From the East Kent Mercury, Thursday, 8th September, 1977.

This superb picture of a near-forgotten Deal dates from Queen Victoria's Diamond Jubilee in 1897. It was shown to the East Kent Mercury by Mrs. Ann Lyons, of Church Path, Deal, who is a member of the well-known Horncastle family, who then held the license of the "Deal Castle Inn," in Victoria Road, Deal.

From the East Kent Mercury, Thursday, 20 May, 2010.

by Steve Glover and Michael Rogers.

Above photo how it looks in 2010.

PC KEPT EYE ON PUBS AROUND CLOSING TIME

PROBABLY originally built as a private house in about 1750, the "Deal Castle Inn" in Victoria Road, then known as Prospect Place, came into being in the 1780s when Simon Amis was in residence.

His stay was swiftly followed by local brewer Joseph Cobb. However, the first conclusive record of the building being used as licensed premises came in 1803 under the auspices of landlord Richard Piper.

The inn was opposite the old naval boatyard and would have been a very popular watering place with its high-ranking employees, as well as with the local military.

The Lodge of Union No 44, as well as The Grand Lodge of Ancient Free and Accepted "Masons of England, held regular meetings there in 1818.

The Mercury reported in 1874 that landlord George Pearce (who was also described as a 'wheelwright and licensed victualler' by trade) was charged with late opening, being caught out by the sharp eye of PC Shelvey Cox.

PC Cox patrolled the streets of Deal for many years and often seemed to be in the vicinity of many local pubs around closing time, according to numerous court reports!

In 1886, plans to turn the inn into "a new gin palace" did not materialise, although a lengthy extension was added to the side of the building, and a large upstairs room housing a stage and an auditorium was used as a theatre-cum-music hall for some years.

The ground floor contained a number of rooms, including a cosy wood-panelled snug bar with its own fireplace, separated from the hall behind glass and wood-panelled partitioning, and which still remains in situ.

At about lunchtime one afternoon in 1944, a bomb fell on to the rear garden of the inn and partially demolished a house in nearby Beaconsfield Road, causing one fatality.

The "Deal Castle Inn" closed in the early 1960s and the property is now a private home.

From the Deal, Walmer, and Sandwich Mercury, 12 June, 1869. 1d.

ALLEGED ROBBERY FROM A PERSON

Sarah Bailey, 19, was charged with stealing from the person of Frederick Dancer, a private in the Royal Marines stationed at Walmer, the sum of 16s., at Walmer early the same morning.

Prosecutor who had two good conduct badges, said: I am a private in the Royal Marines. Soon after midnight on Sunday I met the prisoner opposite the "Deal Castle" public-house. I spoke to her, and she told me she was going for a walk, but would come back to me. In about 20 minutes she returned and we then went round by Deal Castle on to the beach. I did not offer her any money, neither did she ask for any. After we left the beach I put my hand in my pocket and missed my money. I had 16s. in my pocket, varying a few coppers either way, which consisted mostly of two-shilling pieces. I waited for the prisoner in the "Deal Castle" public-house and she joined me there. I left barracks at about half-past six or seven o'clock on the previous evening and I then had 19s. I am quite certain that was the amount and it was all in a little bag - not a purse. When i went round the castle with the prisoner I had at least 15s. in my tunic pocket. I had taken my money out whilst I was in the public-house. The bag produced (by P.C. Brothers) I identified as my property. I do not think I took the bag out of my pocket in the young woman's presence - in fact I am sure I did not. I had it in my pocket when we were going towards the beach, just after we had left the "Deal Castle" public-house. Before I parted company with the young woman I told her that whilst I had been with her I had lost 16s., which had been in a bag in my tunic pocket. I did not charge her with stealing it, but I told her my belief was that she had got it. I told her I should take her to a policeman to be searched. She said she was quite willing to be searched, and we walked towards Deal in search of a policeman. We met police-constable "D6" at the bottom of Prospect Place, and I told him that I had been with the girl and had lost 16s., and asked him to take her to the station-house to be searched. He said, however, it was nothing to do wit him, as it was not in his district. He also said there was no police-station, which I told him was rather strange. The prisoner then left and I went in search of the police-station.

Cross-examined by the Bench: I do not think the prisoner knew I had the money. Whilst we were in the public-house I asked the prisoner to drink with me, and she did so. There were from 15 to 16 persons standing at the bar at the same time drinking. This was after the prisoner came back to me. I was in the public-house waiting for her. I had four glasses of ale and also two pints. The other persons present were seafaring men, and they asked me to drink with them and in return I asked them to drink with me. When they offered me their pot I drank as much as I could, not a quart though - perhaps a glass and a half. I was in the public-house about an hour. The prisoner did not attempt to escape from me when I told her I had lost the money, but offered to accompany me back to the beach to look for it, and also wanted to be searched.

P.C. Carvey (the constable referred to by the prosecutor) deposed: I was on duty on Sunday night. The first I saw of the prosecutor was at the bar of the "Deal Castle" public-house about half-past 12 o'clock. I was called by the landlord to turn out the prosecutor and others. Prosecutor was very obstinate and did not seem inclined to go, and was drunk. There were one or two women there, but I did not see the prisoner. Prosecutor then went away towards barracks. About ten minutes to two o'clock I met the prisoner and the prosecutor at the bottom of Prospect Place. The prisoner came up to me and said, "D6, I want you to take this girl in charge; she has robbed me of 16s." The girl remarked, "I have done no such thing," and the prisoner added, "And I shall see that you take the girl to the police-station." I then asked where the robbery had taken place, and they told me the other side of the Deal Castle, and I then said to the prosecutor, "If that is the case it does not belong to me." The girl turned out all her pockets and offered to go anywhere to be searched. I offered to go with the prosecutor to find P.C. Ralph at Walmer, in whose district the alleged robbery was committed, but he refused to go with me.

Prosecutor: I saw the policeman in the "Deal Castle" public-house drinking. He did not turn me out of the house - he never spoke one word or did anything to me. When I met him near Mr. Friend's he accused me of being drunk and said he did not believe I had lost any money.

Carvey denied that he was drinking in the house, and said no doubt if Mr. Pettit, the landlord, were called he would tell the Magistrates the same as he had.

Mr. Hughes remarked that there was some difference between the prosecutor's statement and that of the constable, as the former said he and the girl left the house together, while the policeman said he turned him out. He believed that the prosecutor had accused the constable of drinking in the house by way of retaliation for having said that he was drunk. When prosecutor was asked in his examination in chief about the persons who were present at the "Deal Castle Inn," he did not mention anything about the constable being present.

Prosecutor said the reason of that was that he had been told he had nothing to do with the policeman till Thursday. The Superintendent of the borough police could prove that he was not drunk when he made the complaint at the station-house.

Carvey said that when the prosecutor reached the station-house it was an hour later than when he saw him at the bottom of Prospect Place. Prosecutor told him that he should report him to the superintendent for drinking. The constable also added that Mr. Pettit's house was shut up before the prosecutor and the other people entered, but that the door was not locked as there was a private wedding party in the house.

A sergeant of marines said a comrade of prisoner who knew something of the case had promised to be in attendance and give evidence, but he believed that since then a sister or some other relation of the prisoner had come across the man and that there was connivance and a desire to hush the case up. When the prosecutor made his statement to the Colonel he was perfectly sober, and said he wished to have the matter investigated, and Colonel Rodney had requested him (the sergeant) to inquire into the matter. Prosecutor had told P.C. Ralph that he could take his oath that the prisoner took the money from him, which was very different from what he had said that day, and his conduct would therefore be reported to the Colonel. The sergeant also said that the bag had been picked up near to where the constable and the girl had stood.

In answer to the Magistrates P.S. Brothers said he picked up the bag identified by the prosecutor as his property on the pavement at the south end of Prospect Place.

P.C. Ralph said that he apprehended the prisoner at the house of her mother, but no money was found upon her.

Prosecutor said he thought it was very wrong for the sergeant to say that he had endeavoured to screen the girl, and appealed to the Bench to express their opinion.

In answer, Magistrates said it was not for them tom pronounce whether any connivance had taken place, because it was out of their jurisdiction, but, on the evidence before them they must say that the charge had not by any means been brought home to her. There was no evidence to connect her legally with the robbery, and she would therefore be discharged.

Prisoner thanked the Magistrates, and assured then that she was quite innocent.

From the Deal, Walmer, and Sandwich Mercury, 30 October, 1869. 1d.

ASSAULT CASE

Janice Larkins, waterman, was summoned for committing an assault upon George Trott, another waterman, on the 21st of October. Defendant pleaded not guilty.

George Trott deposed: About one o'clock on the morning of the 21st I was going up Broad Street, in company with Larkins, having just bid good-bye to a few captains who had been with me during the evening. Larkins spoke to me about keeping him waiting, as he had arranged to take the captain off, and I explained to him that the captain could not get his business done till half-past nine, and that it had been arranged that he should not go off that night if he could not get his business done before dark. He then called me a liar, and I said "I thank you for that," when he up with his fist and knocked me down on the pavement. Whilst I was down he got hold of my hair, and beat my head on the pavement several times, but I can't saw exactly how many. I said "For God's sake don't kill me; let me get up," but he would not let me get up till the policeman came and pulled him off. One of the policeman then saw me home.

Cross-examined by Larkins: I did not hit you first. I did not hit you at all - I did not have the chance to. I did not say whilst I was on the ground, "If you let me get up I will give you New Zealand." I only said, "For God's sake let me get up, let me get up."

Mr. E Hayward said: I live in Lower Street, near the bottom of Broad Street. Of the night of the 21st, I should think soon after one o'clock, I was in bed, and heard a great noise at the bottom of broad Street. I heard some one say, "Let me get up; don't kill me." This was said several times. There appeared to be a good many people there, and I was surprised they allowed the man to be knocked about so. They appeared to be watermen, and I should think there were five or six present. I heard a noise like a man's head being knocked against the pavement, and I saw a quantity of blood on the pavement in the morning. I don't know who the people were, but several of the neighbours had their windows up. I did not see the people, but I could tell there were several by their voices.

P.C. Pain said: There had been a bit of a noise at Prospect Place on the night in question amongst the waterman about a Dutch captain who they said was in the "Deal Castle Inn." As I and P.C. Brothers were walking down we heard a loud talking in South Street, and on going there we found these two men. They seemed to be friendly together, and they both abused us because we would not suffer them to go into the "Deal Castle Inn." There were one or two captains with them and also three or four females. They had both had a little to drink, but were not so drunk but that they knew what they were about. Brothers and I then went to the "Deal Cutter" again, and as we came down Prospect Place we heard a noise coming from Broad Street. On getting beside the door of the "New Inn" we saw Trott lying on the pavement and Larkins lying on top of him. We saw no blow struck. Brothers and I both laid hold of Larkins and pulled him off Trott. Complainant's face was all over blood and Larkins had hold of him round the shoulder. Trott did not give Larkins in charge, but as soon as he got up he said to me, "Will you see me home?" I said I would, and Brothers and Romney then went away with Larkins. There was a great quantity of blood on the pavement.

By Larkins: There was a row in the "Deal Castle Inn" before this, but I did not see you there.

Trott said he had been in the "Deal Castle" with one or two captains, and went outside, as also did one of the captains. Whilst outside Larkins joined them, but he could not tell where he had come from. He had not been in the public-house with them. He (Trott) then walked down Prospect Place and parted from the captain at the corner of the Bank, and was going up Broad Street home when Larkin assaulted him.

In defence Larkins said complainant was as bad if not worse than he was, and had had the first pull out of him. As they were going up Broad Street he asked Trott how it was he had kept them waiting so long, as the business was done before eight o'clock, and he had said he should only be half-an-hour, and it was then nearly one o'clock. Trott replied, "It is no business of yours. We have been with the captain and two or three of his friends." He then asked who was going to pay the men for stopping up to take the captain off, and with that Trott caught hold of him and "shoved" him round by the collar. At that time a Norwegian captain who was going to sleep at his house left them and went away. No one else was present. Larkins also said that as much blood came from himself as from Trott. They had been wrangling all day.

Trott denied this, and said Larkins had not been waiting to take the captain off, as it was arranged that the business were not done before dark the captain would not go off till the morning. None of the other men complained that they had been kept waiting.

The Court was then cleared and on the re-admittance of the public the Mayor said: We consider this a very cruel and violent assault, and we don't see anything to justify or excuse it. Even suppose Trott did, after some irritating language on you part, lay hold of you, and as you say sling you around - although he denies having done so - even had that happened it did not in the least justify the violent assault that has been committed. You will have to pay, including costs, a fine of 20s. or in default go to prison with hard labour for 14 days.

Larkins addressing Trott: There's another 20s. gone. Are you going to keep the young'uns and the old woman whilst I'm gone?

The money was paid.

From the Deal, Walmer, and Sandwich Mercury, 30 June, 1900.

WINDOW SMASHING CASE

Ellen Hunt was charged with wilfully and maliciously breaking two panes of glass, doing damage to the amount of 15s., the property of Frederick Bond Horncastle, on the 26th June.

On her first introduction to the Court, defendant fell on the floor, and she had to be removed and attended to by the police. She was accommodated with a chair on returning into Court, and when she had become somewhat more composed, the case was proceeded with. Defendant continually interrupted the proceedings, declaring that she had been hardly done by, and accusing Mr. Horncastle of preventing her from getting a house. Asked whether she would plead guilty or not guilty, she said, "Oh yes, I did it."

Prosecutor deposed that he was the proprietor of the "Deal Castle Inn." On the previous day, about half-past twelve, defendant entered the front bar of his house, and accused him of preventing her from getting a house. he could not understand what she meant by the remark. She became most abusive, and threatened that she would smash every window in his house and do for him, and she also made use of an insulting expression towards him. He ordered her out of the house, but she would not go, and he went round to the front of the bar and again requested her to go, which she did. Outside the door she said something he did not quite understand. he shut the door and put his foot against it to try to prevent her from coming in, and she then attempted to break the glass in the door. he returned to the bar immediately after she had left, and while standing there he heard a tremendous crash, and found a hatchet (produced), thrown by defendant, had come through his saloon bar window.

(Defendant: You've got to find the person who threw it.)

He then went for a constable, and on returning from the station he was informed that another window had been broken, and he found that that was the case. The windows were each about 2ft. 6ins. by 15ins. One had "Saloon Bar" written on it, and the other had glacier decoration. He had had an estimate of the cost of repairing the windows, amounting to 15s. The hatchet also struck a stained-glass screen, but he had not taken any notice of that. Defendant was perfectly sober. She was a tenant of his, under notice to quit. He had not received any rent since April 9th, and he could not get possession. He did not bear any malice, and he had not said anything to her for the past two months. It was hardly likely that he would try to prevent her from getting another house when he wanted possession of his own property. Had anyone been in the saloon bar when the hatchet came in, they might have been seriously injured.

Royston Garrett, aged 9, staying in Beaconsfield Road, said that he saw defendant come out of the public-house and go into her house, which was close by, and fetch a hatchet, and hit the window with it twice. It broke the glass, and fell in. Defendant then got a rolling-pin and smashed another window with it.

The Magistrates retired, and on returning into Court, the Mayor said the defendant had pleaded guilty to a most unwarrantable outrage upon another person's property. They did not wish to visit her with the extreme penalty of the law, and they had in fact taken a lenient view of the case, in the hope that this would be a lesson to her, but this was a case in which punishment must be inflicted. The sentence of Court was that she be fined 10s. and pay the costs 7s. 6d., and damage 15s., or in default 14 days' hard labour.

Defendant: I'll go to prison.

Defendant's son, a bugler in the Marines, said he would pay the money if the Magistrates would allow him a week in which to do so.

The Mayor: An application for time must come from defendant. (To defendant). Cannot you be reasonable and ask for time?

Defendant: I should like to go to prison. It would be a change. I can't work, because they have hurt my arm. I can't pay the money.

The Mayor: Your son says he will find it.

Defendant: I don't want to him.

The Mayor: We are bound to convict, but we are trying to give you every opportunity. Why can't you be more reasonable? It is sad to see a woman, and a mother of a family, here like this.

Defendant: And I think it very hard on a poor woman to be treated as I have been.

Eventually defendant yielded to persuasion, and asked for a week to find the money, which was allowed.

Canterbury Journal, Kentish Times and Farmers' Gazette 11 July 1903.

HOOKHAM—PILCHER.

On the 15th June, at the Church of St. Mary, Fordwich, by the Rector, the Rev. Richard Hitchcock, Thomas Valentine Hookham, of "Deal Castle Inn," Victoria Road, Deal, son of the late Mr. Hookham, Trinity Pilot, of Dover, to Ellen Amelia, daughter of Frank and Annie Pilcher, of Stour House, Fordwich.