration. They had not the
slightest objection to the new tenant whom the owners proposed, but the
Magistrates felt, as the license had been refused for a sufficient
reason, it was their duty not to grant the license to anyone else, and
they, therefore, declined to grant the application. The license was
From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday 26 September, 1890.
THE LICENSING BUSINESS
In both cases in which the Dover Magistrates refused, to renew licenses
at Broadstairs, namely the “Barley Mow” at Dover, and the “Captain Digby”
at Westgate, we were informed that notice of appeal has been given by
the respective solicitors engaged.
The action of the Dover Magistrates has been similar to a large number
of other Licensing Committees in various parts of England, this year. In
some cases, many licenses have been refused.
Our contemporary, the Deal Telegram reprints and acknowledges the whole
of our last week’s remarks on the Broadstairs decision, and adds:- The
foregoing remarks of our Dover contemporary appear to us peculiarly
applicable to our circumstances. No one can deny that the multitude of
our licensed houses is far in excess of the requirements of a small town
like Deal. If any proof of this were necessary it could be deduced from
the fact that strangers are constantly being induced to invest their
capital in public-houses, with the result that after a few month’s
struggling, they leave us poorer than they came. Let anyone who doubts
our contention that we are over-supplied with public-houses, make a
survey of the town, and his eyes will be opened. Licensed premises will
be observed, as thick as blackberries, in the most obscure and quiet
neighbourhoods. In some of the shortest streets, two or three will be
found in close proximity, whilst in several places they are to be seen
actually adjoining each other. The teetotal argument would be that the
multiplicity of facilities increases the drinking habits of a community,
but this respect of the question is beside our purpose. We would point
out that, owing to the over-supply of public-houses, it is a difficult
matter for any of them to do a really remunerative business. Lessees and
brewers alike, are suffering from the excessive competition; whereas
were there some restrictions put upon the number of licenses, all
parties interested would recap the benefit, and the hole aspect of
character of our streets would be improved. When a house is palpably not
required, the Magistrates have the power to close it, with the effect,
not of injuring, but of greatly assisting a not too prosperous trade.
Instead, we hold that if the brewers would combine for the purpose of
closing a certain percentage of their houses, they would find that the
advantage of possession a remnant, capable of paying a good dividend,
would far outweigh any loss sustained through the depreciation in the
selling value of the abandoned licensed premises. We have suggested this
reform in the interests of the parties most deeply concerned, and we
trust that they will lose no opportunity of giving effect to a course
which might be adopted with the most satisfactory result.
From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday 10 October, 1890.
LOCAL LICENSING APPEAL
At the East Kent Quarter Sessions held at St. Augustine Session House on
Tuesday, Lord Brabourne in the chair, the appeal against the decision of
the Dover Magistrates not to renew the license of the “Barley Mow,”
Strond Street, was heard; and also the appeal against a like decision
given by the Wingham Justices in the case of the “Ship Inn,” Ash.
THE BARLEY MOW APPEAL
In this case Mr. Lockwood Q.C. and Mr. Glynn instructed by Messrs. Mowll
& Mowll, Solicitors supported the appeal, and Mr. Lumley Smith with whom
was Mr. D’Eyncourt instructed by the Town Clerk of Dover appeared for
the Dover Justices who were the respondents.
At the outset Mr. Lumley Smith required the appellants to formally prove
the service of notices and other preliminaries.
Mr. Lockwood said that could be easily done only he was anxious to save
Mr. Lumley Smith said that if his view of the law was correct he thought
the case would be shortened by taking the formal course which he had
Mr. Newby formally proved the service of the notice of appeal.
Mr. Lumley Smith next called for the production of the recognizance’s
into which it was necessary that the appellants should enter.
The recognizance’s were produced by the Clerk of Peace.
Mr. Lumley Smith objected that the recognizance’s were invalid because
they had not been, as he argued was required by IX George IV Cap. 61
Sec., sworn before Justices of the Peace in the place where the cause of
appeal rose. He contended that the recognizance’s should have been
entered into before Magistrates of the Borough of Dover. He contended
that while the section to which he was referring expressly provided that
in a case arising in a Borough the appeal should be carried to the
County Quarter Sessions, but that they must enter into their
recognizance’s before Justice of the Borough where the case arose. The
recognizance’s in this case had been entered into before a County
Magistrate sitting at Canterbury and that he contended was absolutely
fatal to the right of appeal.
Mr. Lockwood said his learned friend had spoken of something which had
taken place at Dover being carried to appeal; the decision which they
were appealing against was given at Broadstairs.
Mr. Lumley Smith: This is an appeal from the Borough of Dover.
The Chairman: if there are and Dover Magistrates here they will not be
able to sit in this case.
The Clerk of the Peace: This is an appeal from the Borough of Dover. The
Magistrates of the Borough cannot sit here.
Mr. Lockwood: I fear I led your lordship wrong by stating that the
decision was given at Broadstairs.
The Chairman said that Broadstairs was a limb of Dover and part of the
same jurisdiction the same as Margate formerly was.
Mr. Lockwood contended that a Justice of the peace for the county who
was a member of the court where the appeal would be heard was the proper
person to take the recognizance.
Mr. Lumley Smith replied reiterating his objection which he contended
was fatal to the appeal.
The Chairman said that the court was always anxious that no one should
be debarred from obtaining justice by technical objections. The point in
question might be argued if the case were carried to a higher court, but
as far as that court was concerned it was against the objection, and the
appeal must proceed.
Mr. Lumley Smith: I may wish to raise the point in a higher Court.
The Chairman: Certainly.
Mr. Lockwood then proceeded to lay before the court the facts of the
case. He said he appeared for Mr. Chapman and Mr. Oliver who were the
successors to the business now carried on as Messrs. Beer & Co., he also
appeared for Mr. Dolbear the present tenant of the “Barley Mow.” The
firm of Beer & Co., were the owners of a large number of public houses
in the district and if the licensing authorities had decided to reduce
the number of public houses in their district, they would, had they
communicated their views, met with the co-operation at the hands of the
gentlemen whom he represented. In many Licensing Sessions which have
been held recently, the Magistrates, had announced their intention of
considering not only the character of the houses, but the requirements
of the neighbourhood, but he knew of no case where the Magistrates had
absolutely refused a license, without any notice whatever. If houses
were to be reduced, notice should be given, so that the owners might be
prepared with evidence of the requirements of the neighbourhood so that
arrangements might be made for weeding out those that were not required
and retaining those that were most valuable so that some little regard
might be paid to the property of the brewers. What took place in this
case? Messrs. Beer & Co. had a tenant in the “Barley Mow” named Torr.
Before the Dover Licensing Session this tenant was served with a copy of
a statutory notice that he would, at the Licensing Session, be objected
to by the Police, as a man not fit to hold the license. Mr. Torr
appeared personally before the Bench, and when the case came on he
defended his position. Torr had been convicted of some offence against
the excise laws, and had been fined £5. That conviction told against
him; and it was also alleged by the Police, that he did not conduct the
house properly; that he and his wife were in the habit of taking too
much drink, and that there were domestic squabbles in the house. He,
(Mr. Lockwood), did not attempt to minimize the conduct. His clients
felt that there would be a great difficulty in asking the Magistrates to
renew the license to a man who had so conducted the house; and their
endeavour was to obtain, before the Licensing Sessions, some other
persons to whom they could entrust the premises, and to whom they could
conscientiously ask the Justices to renew the license. For a time it was
hoped that might have been done; but, before the Justices of Dover, Torr
refused to give up the license, but the Magistrates, after hearing the
evidence refused to renew it to him, and the case was adjourned to the
Broadstairs meeting, so that the owners might be prepared with the name
of some person to whom this license might be renewed. An intimation to
that effect was made to the Appellant’s Solicitor, by the Clerk to the
Magistrates, in accordance with a custom which has long prevailed in the
court. The owners were naturally anxious to obtain a good tenant for
this house , which was a very substantial one. He had directed that a
photograph should be taken of it so that the court to which they were
appealing, should see for themselves. [The photograph was exhibited to
the Bench.] Messrs. Beer & Co. being anxious to obtain a good tenant
speedily, Mr. Dolbear who was in court, and heard what passed, and who
was then holding the license of the “Mechanic’s Arms,” another house
belonging to the same company, made application and was accepted. They
made application to the Dover Borough Justices for a permit to draw
until the 10th of October, and that was granted to the new tenant Mr.
Dolbear, and the license of the “Mechanic’s Arms,” which Mr. Dolbear
held was assigned to a new tenant, and a permit was also granted to him
to draw at that house till transfer day. Mr. Worsfold Mowll attended the
adjourned meeting of the Dover Magistrates at Broadstairs, and according
to the express invitation of the Bench sitting at Dover, took a new
tenant Dolbear with him. The case was called in the usual way, and
Dolbear was put in the box and examined. He was shown to be the present
occupier of the premises. This it should be recollected was the
adjourned Licensing Session at Broadstairs – part and parcel of the
Dover Licensing Session. Dolbear was called to give evidence as being
the occupier, and the Superintendent of the Police stated that the man
bore an excellent character. That was the only evidence taken. The
Magistrates retired; they came back and after giving their decision in
other cases said that they were perfectly satisfied to the character of
Dolbear, but they refused to renew the license, without taking a tittle
of evidence as to the wants of the neighbourhood. He (Mr. Lockwood)
would submit with some confidence that the Magistrates had no right to
refuse to renew the license without evidence. He would not say that the
Magistrates had not the right to refuse to renew the license on those
grounds, but he contended that they could not act without sworn evidence
as to the neighbourhood. The magistrates might know nothing about the
neighbourhood, or, on the other hand they might know a great deal about
it, but it was not competent for them to act on their own information.
For instance if a Judge were trying a light and air case and he appeared
to be passing the place in question in going to his court, he would not
look up at the windows and say “Oh, that must be an ancient light,” and
then go into court and act on his own knowledge. In the case of Sharp
and Wakefield if it was decided that the Magistrates must exercise their
functions judicially [Case put in]. In the Court of Appeal Lord Esher
said that on the part of the Magistrates there must be a judicial
exercise of their discretion. The Magistrates had no right to decide
upon their own observations and knowledge; that the Dover magistrates
had done at Broadstairs, for they never called a single witness as to
the needs of the locality and yet they refused the license. He contended
therefore that the Magistrates did not exercise their discretion
judicial in refusing that license. He (Mr. Lockwood) appeared on behalf
of the brewers for whom this refusal was a serious matter; but he did
not suppose that the pecuniary loss which would fall on the brewers
would influence any member of the Bench. He also appeared on behalf of
the unfortunate man Dolbear, who had invested in this house £350, the
savings of a life-time, and he had done this at the express invitation
of the Dover Bench.
Mr. D’Encourt expressed dissent.
Mr. Lockwood continuing, said he did not know how his friend opposite
might be instructed. He saw a young gentleman over there, who seemed to
take a lively interest in the case, shake his head, (laughter). He hoped
that there was not going to be any contention as to the facts, as to
what was said at Dover, because the fact of the case being called at
Broadstairs, showed that it was not fully dismissed at Dover. The
calling on the case at Broadstairs, was not very different to inviting
them to go there.
The Chairman: It could not have been finally refused, on why it was
mentioned at Broadstairs?
Mr. Lockwood: That is my view.
Mr. Lumley Smith: It was a refusal to Torr.
The Chairman: How did it come on at the adjournment?
Mr. Lumley Smith: We never knew it was coming on.
Mr. Lockwood: But it did come on; they cannot say it could not come on,
because it did come on at Broadstairs. The case of the “Barley Mow” was
called in the usual way.
The Chairman: Then I understand there were two hearings; one at Dover
and one at Broadstairs.
Mr. Lumley Smith said that the license was finally refused to Torr at
Dover, and then at the adjourned sessions at Broadstairs, Dolbear
The Chairman said that the point was not clear in his mind, whether the
license was granted or refused, or whether the Magistrates left it open
for another tenant to be found.
Mr. Lumley Smith said that if he was rightly instructed, the license was
Mr. Lockwood: Then why call it on again?
The Chairman said he thought they were trying to decide the case before
hearing the evidence upon it.
Mr. Lockwood said the case at Broadstairs was called on by their own
officer in accordance with what the Magistrate’s Clerk had at the
conclusion of the case at Dover. He was surprised to hear his learned
friend object as they had done. He did not think that that was the way
that questions of vital importance were to be met.
The Chairman: We had better go on to the evidence.
Mr. Edward Worsfold Mowll, Solicitor was called. He said: I am a member
of the firm of Solicitors, Mowll & Mowll, and was present at the General
Annual Licensing Sessions at Dover this year, when the case of the
“Barley Mow” License came on. The police had served Torr, the tenant,
with notice of objection, that objection was, that he was not a fit and
proper person, and after hearing evidence the Magistrates said that they
refused to renew the License to Torr. The question was raised of putting
a new tenant in the house, and upon that it was adjourned to
Broadstairs. In consequence of that we subsequently obtained Mr. Dolbear
as a tenant for this house. I also attended at the adjourned meeting at
Broadstairs. I waited until this case was called on in the list and I
made applications as had been arranged at Dover. I presented a
testimonial to Mr. Dolbear’s character and Mr. Sandford proved that
Dolbear was in possession of the premises. The Magistrates decided not
to renew the license. I was struck with horror and amazement, and I made
an appeal to them showing what their previous custom had been, but they
did not answer my application.
The Chairman: I think they answered you very effectually. (Laughter.)
Mr. Mowll: I mean they did not accede to my request to reconsider the
Cross-examined: The Magistrates of Dover finally refused the license to
Torr. It was after that Torr was got out, and Dolbear was got in. Torr
did not go out very willingly; that is, he had to have his own
valuation. He named £350 as a lump sum. Dolbear agreed to take the house
and paid the money. Dolbear’s testimony to character had been given when
he obtained permission to draw; that is the usual custom. The
Superintendent of Police was in Court; the character of the man was gone
into, and the magistrates were satisfied. When Mr. Dolbear went to
Broadstairs the license had not been transferred to him, but he had only
received permission to draw.
Mr. Lumley Smith; There are a great many public-houses close to the
“Barley Mow.” How many?
Mr. Mowll: I cannot say; there are a good many.
The Chairman: I understand that it was stated that no evidence was take
of requirements of the neighbourhood.
Mr. Lumley Smith: I propose to call evidence to show that the
neighbourhood does not require this house.
The Chairman: And that point never having been raised in the original
Mr. Lumley Smith said that the requirements of the neighbourhood was a
matter that should be considered.
Mr. Lockwood objected to the question of the requirements of the
neighbourhood being gone into. This was the first intimation that they
had had that the license had been refused at Broadstairs on the ground
of the requirements of the neighbourhood. He also considered that it
would not have been competent to have brought evidence of the
requirements of the neighbourhood at Broadstairs because no notice had
been served on Dolbear.
The Chairman said it appeared evident that the magistrates had not taken
any evidence on oath as to the requirements of the neighbourhood, and
the point did not seem to have been suggested, until after the second
hearing, as he might call it. All the steps seemed to have been take in
accordance with the custom of the Bench, and in obedience to the
suggestion of the Magistrates’ Clerk. It was rather hard to turn round
on him now.
Mr. Lumley Smith said that the new tenant Dolbear, was not on the same
footing as a person holding a license, and was not entitled to notice.
Lord Brabourne: I don’t think that applies. The Magistrates’ Clerk’s
words are “We refuse to renew the license to this man,” but then it goes
on to state what the owners may do. It seems common sense and common
justice that they should act thus. There are personal objections to the
old tenant, and because of those personal objections the Magistrates
refuse to renew the license. I must say as far as I am concerned, that I
think it is perfectly incompetent fro you to open now the question as to
the requirements of the neighbourhood.
Mr. Lumley Smith said the foundation of his case was the requirements of
the neighbourhood, and he admitted authorities on that point.
Mr. Lockwood said that if the Justices really decided to deal with the
cases in consideration of the requirements of the neighbourhood, it
would have been fairer to have given notice before the Session that that
would be done. He should think it would be fairer to withdraw this
appeal and give notice before the next Session, that the Licensing
Justices will take into consideration the requirements of the
Mr. Lumley Smith said that the Justices of Dover had acted accordingly
to their view of the law. On behalf of the Justices he had no desire to
press the matter further.
The Chairman: It is the duty of the Court to prevent injustices from
being done to this man Dolbear if his license were refused under the
circumstances. No doubt there was a misapprehension, but I think the
Magistrates with a sincere desire to do their duty to all parties, would
be the last to desire to do an injustice if they give notice that in
future they give notice that they will go into the general requirements
of the neighbourhood, the matter will go on in a proper way.
Mr. Lumley Smith: On that understanding I have no objection to withdraw
our opposition to the license being granted.
The opposition to the appeal was then withdrawn and the appeal was
From the Dover Express and East Kent Intelligencer, 28 March, 1902. Price 1d.
William Cox was charged with being drunk and using obscene language in
Police-constable Kingsmill said that about 9.30 on Saturday evening he
was in Snargate Street, and saw the prisoner, who was drunk and using
obscene language. Witness advised him to go away. He went a little way
up the street and commenced to dance and shout on the footway. Witness’
spoke to him again, and the prisoner then went into Strond Street, where
he was turned out from the “Barley Mow.” He was very abusive, and used
very bad language, and was taken into custody. He was very troublesome
and had to be handcuffed.
Prisoner said he did not know he was in the Police Station until Sunday
He was fined 2/6, and given until Saturday to pay.
From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 9 September, 1904. Price 1d.
THE BARLEY MOW
An application by Mr. J. Orman, who for several years has been in the
employ of Messrs. Pearson and Son, for permission to draw at the “Barley
Mow,” in the place of Mr. W. J. Wardwood, who is leaving on account of
his wife’s health, was granted.
From the Dover Express and East Kent Intelligencer, 16 January, 1914. Price 1d.
Above shows an advert from the Dover Express 1914.
But the end result: It was closed by February 1930 and had
disappeared for good by April. The brewer's compensation was £4,548 and
licensee, Mrs Mary Hunt, got £475. She moved the same year to the
From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday 12 August, 1d.
On Thursday morning early, shortly before one o’clock a fire broke out in
the bar of the "Barley Mow" public house, Strond Street. The fire was
noticed by some of the Harbour Board’s watchmen, who scaled the wall at
the back of the premises and got into the bar where the flames were
seen, and by applying their hose the fire was extinguished, but not before
serious damage was done to the ceiling and counter. The fire, it is
thought was purely accidentally originated, it is believed by a lighted match
being thrown down on the saw-dust by the counter. Thanks are due to the
Harbour Board employees, for their prompt assistance.
CESAR John 1805-23+
CESAR Susannah 1826-28+
HARBERT William 1832-1858+ dec'd
HARBERT Elizabeth 1862-64+ (HERBERT 1864)
License transfer (unknown) July/1867
MEADOWS H J Sep/1868,
CANN George 1869
DAY William (Day H W?) 1869 end
PEEL John 1872-74
DALLEY James 1875
HOBDAY Walter to May/1878
CULLINANE Patrick May/1878+
TORR David 1878-Aug/1890
DOLBEAR James Sept/1890-95
DIXON W Charles A 1899-Dec/1903
WARRELL, WARWELL, WARWOOD or WALWOOD W J Dec/1903-Sep/04
ORMAN John David Sep/1904-Jan/06
HUNT James Jan/1906-19 dec'd
HUNT Mrs Mary Ann 1919-May/30
From an email received from a Shan Siggers from Buckinghamshire on 7 Dec
2009, I am told that the Hunt's were great great grand-parents of theirs and
they believe that their grand-mother and siblings were born there.
From the Pigot's Directory 1823
From the Pigot's Directory 1828-9
From the Pigot's Directory 1832-33-34
From the Pigot's Directory 1839
From the Pigot's Directory 1840
From Bagshaw Directory 1847
From the Post Office Directory 1855
From Melville's Directory 1858
From the Post Office Directory 1874
From the Post Office Directory 1882
From the Post Office Directory 1891
From Pikes Dover Blue Book 1895
From the Kelly's Directory 1899
From the Post Office Directory 1901
From the Post Office Directory 1903
From Pikes Dover Blue Book 1909
From the Kelly's Directory 1913
From the Post Office Directory 1913
From the Post Office Directory 1918
From the Post Office Directory 1922
From Pikes Dover Blue Book 1923
From Pikes Dover Blue Book 1924
From the Dover Express