From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday 2 September, 1887. 1d.

DOVER LICENSING SESSIONS

The Superintendent of the Police objected to the license of Henry Maggs of the “Devonshire Arms,” on the ground of absence of the license holder, and other causes.

Mr. Martyn Mowll asked on behalf of Mr. Allen, that the case should be adjourned to Broadstairs and that in the mean time Mr. Allen would make arrangements for someone else to take the license.

The Bench concurred.

From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday 16 September, 1887. 1d.

BROADSTAIRS LICENSING SESSIONS

On Wednesday the Dover Licensing Sessions held by adjournment their annual Licensing Sessions at Broadstairs. Only two Dover cases were reserved for consideration there.

THE DEVONSHIRE ARMS

Mr. Worsfold Mowll, on behalf of the Dover Brewery Company applied for the license of the “Devonshitre Arms” to William Horn a native of Devonshire, the late tenant having been objected to by the Superintendent of Police. The license was granted.

From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday 3 January, 1890.

AN AMUSING POLICE CASE

The Dover Police Court was crowded on Monday morning all the corner men of the room having crowded into the gallery to her the celebrated Rooster-Turkey case, which was heard on the return of a summons, before A. Bottle, T. V. Brown, and Matthew Pepper Esqrs.

Joseph Flaherty, was summoned for having on the 21st December, obtained 5s. from Sandford Gurr, by false pretences.

Sandford Gurr said: I keep the “Devonshire Arms” public-house, High Street. On the 21st. instant, about half-past ten o’clock at night, I was in the tap-room when the defendant and another man came in. There were about a dozen people in the room. The defendant had the bird with him and said to me, “Will you buy this turkey?” He wanted 5s. for it, and held it up to me and asked me to feel it and I just caught hold of the legs, and I told him I did not want it. He offered it to other persons in the room, but they refused to buy it, and they then went back to the bar. The man who was with the defendant was Richard Court. After a few minutes I went to the bar, and they were still there, I told him that I would buy the turkey from him, and he gave it me over the bar, and I handed him 5s., and took the bird inside. The defendant and his companion left the house almost directly after he had sold me the bird. On Sunday a young man came into my house, and from what he said I examined the bird, and I then found that it was a fowl with a turkey’s head tied on (laughter). The frill of green paper was fastened round its neck and over the string. The next day (Monday) I met Flaherty in Snargate Street, and told him that he had taken me in by selling me a fowl for a turkey, and that I wanted my money back from him. He said he was not aware of that, and that he would go and try to get the money off the people whom he got the bird from. I told him if he sent me the money it would be all right, and told him to come and see me that day or I should summon him. He said he would but did not come near, and I then took out a summons against him. He came into my house on Christmas Day, but he being intoxicated I did not say anything about it to him then. I have not seen him since until now.

In answer to Mr. Vidler, witness said he was sure the defendant said it was a turkey. If he had not thought it was a turkey he would not have given 5s. for it.

The Chairman: Was he sober at the time?

Witness: I thought so.

The Chairman: Is Flaherty in the habit of using your house?

Witness: No sir; he has been in about once before since I have kept the house.

By Defendant: There was no raffling in the room when you came in. You did say you should raffle the turkey off in my house if you could get enough members. I heard you say it did not belong to you. You did say after I had bought it that I need not be frightened about it, for it was won for you by Mr. Wright in a draw.

In answer to one of the Magistrates, witness said that he was certain that the defendant said it was a turkey.

Frank Pearce said: I am a fishmonger and poulterer, carrying on business at No. 2 High Street. I have examined the bird produced, and find it to be a Tom fowl about seven years old (laughter). The fowl’s head has been taken off and a turkey’s head very neatly put on. It is sewn on, and must have taken some time to do. The claws had also been cut off, and a piece of coloured paper fastened round the neck where the head was sewn on. It weighs about eight pounds. If it had been a turkey it would have been worth eight shillings. The bird is too old for eating.

Richard Clift said: I am a plasterer, living at 2 South Road, Tower Hamlets. I was in the bar of the “Devonshire Arms” on Saturday night, December 21st, when Joseph Flaherty and another man came in, and he said to me, “Dick, will you make one for a turkey?” The defendant had the bird in his hand, and when he asked me he held the bird up, I said, “no, I don’t care for turkey.” The defendant and his companion went into the back room, and I followed them, Gurr being in the room. He asked me twice again, and I told him “no.” He said “I want to get it off tonight if I can.” I did not hear him offer it to Gurr as I left the house. When I left, the defendant was in the room with Gurr and several others. I felt the bird and thought it was a turkey.

Arthur Wells, a plumber, living at 80, Biggin Street, said: I was in the “Devonshire Arms” public-house last Saturday week between ten and eleven at night, sitting in the back room with Gurr. The defendant and another man came into the room having the bird (produced) with him. He wanted to raffle it, and asked if those present would make one for it in a raffle. He said it was a good turkey, and wanted to put it up for 6s. he then asked 5s. 6d. and at last came down to 5s. I did not hear him ask Gurr to buy the bird, as I was not present in the room all the time. The defendant took the bird into the bar but I do not know what took place there.

The Defendant was then cautioned and afterwards made the following statement:- “I had the bird of my friend, which was won in a draw, and therefore I never put the head on the bird and never knew whether it was a turkey or a fowl. I brought the bird to him and sold it, not knowing whether it was a turkey or whether it wasn’t. I only had the bird in my possession about a quarter of an hour. My friend said “We will sell the bird as I don’t want to take it home, and we will share what it makes.

The Defendant then called the following witnesses:-

Richard Court, living at 22, George Street, Buckland, said: I am a sawyer. I was in a draw at the “Walmer Castle” public-house, Market Square, last Saturday week. About nine o’clock at night I went into the bar of the “Walmer Castle” with the defendant, and the landlord said to me, “As you were not here when the draw came off, Mr. Wright has drawn for you and won you a bird. Mr. Wright, the toll collector was there, and I thanked him. The landlord handed me the bird and I took it and handed it to the defendant. The bird produced is the same one and in the same condition, it having the frill of paper round its neck when the landlord handed it to me. I said to Flaherty “As we were shares in the draw we will try and make something of it.” We then went to the “Devonshire Arms” public-house and went into the bar. The defendant walked through with the bird in his hand, and I followed him. There were about ten or twelve men in the room and Flaherty said “Who will make one in a raffle for a bird?” or he might have said turkey. I heard someone present say “go out into the bar and see whether you can get some there, and then we will try and get it off.” As we could get no members in the bar we went back to the tap-room, and I heard the defendant say he would sell it for 5s. 6d. We then came back to the bar, and the landlord (Gurr) followed us and said “I will give you 5s. for that.” Flaherty said “the bird is yours,” he handed it to Gurr, who gave him five shillings. We stayed a few minutes and then left.

In answer to Mr. Vidler, witness said he did not find out that it was not a turkey when they sold it to Gurr. He heard nothing about it until Monday night, when Flaherty told him what Gurr had said when he met him in the morning. The bird he won was a third prize.

Thomas Wilford said: I am staying with my son-in-law at the “Walmer Castle,” and I was present in the house on Saturday week when defendant and Court came into the bar. Mr. Wraight was also present. During the day there had been a draw at the house, the last witness being in the draw. The first prize was a goose, second two fowls, and the third bird produced was the third prize. Court was number four on the list, and Mr. Wright drew that prize for number four, and in the evening it was handed to the man Court. I gave it to him but did not say what it was.

The Clerk: Where did you get it from?

Witness: It was brought from Mr. Wright the toll-collector, for half-a-crown (loud laughter). I did not know what it was when I bought it.
The Clerk: Did it have the same head on as it had now?

Witness: Yes, sir; but I did not notice the paper frilling. I gave it as a prize in the draw.

In answer to further questions the witness said: I knew it was not a turkey just before I handed it to Court. I bought it as a bird and thought it big enough for half-a-crown (laughter). I did not tell Court or defendant what is was, and to my knowledge nothing was said at the “Walmer Castle” about it not being a turkey.

One of the magistrates said it appeared that the witness had been, according to his evidence, knowingly the means of passing off a fraud, and the end of it had been that a poor man had been defrauded of five shillings. He had passed it off without any explanation.

The witness admitted that he did not tell the men. He said he had been laughed at for buying it, and he thought he would pass it off as he had bought it.

The Chairman said it appeared to the Bench that it was intended as a practical joke, but a fraud had been committed, and the individuals had narrowly escaped being committed of that fraud. On the other hand they thought the defendant was innocent, and that he passed it off as he had received it. They very much regretted that such practical jokes should be perpetrated, and that it would be much better if the landlords of hotels took more care as to what took place in their house. The case would be dismissed.

From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 16 February, 1906. Price 1d.

OBJECTION TO THE DEVONSHIRE ARMS.

The Licensing Committee then proceeded to consider the question of the renewing the licences which the Police under the instructions of the Magistrates, were opposing.

The first to be dealt with was the “Devonshire Arms,” High Street, the licensed holder of which was Mr. R. W. Charles. Mr. Rutley Mowll appeared for the tenant and the owners Messrs. Phillips.

The grounds of the objection were that having regard to the characters and necessities of the neighbourhood the number of licensed houses there and in the immediate vicinity is excessive, and the license held by Mr. Charles was unnecessary, and in the interests of the public, the renewal of the license was undesirable.

The notice of objection was signed by the Chief Constable, who owing to his own serious illness, was unable to be present.

The Magistrates Clerk asked if any objection would be pressed owing to the unfortunate absence?

Mr. Mowll then instructed that he would not being any objection.

Inspector Fox in giving evidence said that the license was granted to Mr. Charles on the 29th January, 1904. he was the twelfth tenant within the last twenty years, the house being one of the 69 beer-houses. There were nine other licensed premises within the vicinity, the nearest being the “Masons Arms,” 37 yards distant, and the furthest of the nine the “King William IV” in Biggin Street, 189 yards away. It was situated right opposite the Congregational Church. Witness also described the accommodation afforded by the house, and said that, when he visited it with the Chief Constable on February 3rd, there was no one on the premises.

Cross-examined by Mr. Mowll: The landlord was a thoroughly respectable man, and there was not a complaint against him.

Mr. Mowll: I do not quite understand by what process the “Devonshire Arms” is decided out of the other nine premises. What instructions were given for this to be opposed?

Witness continuing said that one of the conditions was that the house was adjacent the Congregational Church. He knows that the “Devonshire Arms” existed before the Congregational Church came there.

Mr. Mowll: The Congregational Church having been there you think it a good reason for doing away with the public license in the neighbourhood?

Witness: Yes, sir, one reason.

Does that not apply to the “Mason’s Arms” just over?

“We have to start somewhere.”

So you start at the “Devonshire Arms” and go on to the “Mason’s Arms” next year?

“No, we have not given notice at present.”

“If you proceed at that rate there will be no houses at all?

“Then there will be nothing for the Police to do.”

Mr. Mowll intimated that he would address the Bench at the conclusion of the hearing of the objections.

THE MAGISTRATES DECISION

After a short consultation in private, the Magistrates turned to the Bench. The Chairman said “The following houses will be referred to the Kent Compensation Committee of the Quarter Sessions in due form: The “William and Albert,” The “Three Compasses,” the “Wellesley Inn,” the “Old Commercial Quay,” the “Duke of York,” and the “Half Moon.” The licenses for these houses will run until the time when the compensation is paid, and then the licences will cease. With respect to the “Devonshire Arms” and the “Lord Roberts,” and the “Nottingham Castle,” they will be withdrawn from the list.- These licences will be renewed in the ordinary way.

From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday 14 February, 1908.

THE ANNUAL LICENSING MEETING

THE DEVONSHIRE ARMS

Mr. Blair, the agents of Messrs. Phillips and Son, of Malling, said: I may well say that I am instructed by my firm to say that considering this license has been threatened once or twice before, and considering you have got plans for rebuilding it, we consider it rather hard for you to object to it again this year. But as you do, it is useless for us to disagree with you, and do not oppose it.

Inspector Fox stated: The "Devonshire Arms," High Street, is a beer-house, the owners being Messrs. Phillips and Co., of Malling and Dover. The present tenant being transferred to him on the 31st January, 1904. There have been eleven tenants in 20 years, and five within the last ten years. The rateable value is gross £20, nett £16. The licensed houses in the immediate neighbourhood are the "Mason's Arms," High Street, 37 yards away; the "SirJohn Falstaff," Ladywell, 36 yards away; the "Park Inn," 92 yards away; the "Wheatsheaf," Park Place, 100 yards; the "Prince Albert," Biggin Street, 105 yards; the "Salutation," Biggin Street, 124 yards; the "British Queen," Biggin Street," 128 yards; "King William," Biggin Street, 164 yards. The house has 13 ft, frontage, and has two bars in the front, one being the passage, which is used as a private bar. There is another small bar in the front and a back parlour. The Congregational Church is nearly opposite the house. The house was visited on Monday, January 25th, at 10.20 a.m. when there was one customer; on Thursday, January 30th, at 2.35 p.m., when there were no customers; at 8.50 p.m. on Tuesday, February 4th, when there were five customers; and on Friday, February 7th, at 6.20 p.m., when there were no customers.

Detective Mount corroborated.

The whole of the four cases ("Canterbury Bell," "Old Fountain," "Ordnance Arms," and "Devonshire Arms," were referred to  the East Kent Quarter Session for decision whether they would grant compensation for the non-renewal of the licenses.