Sort file:- Dover, July, 2021.

Page Updated:- Saturday, 31 July, 2021.

PUB LIST PUBLIC HOUSES Barry Smith and Paul Skelton

Earliest 1864

Falcon Hotel

Latest 1969

1 London Road


Falcon Hotel

Information taken from John Bavington-Jones' book "A Perambulation of the Town, Port and Fortress of Dover", 1906. (Reprint in The South Kent Gazette, March 4th, 1981.)

Once the site of a tollgate and a gatehouse this is the London Road - Bridge Street junction with High Street and Tower Hamlets Road, as it appeared about 1900. On the left at the corner of Bridge Street is the old Falcon Hotel while on the right, on the High Street corner is Coomber's fruit shop. On the fascia of this is a sign announcing that the site had been acquired for the construction of OId Buckland and Charlton branch of the National Provincial Bank - once the National Westminster Bank. The sign gives the clue to the date of the picture because the bank opened for business about 1901.

Another sign on the extreme right of the picture, is an advertisement for the Dover Engineering Works Company (previously Thomas and Sons) - "Engineen and Iron Founders, Dour Works, Bridge Street." In Bridge Street itself is a line of terraced homes all of which have now disappeared, the site having been taken over by the foundry.

Falcon 1920

Above photo from the John Gilham collection, circa 1920.

Falcon 1936

The "Falcon" can just be seen in the centre top of this picture, dated October 1936, after a pathway from Priory Hill was closed after the side fell away. Many tons of chalk and earth excavated from the Regent being dumped there.

Falcon 1970

Picture above shows the Falcon just before being demolished in 1970.


The first licensee on parade at the opening was Tucker in 1864. It occupied the corner with Bridge Street following the removal of the toll gate.


From the Dover Express and East Kent Intelligencer, 30 March, 1866.


Charles Foster, a flying dustman, was brought up for wilfully breaking a pane of glass at the "Falcon Inn," Charlton. George Bush on his oath said - I keep the "Falcon Inn" at Charlton. Last night at about half-past eleven o'clock, the prisoner in company with another man entered my house and asked for some beer. Seeing that he was intoxicated I refused to serve him, when he became very abusive to my wife, and sister and myself. As he refused to leave the house when I asked him, I pushed him out, using no more than necessary violence. About three minutes afterwards he threw a large stone through my window. Mr. Coram, in reply to the Magistrates, said the prisoner had been previously convicted for a similar offence. The Magistrates fined the prisoner 5s. 6s. costs, and 4s. the value of the window; in default, 14 days' imprisonment. The prisoner said he had no money - he must "skid" it out.


From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday 12 November, 1869. Price 1d.


Last evening the Borough Coroner, W. H. Payn, Esq., held a second inquest, at the “Falcon Inn,” London Road, Charlton, on the body of a female child named Catherine Celia Luland, the daughter of Mrs. Charles Luland, a Bath-chair proprietor, which had dies whilst the mother was nursing it, early the same morning.

Mr. R. W. Pepper was chosen foreman of the Jury; and the body having been viewed, the following evidence was given:-

Charles Luland said he was a Bath-chair proprietor, residing in Charlton, Dover. The deceased was his youngest child and was five months old. The child had always been delicate. Deceased was fed upon the usual diet of children of its age, and had seemed to thrive very well. He was at work yesterday morning when intelligence was brought to him that the child had been taken ill. He at once sent for Mr. Walter. And then went home. Mr. Walter immediately attended; but on witness getting home he saw that the child was quite lifeless. Witness had five other children and they were all delicate.

Mr. John Walter said he was a surgeon residing and practising in Dover. On the same morning, at twenty minutes past eight, a boy came to his residence to request him to see the infant of the last witness who lived in Colebran Street. He found the child in the mother's arms. He examined the body, and it seemed to have recently died. The mother told witness that the last sign of life she had perceived in it was about half-past six o'clock. She also said the child had suffered from a cough, and from that circumstance, added to the appearance of the child, he should say that it had died from consumption. There was nothing suspicious about the appearance of the child.

The Jury returned a verdict of “Death from Natural Causes.”


From the Dover Express, 5 July, 1872.


John O'Brien and William Harrison, two privates in the 1st Battalion Rifles brigade, were charged with assaulting Mr. George Birch, the landlord of the "Falcon Inn," Charlton, by striking him on the head with a stick, and dislocating one of his thumbs; and they were also charged with assaulting Mr. John Clark in a similar manner, at the "Falcon Inn," on the previous Saturday evening.

Mr. Fox prosecuted. He said the complainant, Mr. Birch, kept the an Inn at Charlton - the "Falcon" - and the two prisoners were privates in the 1st Battalion Rifle brigade, stationed at the garrison. It would seem that on the previous Saturday evening, at about nine o'clock, the two defendants, in company with three other men of the same regiment, went to complainants house. He supplied them with what they called for, and during that time they were there they blocked up the passage, much to the annoyance of Mr. Birch and his customers. Mr. Birch therefore requested them to leave the passage and retire to the bar. This seemed to offend them, and they therefore left the house, and returned shortly afterwards armed with sticks. The complainant, who was standing at the door on their return, objected to their entering his house again; but they persisted in so doing, thrusting Mr. Birch aside and pushing him in front of them. After a word or two, they commenced belabouring the complainant with their sticks, causing a great wound in his head, from which he lost a great deal of blood, and dislocating one of his thumbs. This, he need not say, constituted a very serious assault, and he did not hesitate to ask the Bench, if these facts were proved, to impose such a sentence on the defendants as would show them that they could not be allowed to commit such assaults. The defendants would be further charged with assaulting Messrs. Sewell, Brandford, Stevens, and Clark, at the same public house and at the same time. Now although the two defendants might not have struck all those parties, they were quite as much to blame as those that did, and were legally liable to be punished as abettors. He thought it due to Mr. Birch to state that he had kept the "Falcon" for almost eight years, and during that period there had not been a single police case arising out of any circumstance taking place in the house. He felt it necessary to allude to this fact, because serious consequences might ensue at the next Licensing Day, it should be supposed that this was a disturbance which the landlord could have prevented. He thought, too that this fact was good evidence of the complainant having conducted his house in an orderly manner during the eight years he had been its tenant. He might remark that it had recently been the custom of the military authorities to pay their men weekly, and since that custom had prevailed the men had gone out on Saturday evenings with more money than usual in their pockets, and committed elsewhere similar assaults and depredation to the one with which the defendants at the bar were now charged.

The defendant O'Brien, at the conclusion of Mr. Fox's address, asked if the Magistrates would grant a remand, as they desired to employ a solicitor.

Mr. Fox said he had all his witnesses in Court,. and perhaps, before granting this application, the bench might like to hear part of the evidence.

Mr. Rees thought this would be the better course, and Mr. Fox called the complainant, George Birch, who deposed:- I am the landlord of the "falcon Inn," Charlton, and have held the license for almost eight years. During that time I have not had a single disturbance before that of Saturday night. At about nine o'clock on that evening, five privates of the 1st battalion Rifle brigade, came in and asked for some ale. I supplied them with it in the bar. They afterwards left the bar, and came into the passage near the front door, where they stood talking to a female. I requested them in a civil way to leave the passage telling them that their standing there together blocked it up. The two defendants are two of the men that came into my house on Saturday evening. Two or three of the men had sticks. They remained in the house for about a quarter of an hour after I had spoken to them, when they left. They returned, however, at about half past nine. I was standing at the door, and I told them that it was of no use their coming in, as I should not draw them any more drink. They pushed me away from the door and came into the house. After a few words had spoken the taller of the two defendants (O’Brien) struck me on the head with a stick. I do not know what sort of stick it was. I believe it had a knob at the end. I lost a great deal of blood from that wound. I was not struck again with a stick. One of my thumbs, however, got dislocated in the "scrimmage," which lasted for about five minutes. I had not my hat on at the time. When I saw that the men were determined to come in, I asked Mr. Stevens, who was passing at the time, to go for a piquet; but none came, and the soldiers escaped out of the house and ran away. Messrs. Sewell, Bradford, Clark and Stevens came into the bar while the assault was taking place. I know that Mr. Clark and Mr. Stevens were struck, although I did not see who struck them. I could see very little that took place owing to the effects of the wound. I went to the barracks yesterday, where I saw almost the whole of the men in the battalion. I saw some of the five men who had assaulted me on the previous night. I think I saw more than the two defendants, but I could not positively swear to their identity. I am quite certain, however, that the two defendants were among the five.
The Magistrates then remanded the case until the following day.


From the Dover Express, 5 July, 1872.


[Before R. Rees and C. Stein, Esqs.]

John O'Brien and William Harrison, two privates in the 1st Battalion Rifle Brigade, who had been remanded from the previous day, charged with assaulting Mr. George Birch, landlord of the "Falcon Inn," Charlton, and Mr John Clark, also a resident of Charlton, were again brought up in the custody of police-sergeant Johnstone.

Mr. Fox prosecuted; and Mr. Worsfold Mowll defended.

The Court having been cleared of witnesses, Mr. Fox called Edwin Duke, who deposed:- I am a member of the Royal College of Surgeons, and am practising as a surgeon in Dover. I know Mr. Birch, one of the complainants in this case. I saw him early on Sunday morning. There was a little blood issuing from a wound about an inch above the right temple, which had previously been strapped up. I examined it fully yesterday morning; and I found it a good sized wound of an inch and a half in length, which seemed even then to be attended with slight haemorrhage. A blow from a stick might have produced a wound of that nature. I also examined Mr. Birch’s thumb, and found it had been injured.

Mr. Birch's evidence of the previous day was then read over, in order that Mr. Mowll might cross examine him upon it. He replied to Mr. Mowll's question as follows: I am the landlord of the "Falcon Inn," Charlton, where I carry on a good business. Respectable people in the neighbourhood visit my house.

Mr, Mowll:- Do you always make soldiers welcome?

Witness:- Always.

Mr. Mowll:- Always glad to see them?

Witness:- Yes, sir.

Mr. Mowll:- And do you make any distinction between soldiers and civilians:-

Witness:- None whatever.

Witness continuing:- I cannot say the exact number of persons I had in my house last Saturday evening. There may have been between thirty and forty, counting everyone in the house. Of course the greater part of them were men.

Mr Mowll:- Were these men all able to take care of themselves?

Witness: What do you mean, sir?

Mr. Mowll:- Were they able to look after themselves then?

Witness:- Well, I don’t know.

Witness, continuing: It was about nine o'clock when the two prisoners and some more riflemen came into my house. They all came in the bar at first. One of them afterwards left the bar and walked into the passage. I remember speaking to him. I asked him to go into the bar, as he was blocking up the passage. There were several other people standing there.

Mr. Mowll:- Why did you not tell these other people as well as the unfortunate soldier, who was blocking up the passage so much, that they were also to go into the bar?

Witness:- I did not tell anyone in particular.

Mr. Mowll:- But didn't you address yourself particularly to the soldier?

Witness:- I addressed myself to all that were standing in the passage. There were two or three more riflemen standing there.

Mr. Mowll:- Way I thought you said that there were only one there?

Witness:- No, sir. Some came in before I spoke and others came while I was speaking. As nearly as I can recollect I asked the people in the passage to go into the bar, and drink their beer there.

Witness continuing:- The soldiers went out altogether. I did not follow them to the door. I do not remember which of the men first came up to the door on the second occasion. They all came up together, I think. One of them tried to strike me over another man's shoulder. I told them I should not draw them any more beer. I did not mean to draw them any on account of their blocking up my passage and as I thought they had had enough and would be late in barracks. It was then about half past nine; and they had previously said they were not on "pass." I did not mean to let them come back on account of what they had before said in the house.

Mr. Mowll:- Now we are coming to it. Do you mean to ask the Magistrates to believe that you took offence at what they had said?

Witness:- I do.

Mr. Mowll:- An you sure the only words you said were, "Please got into the bar?"

Witness:- Certainly not.

Mr. Mowll:- Do you make any distinction between soldiers and civilians when the latter are present.

Witness:- Of courts not. I am glad to see anyone that likes to come to my house.

Witness continuing:- I did not hear the soldiers say anything outside, as I was not at the door. I went to the door, though, not long after they had gone. About five or ten minutes elapsed before they returned. It was only by accident that I was standing at the door when the men came back again. I was standing in the centre of tha doorway when they came up. I did not push any of them, until I was pushed by them. I could not see whether any one else was in the passage at the time, as my back was turned. It was not immediately after I had told them that I could not draw them any more beer that I was struck. One of them tried to hit me, and then they all forced their way in.

Mr. Mowll:- But I want to know whether, before any blow was struck, you did not push one of the men?

Witness:- I did not.

Mr Mowll:- Are you prepared to swear that?

Witness:- Yes. But do you mean when the man were standing at the door?

Mr. Mowll:- Yes. When they came back the second time.

Witness:- Oh very likely, I did then.

Witness proceeding:- I did not strike any of the men before I received a blow. I only prevented a man from getting through into the back of my premises. I almost certainly did not push the man back into the street again. The glass did not go round more freely than usual at my house on the evening in question.

Mr. Mowll:- I suppose every one had had a little.

Witness:- No.

Mr. Mowll:- But I suppose that on Saturday night the glass goes round more freely than usual doesn't it. (Laughter.)

Witness:- Not particularly more than usual.

Mr. Mowll:- But I suppose you were nice and comfortable? (Laughter.)

Witness:- We had been comfortable for a long time.

Witness proceeding, I went to the Heights on Sunday morning. The men were all assembled for church parade. Superintendent Sanders, Mr Sewell, Mr. Bradford. Mr. Stevens, Sergeant Johnstone and a constable in private clothes accompanied me. I immediately picked out O'Brien and Harrrison as the two men who had been to my house on the previous evening. I had not applied for a warrant; but the two men were walked down to the station-house.

Mr. Mowll: How were they walked down?

Witness:- What do you mean?

Mr. Mowll:- Oh, you know what I mean very well, Mr. Birch. The "darbies" were clapped on them, weren't they? (Laughter.)

Well, yes, I think they were.

Re-examined by Mr Fox:- I had nothing to do with handcuffing the men. That was left to the discretion of the police. I have no doubt about the identity of the two defendants. I have not had a single complaint against my house during the whole of the eight years I have tenanted it. I am always pleased to see at my house any people who behave themselves.

William Branford deposed:- I reside at Charlton. I was in the smoking-room at the "Falcon Inn," Charlton, on Saturday evening last, at about half-past nine. The smoking-room is upstairs; but on hearing noise below I came down to see what was the matter. I saw Mr. Birch endeavouring to persuade three or four soldiers to leave his house. They were all standing in the passage, and did not leave. I saw the defendant O’Brien strike Mr. Birch on the head with a stick. I am quite sure it was O'Brien. I did not see any one strike him. A scuffle ensued; and three or four sticks were used. Harrison took part in the affray. He was present with the other men when the blow was struck. I saw Mr. Birch's wound, the effect of the blow O'Brien had given him, bleeding very much. I did not see then that his thumb was injured.

Cross-examined by Mr. Mowll:- I was not down stairs when the soldiers first came in.

Mr. Mowll:- Did you hear any one cry out below before coming down from the smoking-room?

Witness:- I heard scuffling below.

Mr Mowll:- Did you see the complainant push any of the soldiers?

Witness:- No.

Mr. Mowll:- Do you mean to say O'Brien struck complainant without anything having been done in the way of pushing?

Mr Birch was asking them to leave the house, and, thinking that he saw a piquet outside, he called out for help. Three or four of the men then struck him immediately. Mrs. Birch came out, and was very much frightened when she saw her husband's wound. I took care of her, and at the same time, prevented any of the soldiers from going into the bar parlour.

Mr. Mowll:- Did yon see anything else beside the striking? There was a great deal of pushing from one side of the passage to the other, wasn't there?

Witness:- Yes.

Mr. Mowll:- Who besides Mr. Birch and the soldiers joined in the scuffle?

Witness:- Mr. John Clark joined in it, and also Mr. Coulthard.

Mr. Mowll:- Any one else?

Witness:- A man named Stevens, I believe.

Mr. Mowll:- Who else?

Witness:- No one, that I am aware.

Witness proceeding:- The soldiers finally went out of the house of their own accord. I did not see any of them thrown into the road. I saw no other blows stuck except those between the complainant and the soldiers. I do not know how the defendant Harrison got the blow in his eye.

Mr. Thomas Sewell was then examined by Mr. Fox as follows:- I reside at Buckland. I was at the "Falcon Inn" last Saturday evening. I went there about a quarter past nine. I saw several people standing in front of the bar as I went in. I did not stay below; but went upstairs to the smoking room. I afterwards heard a disturbance going on below. On coming down to see what was the matter, I saw Mr. Birch standing in the passage. I heard him request some soldiers who were standing there to leave his house. Defendants were among the men. The soldiers refused to leave. One of them tried to get O’Brien to go away. He took him up and carried him as far as the door; but he got away and struck Mr. Birch a severe blow with his stick. Mr. Birch was speaking very coolly at the time. I did not know then that there was anything the matter with his thumb. After O’Brien struck Mr. Birch, a general onclie ensued. I went to the Heights with the complainant on Sunday morning; and I immediately picked out O'Brien as the man whom I had seen strike Mr. Birch on the previous evening. Both Harrison and O'Brien took part in the assault.

Cross-examined by Mr. Mowll:- I was not down stairs when the soldiers came in the second time. They were standing in the bar I believe when I went up into the smoking room I think it would have born very un-English like if I had not tried to protect Mr. Birch after O’Brien had struck him the blow. I assisted to get the men out of the house.

Mr. Mowll:- Did you hit any one?

Witness:- Yes, I did, when I saw Mr. Birch had such a wound.

Witness continuing:- I generally go into the smoking-room at the "Falcon" every Saturday night. I do not know whether the glass went round there freely, or not, on Saturday evening last. (Laughter.) I did not see any pushing before O’Brien struck the blow.

Mr. Mowll:- The soldiers don't use the smoking-room, do they?

Witness:- I don't know if they would be allowed there.

Mr. Mowll:- Tell me, Mr. Sewell, is there any distinction made between the gentlemen who use the smoking-room and those who use the bar?

Witness:- Well, sir, the landlord uses his own discretion as to that.

Mr Mowll:- So, then, "the upper ten" remain in the sanctum up-stairs, while the "commoners" are kept below, is that it? (Loud laughter.)

Witness:- I don't know who you mean by the "upper ten." (Renewed laughter.)

Witness proceeding:- The "Falcon" is not what I should ordinarily call a soldiers' house. I have frequently seen soldiers there in front of the bar. On the evenings of fetes, &c., there are generally a great many. I have never seen as many soldiers there as civilians. I have never seen the "cold shoulder" given them. (Laughter.)

Re-examined by Mr. Fox:- As far as my experience goes, I have never seen any difference made there between soldiers and civilians.

Mr. John Clark deposed:- I was standing outside the "Falcon" on Saturday evening when this disturbance commenced. I went in. I did not interfere while words went on; but I did when I saw the defendant O'Brien strike the complainant, Mr. Birch. I was struck by the defendant Harrison. I did not see any one else struck. Mr. Stevens was there. I struck the defendant Harrison after he had struck me. He struck me on the head with a stick. Harrison did not strike me until after the defendant O'Brien had struck Mr. Birch. All five of the riflemen, I believe, had sticks.

Cross-examined by Mr. Mowll:- The blow Harrison gave me did not cut my head open. I assisted to throw Harrison into the street. Mr. Stevens helped me. Harrison fell on his back. When I saw him on the following morning at the Heights I asked him how his back was. Although I struck Harrison pretty hard, I do out know where I struck him. The defendant O’Brian striking Mr. Birch was the commencement of the affray.

This evidence terminated the case for the complainant.

Mr. Mowll then addressed the Bench for the defendants. He said he had the honour to appear that morning on behalf of the two young men charged with committing the assault, having been instructed by their superiors, who thought that this case ought to be defended. Both of the defendants had been in her Majesty's service for several years, and had hitherto borne an irreproachable character in their regiment. Their officer, who would be examined presently, would tell the Magistrates that, during several years’ service, neither of them had had a single black mark against him, nor had his name appeared in the defaulters' book. Their worships were well aware of the strict discipline observed in the army in the present day; and he thought that these facts, whatever they might think of this assault and the circumstances connected with it, would lend to assure them that the men were not prone to disorderly conduct. He was quite aware, on the other hand, that the complainants position was a very difficult and highly responsible one; and he had undoubtedly received a severe blow.

He felt he laboured under a great disadvantage, inasmuch as his friend, Mr. Fox, had come before them on the previous day and had made to some extent an ex parte statement. Consequently, the Bench, he was afraid, must be prejudiced against the defendants. However, he should ask them to dismiss from their minds altogether anything they had heard on the previous occasion. Now, the two defendants, on Saturday evening, had gone for a walk with some comrades as far as the turnpike gate leading to River, before tattoo time. They had come back to the "Falcon Inn," at Charlton, where they decided to have a glass of beer. According to his instructions, and according to the evidence which had been brought before the Bench, four of the men went into the bar, which was on the right hand side of the door, leaving one of their comrades in the passage. Whilst this man remained in the passage there were several other people there - civilians, not soldiers, — and Mr. Birch came up to this man and made use of these words, "Go into the bar, or else outside, for this is not a place for the likes of you." The man replied, "Very well, sir, I will go outside." He thereupon acted upon his word; and his comrades hearing Mr. Birch's remarks, felt— and he was quite sure the Bench would consider it very natural that they should so feel - that they had been insulted; that a line of distinction had been drawn by the landlord between themselves and civilians, as he showed the remainder of the people, who were all civilians, to remain in the passage. Some words passed between them, and the landlord ultimately told them that they had better go. The men then went out; and do doubt it would have been a great deal better for all parties if they had not returned. When outside, however, one of the men, addressing his comrades, said he considered he had been insulted. The landlord had refused to draw them any more beer; and he proposed that they should return and insist on their right to be served. On returning to the house, the landlord was found standing in the centre of the doorway. Not because the men were intoxicated, but because he had a sort of fatherly feeling for them—being afraid they would be late in barracks (laughter)—he told them that he would not serve them with any more beer. Now that was undoubtedly wrong, according to law; because, unless they were afflicted with some contagious disease, or were intoxicated at the time, they had a right to be served. The soldiers wm only exercising their right when they asked to be served with beer; and here was the pinch of the whole case. The landlord stood at the door with his arms folded and refused them admission. The men persisted in demanding a legal right, and it was in getting into the house that the alleged assault took place. The landlord said to O'Brien, "You won’t come in," and the man retorted, "I shall." Now the complainant, under cross-examination in the witness-box, had said that he was not prepared to swear that he did not push O'Brien; and he would call three witnesses to prove that he did push him, as he fell back into the arms of one of his comrades. When O’Brien recovered himself, the whole five rushed into the house. His contention was, in the first place, that the landlord had no business to refuse the men admission to his house, or to push O'Brien. He would ask the Magistrates also to look at the surrounding circumstances. Mr. Sewell had been greatly offended in the witness-box at a certain question he (Mr. Mowll) had put to him as to the glass having gone round pretty freely that evening at the "Falcon," though Mr. Sewell had not been prepared to swear that it had not. (Laughter.) The civilians no doubt, were doing their best to enjoy themselves; and the soldiers had had just sufficient to make them ripe for a row. The riflemen thought they had been insulted by the landlord, and it was only natural that they should endeavour to assert their rights. They returned to the house for the purpose of doing this, not with the intention of quarrelling, but simply to ask for what they had a right to demand-a glass of beer. The complainant not only refused them this, but pushed them rudely away from the door. It seemed that the prisoner Harrison was absolutely thrown out into the street by some of Mr. Birch's energetic friends, and Mr. Clark, who had had a hand in this business, evidently seemed to think he had done the poor man some injury, for the next morning, when at the Heights, he addressed to him some such words as these, "Well, old fellow, how's your back?" (A laugh.) He desired to say a word also as to the manner of the arrest. It seemed to him outrageous, that, at half-past ten on Sunday morning, when all the men were assembled for church parade, the complainant should go the Heights, and that, upon his ex parte statement, the men should be handcuffed, taken down the Grand Shaft, and marched up to Snargate Street into the police-station, just as all respectable people were going to Divine Service. In spite of his re-examination, his friend, Mr. Fox, knew as well as he did that the proceeding was illegal. When the men were under Government control and in their proper places, without a warrant or any attendants being heard beyond those of the complainant and his friends, it was monstrous for them to be handcuffed and marched through the streets like felons. Mr. Sewell had told them, and very rightly too, that he entered pluckily into the fray, and used his fists right and left in defence of Mr. Birch. He had further told them that he thought he should not have been acting like an Englishman if he had not done no. He used his fists so freely that he did know whom he had struck and whom he had not. (Laughter.) Of course the riflemen also acted like Englishmen and followed suit with the civilians in the use of their fists. Eventually the riflemen made their escape, the cry of "piquet" being raised. He ventured to think that, after their worships had heard the evidence he should call, they would say that no very serious assault had been committed. Mr. Birch had been undoubtedly wrong in refusing the men admittance; and he had done another unjustifiable act in pushing them away from the door. Under the whole of the circumstances he considered himself entitled to ask fur a dismissal at their worships hands.

He called Charles Poore who deposed:- I am a private in the 1st Battalion Rifle Brigade. I was in company with the defendants O'Brien and Harrison on Saturday night. There were five of us altogether. We were outside the "Falcon" at about nine o'clock; and we all went in. We went into the bar at first; but one of the men ultimately went into the passage. That man's name was Baggot. I heard the landlord tell him that he must either go inside or outside, as that place was not for the likes of him. I was standing in the bar when I heard this. I saw the Landlord go up to Baggot. He addressed himself exclusively to him and not to the remainder of the people. Baggot went outside for a few minutes after the landlord had spoken to him; but afterwards came back into the bar to us. We then finished up our beer and went out. Before leaving, Harrison thanked the landlord for the complimentary way in which he had spoken, and added that he thought that our money was as good as the civilians. Mr. Birch said you had better go; as I don't want any "bone-picking" here. When we got outside and were some little distance from the house, one of the men proposed that we should go back again and have some more beer, as we had plenty of time before tattoo. When we returned Mr Birch was standing in the middle of the doorway. O'Brien was the first at the door. Mr Birch pushed him away with both hands, and he fell into my arms. If I had not been behind him be would nave fallen on to the kerb. Before pushing O'Brien Mr. Birch said, "You will not come into my house again this evening." He did not give any reason for so doing. After pushing O'Brien, Mr. Birch stepped back, and we all rushed in. Mr Birch called out for assistance. I took O'Brien up in my arms and endeavoured to get him away. I carried him as far as the door; but he got away from me there. A cry of "picquet" was raised after the fight. The passage was completely filled, a number of civilians having come down from a room above. I am quite sure that, before anything took place, the landlord pushed O’Brien. That was the commencement of the affray.
Cross-examined by Mr. Fox:- The fight took place between half-past nine and ten o'clock. It might have been about seven when I came out of barracks that evening. We all five came out together. W went up to the "Three Cups" public-house at Buckland, where we had some beer. We had been into one other public-houses before going there; so that the "Falcon Inn" made the third. We had half-a-gallon of beer at the "Falcon" - at least that is all that I saw. Some of them might have called for more. We had no reason for returning to the "Falcon" a second time, except that we had plenty of time, and that the beer was good there. (A laugh.) I cannot complain of the treatment I have received at the hands of Mr. Birch. I have known him for a long time; and he has always behaved in a proper manner to all of us before. I am not certain who it was proposed going back to the "Falcon" a second time. I did not see Mr. Birch struck on the head; but I saw O'Brien wrestling with him, and I tried to part them. I saw a good many blows exchanged that evening. I saw O'Brien strike Mr. Birch with his fists; but not with his stick. I did not lose sight of O’Brien for a moment after we came back the second time.

Re-examined by Mr. Mowll:- Mr Birch had pushed before O'Brien struck him at all. We were all passed into barracks by the Shaft Guard and the orderly sergeant, as sober.

Mr. Mowll then called Walter Laire, who said:- I have been chosen for a corporalship in my regiment for good character and efficiency. I am at present on probation. I have been in the army four years and four months; and during that time I have not had a single entry of any importance in the defaulters book against me. The entries have only been for absence, and never for drunkenness. I was in company with the defendants on Saturday evening last. I remember going into the "Falcon" to get some beer. Baggot was standing in the passage there; when I heard the landlord say to him, "It's either inside or outside; your custom is not wanted here, nor that of the likes of you." Baggot went outside; but came into the bar again to us. Before leaving Harrison said to the landlord, "Isn’t my custom as good as other people's and my money as good?" The landlord followed us as far as the door. When we got down the road a few yards, I proposed that we should go back, as we had plenty of time. The landlord met us at the door. Harrison called for a pot of beer, but the landlord replied, "I shan’t serve you." Before saying that the landlord had pushed O’Brien out on to the pavement. O’Brien and Harrison were the first to rush into the house, and we followed. I did not mix myself up in the fight. Some one held me back near the door.

Cross-examined by Mr. Fox:- We had been to three public-houses before going to the "Falcon," vis., the "Flying Horse," "Phoenix," and the "Three Cups."

I cannot swear whether we all five had sticks with us. I had not. I was not struck at all, neither did I strike any one. The landlord has always treated me well when I have been to his house on previous occasions. I have only seen men of my company at Mr. Birch’s public-house. I believe we came out of barracks that evening at about seven o'clock.

Mr. Mowll said he could call other witnesses to corroborate the statements of these two men; but he did not think it necessary.

He then called Anthony Cope, who deposed:- I am lieutenant in the Rifle Brigade, and am in the same company an the two prisoners. They both bear good characters in the regiment. I never know them to be concerned in any row before this; neither have they been before the Magistrates for assault at any time.

This being the case for the defence, the Bench, after a short consultation, said they thought the case was a very simple one. The landlord was charged, under heavy responsibilities, with the orderly keeping of his house, and it happened to be a house well known to have been conducted and kept in a respectable manner. When, in the exercise of his judgment, the landlord refused the men any more beer, they could not be justified in taking the law into their own hands. In their opinion a most unjustifiable attack had been made; and such proceedings could not be tolerated. They committed each of the defendants to prison for three weeks, with hard labour.


From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday 14 January, 1876.


On Friday morning Police-sergeant Johnstone found the body of William Tams, carrier, in a wet ditch near the Brookfield Cottages, Buckland. He was quite dead. An inquest on the body of deceased was was held on Saturday evening, at the “Falcon Inn,” before the Borough Coroner, W. H. Payn, Esq., Mr. W. Mowll, solicitor, attended on behalf of the widow to watch the case, and Mr. Philip Stiff and Mr. Farmar were also present during the enquiry.

The first witness examined was Mary Tams, widow of the deceased, who deposed that his health had not been very good. He frequently complained of headache. She last saw him alive on Thursday evening at about six o'clock, when he had tea as usual. He left the house to go to Buckland to make enquiries after a coat which he had lost. She saw nothing more of him until he was brought home dead, at half-past one the next morning. Did not observe any marks of violence on him. In the afternoon he had a watch with him and some loose silver. Did not know what had become of his watch or the money. Was certain he would not have given his watch away. Never heard him utter anything which would indicate that he contemplated self-destruction.

In answer to question by Mr. Mowll, the witness said that deceased's silk watch-guard was round his neck when he was brought home, but it was broken and had the appearance as if the watch had been violently snatched from him. When he left home he was in seeming good health and spirits.

George Pryor, a gardener, deposed that he saw deceased on Thursday, at about twelve o'clock, when he passed his garden on his way to Buckland. He was quite sober, and there was nothing remarkable in his appearance. He said he thought that a man who worked for Mr. Finnis had picked his coat up. He saw him coming back, when he remarked that he had found out where the man lived, and he had been to his house, but he was not at home and would not be until seven and eight that evening. He did not mention the name of the man.

Sarah Foster, daughter of the deceased, said that he was a steady man and never said anything which would indicate that he contemplated suicide.

Henry Terry, a carrier, in deceased's employ, deposed: I last saw deceased a little before six on Thursday. When I returned from work he told me he felt rather queer. He had only carted one load of bricks from Mr. Finnis's brickyard, at Buckland, to the Priory. I did not see him after this all day until the evening. There was nothing particular in his manner. He seemed in a hurry to get us out to go home to tea. He asked me whether the moon was up. It must have been about six o'clock. I showed him the moon, and he remarked that it looked bright, and he hoped the days would soon draw out longer. He said he would go to Buckland after tea to look for his coat, and would not mind giving someone 2s. or 2s 6d. if they could find it. He had been told where he thought he could get it. He said, “You go to tea, and I'll go to mine. Good night.”

Police-sergeant James Johnstone said: On Friday morning, about a quarter to one, in consequence of information I received, accompanied by Police-constables Pilcher and Stevens, I went in search of deceased. We commenced at Charlton Church, and searched the river up to the furthest most end of Mr. Robinson's meadow, at Cherry Tree Lane. We then went along the back-way of Buckland to the end of Mr. Prior's garden. We went down a little footway there that leads to Model Cottages, at the back of the “Bull” public-house, and at the end of Mr. Pryor's garden, where there is a wet ditch, and about six or eight yards from Mr. Pryor's fencing we found the body of deceased in the water face downwards. Pilcher and Stevens took the body out, and I told them to turn it on the back. I saw it was Mr. Toms, and told Pilcher to take charge of the body while I went with Police-constable Stevens to get a doctor and tell the relatives. On the London Road I met Police-constable Edmunds, and sent him for Mr. Long. Stevens and I went to the friends. I saw the wife and daughter of deceased, and they wished the body to be removed to his own home. Deceased's son-in-law procured a barrow and removed the body home. I sent Mr. Long and accompanied him to where the body was lying. He examined the body, and pronounced it dead. I observed some blood smeared on the deceased's temple and some bruises on the right cheek. The body was searched in my presence. We found a book containing various memorandums, a pair of spectacles, a pipe and tobacco pouch, and a silk watch guard, which was round the neck. There was no money or watch. The depth of the water where deceased was found was about 18 inches. Yesterday I made a house to house enquiry to see if any person had found the coat. The river has been dragged to find his watch, but it could not be found. There were no signs of the deceased having struggled.

Mr. Arthur Long, surgeon, said: between one and two on Friday morning, I was called to see the body of a man found drowned in a ditch by the Model Cottages. I saw the body lying on its back. Life was extinct. I next accompanied it to Tower Hamlets, and there made a careful examination of the body. On the right temple and cheek there were slight blood stains and a mark as if grazed. These marks I believe were done during life. I could find no other marks of injury on the body whatever. These injuries, in my opinion, were not sufficient to cause death. There are no marks to account for murder. The probably cause of death was drowning.

The Coroner then briefly summed up, and the Jury returned a verdict of “Found Drowned.”


From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday 16 March, 1877.


On Wednesday last an inquest was held at the “Falcon Inn,” Dover, before the Borough Coroner (William Henry Payn, Esq.), on the body of the wife of Jamed Fielder, who had got out of bed rather suddenly in the night, and, addressing her husband with the words “I am going, Jim; good bye,” immediately cut her throat with a razor. The following was the evidence taken before the Jury:-

James Fielder said: I am a mariner, living at 10, De Burgh Street, Charlton. The deceased, Anne Fielder, was my wife. Her age was twenty-nine years. Her health previous to this occasion had been bad. She had been attended by Dr. Clement Walter, for what he termed rheumatic gout in the left leg. Last night I went to bed with her about nine o'clock. We had our supper, which consisted of bread and cheese and a pint of beer between us. About one o'clock I heard her say, “I am going, Jim; good bye.” She was then out of bed. I immediately got out and procured a light. I saw my wife sitting on the floor in her night-dress. I saw that her throat was cut. I was asleep when she called out to me. I did not see her do the act as it was quite dark. While I was procuring the light I heard a trickling sound, which I supposed to be her vomiting as though she were taken sick. I never heard a single word uttered by her except those words I have stated. We had no quarrel, but were both on friendly terms and have been ever since we were married. I never struck her at any time. We have had a family of five children. The youngest is two years old. My razor was lying in a bag which was hanging up near the wash-stand, and was quite easy for her to take. She has appeared rather depressed the last few months. I had been disqualified on board the cutter to which I belong. Finding my wife in the position I did, I called my daughter, whose age is twelve years, and, warning her not to be frightened, I told her her mother was dying. I took her to the side of her mother, who was still living. I asked my wife to tell the child who did the deed. She was unable to speak, but nodded her head two or three times, and motioned her hand across her throat. I told my daughter to remain in the room until I called a Policeman. I left the house and returned with a Policeman. We arrived before my wife died, and on the Policeman going up to where she was lying, I asked her who had done it and she motioned as before. She died in about twenty minutes after that.

Police-constable William Bailey, said: This morning I was on duty in High Street, Charlton, when Mr. Fielder came running down the High Street to me and told me that his wife had cut her throat with a razor. I went at once with him to his house. When I got there I saw deceased lying on the floor in the bedroom beside the bed. I saw that her throat was cut, but she was still alive. I asked her who had cut her throat, and she tried to move her hand towards her throat. I heard her say “I,” and she made a motion with her two hands towards her throat. I looked around and saw a razor on the wash-stand open. I ran downstairs and blew my whistle for assistance, and having obtained assistance I sent for a doctor, and Dr. Osborn attended in about a quarter of an hour. He pronounced her dead when he arrived. The husband was there all the time.

Police-sergeant Charles Hemmings said: I was on duty in High Street yesterday morning, about half-past one. I heard cries of “murder” from the direction of De Burgh Street. I went towards the street, and there saw a female in her night-dress running and shouting, “Do not let him touch me,” She took hold of my arm, and I said, “Let who touch you?” She replied, “My husband; he has sharpened his knife, he swears he will cut my throat.” I asked her husband's name, and where he lived, she said, “Fielder, 10, De Burgh Street.” I took her to the house, and told her she would catch cold in her night-dress. She refused to go in, and I made a search everywhere round the house, and amongst the timber, but could not find anyone. At last she contended to go in and put clothes on, if I would conduct her to Tower Hamlets to a friend of hers. When she came down she said her husband had been fighting and rowing at Mr. Mackie's opposite, and I sent her by a constable to Tower Hamlets. I met her husband coming up High Street Charlton, by himself. I called him by his name, and asked him what was the matter between him and his wife. He said, Nothing, that I am aware of; why do you ask?” I said, “because she was running about in her night-dress, saying that you had sworn to cut the throat.” He said, “Where is she? I have not been home since half-past seven.” I told him I had sent her to Tower Hamlets to a friend's house and a constable with her. I then sent a constable with him to Tower Hamlets. I have since ascertained that the time of his leaving home and between seven and eight, and did not return until I met him which was about two o'clock. I also ascertained that her statement about the rowing at Mr. Mackie's was not correct. I took charge of the keys of the room and the razor. The deceased seemed very mild in her manner.

Mr Ashby Greenhow Osborn, surgeon, residing and practising at Dover, said: this morning I was called at two o'clock to 10, De Burgh Street, by a Policeman. I attended immediately and found the deceased lying in a bedroom, between the wall and the bedstead, in her night-dress, with a large wound in her throat, and a quantity of blood on the floor. The body was warm and had not been long dead. The wound in her throat appeared to have been done twice, which had divided her right jugular vein, and the cartilage at the top of the windpipe. Death had resulted from loss of blood, and the blood getting into the windpipe. The razor produced might have inflicted such a wound. I know nothing of the state of her mind, only what has been produced in evidence. I saw no evidence of a struggle having taken place.

The Jury returned a verdict that “The deceased committed suicide while in a state of temporary insanity.”


From the Dover Express and East Kent Intelligencer, 8 June, 1877. Price 1d.


Alic Cars, Richard Wilson, and William Mears, were charged with deserting from the Royal Marines at Walmer.

Police-constable Nash said he met the three men about half-past nine that morning in London Road, near the "Falcon" and asked them if they were on pass. At first they said "No" and afterwards contradicted themselves. Failing to produce passes, the constable took them into custody.

The prisoners were sent back to their headquarters at Walmer.


From the Dover Express and East Kent Intelligencer, 11 February, 1881. Price 1d.


An inquest was held on Wednesday evening at the “Falcon” public-house, Charlton, on the body of child named Acord, who had died on the previous day.

Mr. J. R. Adams was chosen foreman, and the Jury having viewed the body of the child, the following evidence was taken:-

Isabella Acors, wife of Edward Acors, residing at 58, Peter Street, said: The deceased, Harold Ernest Acors was my second child, his age being one year and eight months. On the first of the month, before breakfast, the deceased was sitting on the floor in the room with his brother, who is about three years old. I left the room for about five minutes when I heard the deceased cry. I ran downstairs and found him sitting in the same place, but with him pinafore burning. I immediately put the flames out, and took the deceased to the Dover Hospital. I found a piece of newspaper, all burnt, lying close to the child. There was no guard on the fire. I believe my other little boy must have got the paper and set light to it. The House Surgeon attended the child until its death.

A verdict that the child died from the effects of the burns were returned.


From the Canterbury Journal, Kentish Times and Farmers' Gazette, 12 July 1884.


An inquest was held at the "Falcon Hotel" on Thursday, on the body of Emily Charlotte Hipgrave, 35, years of age. The deceased lived at 105, High-street, with her mother. On Wednesday, shortly after mid-day, she was found in her night-dress at the bottom of the stairs, dead, her mother, it appears, not coming down before that time owing to her being unwell. It is supposed that the unfortunate woman was going downstairs during the night, when she fell, having previously complained of giddiness. She was examined by Dr. Duke, who found a lamented wound over the left ear and a fracture over the left temple.

The jury returned a verdict to the effect that death was caused by falling downstairs.


From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday 22 May, 1885. Price 1d.

A large meeting of the Licensed Victuallers Association was held on Monday last at the “Falcon Hotel.” Councillor G. Birch presided. Resolutions were passed, protested against the Provision inserted in the chancellors of Exchequer's Budget for raising the duties on Beer and Spirits; and also that a copy of the Resolutions be sent to the members for the Borough and County.


From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday 24 July, 1885.

Mr. Councillor Birch, of the “Falcon Hotel,” gave a pic-nic to 130 juveniles and other friends on Wednesday last in a field belonging to Mr. Leney, at Crabble. The party were conveyed in omnibuses to and from the meadow, and on their return spent a musical evening at the “Falcon.”


From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday 26 March, 1886.


An inquest was held by Sydenham Payn, Esq., (Borough Coroner), at the “Falcon Hotel,” on the body of John Attwood, who met with his death suddenly on Monday morning. The deceased was found dead in bed on Monday morning. He had previously enjoyed good health; but on Sunday morning he complained of having a slight headache. The following gentlemen were on the Jury:- Mr. A. Ayers (foreman), Messrs. A. Bayley, G. Penn, G. Illenden, E. Harris, J. Halke, T. Sneller, W. Richards, E. Pilcher, J. Young, W. Earl, G. Gillman, H. Foreward, and H. Blackman.

Adfter the Jury had viewed the body, the following evidence was taken:-

Mary Matilda Beer, wife of James Beer, a sailor, said: The body the Jury have viewed is that of me father, he lived with me, and was a labourer. He worked at Coombe Farm. He was 68 years of age last birthday. I last saw him alive about half-past nine on Sunday night. He went to bed then along with my little boy. About six o'clock on the following morning I called my little boy. He tried to wake the deceased but could not. I then went up stairs and touched the deceased. I found that he was cold and dead. I at once sent for my brother, and he went for the doctor. The doctor came at once. Deceased was always in good health. He complained on Sunday morning that he had a slight headache, and took two pills.

Mr. Ashby Osborn, surgeon, residing and practising at Dover, said: I was sent for about half-past six o'clock yesterday morning to see the deceased. I went immediately and found him in bed lying upon his back. His left leg was bent. Death had taken place some hours. I examined the body and found no marks of violence. I am of opinion that the deceased died, while asleep, from the failure of the heart's action. This complaint runs in families.

The Coroner stated that he had held an inquest on the death of deceased's brother some time ago, who died from the failure of the heart's action.

The Jury returned a verdict to the effect that the deceased died from natural causes.


From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 3 January, 1890. Price 5d.


A woman named Sarak Ballard, about 78 years of age lodging at 16, Tower Street, Tower Hamlets, had on Boxing day been with some relatives in the same street, Alfred and Emily Marsh. They saw her home about 6.30 that evening, and as she was rather infirm, they went with her to her room upstairs. She said she did not know whether the people she lodged with would come home that night, and if they did not she would go down and lock the door. No more was seen of her till the next morning, when about nine o'clock Emily Marsh went to the house and found the door unlocked, and the poor old woman lying dead in the passage at the foot of the stairs. It is believed that in coming down to lock the door she fell. An inquest was held at the “Falcon Hotel,” on Saturday afternoon, before Sydenham Payn, Esq., Coroner, when the medical man, Mr. Arthur Long said there was a severe cut over the left eye. He supposed that death must have taken place about nine or ten o'clock in the evening. A verdict of accidental death was returned.


From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 16 January, 1891. Price 1d.


The annual meeting of the Dover Licensed Victuallers' Association took place on Wednesday, the 7th inst., at the “Falcon Hotel,” Mr. Alderman George Birch in the chair, the vice-chair being occupied by Mr. James Ward, of the “Priory Hotel.” There was a large attendance of members and honorary subscribers, among them being Messrs. Sandford, Elms, Pryer, Conradi, Bowles, Ralph, Harmer, Blake, Shave, Kohlhammer, Gartner, Jackson, Miller, Fitsgobbon, Frazer, Wells, Dane, White, Hoskins, Friend, Batterbee, Beecham, and others. The Secretary (Mr. Hatton Brown), read the account of receipts and expenditure for the past year and the following report:-

Your Committee have the pleasure of presenting to the members and friends, their thirtieth annual report and balance sheet. Your committee again thank the honorary subscribers for their support during the year. Your committee congratulate the members upon the manner their businesses have been conducted during the year, no cause for prosecution having been found, so that no law expenses have been incurred by defending. In one case – that of defrauding an innkeeper – it was considered necessary to prosecute, which resulted in a conviction; and in the two cases of damage done to property, compensation was allowed. Any member who may require protection or assistance in according with the objects of the Association can, by applying to the Secretary convene a special meeting to take the case into consideration when such action as will be thought advisable will be adopted. Your Committee with the wish of the Executive Council considered it advisable to send in April a delegate to a meeting in London for the purpose of consulting on the proposed legislation for the trade, and to take such action as might be thought necessary, particularly in the case of Sharp v. Wakeful. Also in June two delegates were deputed to attend a mass meeting in St. Jame's Hall, consisting of wholesale and retail trade to assist in amalgamating the National League with the London Protection Society, to be called the Licensed Victuallers' Defence League of England and Wales, to form a general council to appoint a chairman, a secretary, a parliamentary agent, and to agree to a capitation grant of 1s. 6d. per member from all affiliated societies, and also for the election of five auditors from the provincial associations. Your committee joined in obtaining signatures and presenting a monster petition to the House of Commons in the favour of the Local Taxation Bill, which was moderate in conception and equitable in character, as we consider we have a right to compensation if our property is disturbed without any fault on the part of the license-holder. Your committee use their influence both in local and national matters concerning the trade to obtain justice, and they trust that all those who are anxious for its welfare will support organisations and are formed not to countenance any which may wilfully violate the law, but for the protection of its members from frivolous vexations or malicious prosecutions.

After several members gentlemen were voted in as members, the Chairman and the rest of the officers were re-elected for the ensuing year. A vote of thanks was passed to the auditors, Messrs. Pryer and Grigg, and the usual donations were granted to the Trade Defence League and trade new papers. The Chairman thanked the Committee, Treasurer, and Secretary for their assistance during the past year, and their healths were drunk and responded to by Mr. H. Brown. The healths of the honourable subscribers were proposed and responded to by Mr. S. R. Elms, sen., and by Mr. G. Sandford.

In returning thanks for the hearty manner the healths of the Chairman and continued success to the Association had been received, Mr. Birch said that he was glad to find the members as enthusiastic as ever, and the funds of the society in a very good condition, for although every care possible might be used, the licensing Laws were so severe and difficult to understand, and so many enemies were trying to make them worse, that the society might at any time be required to exhaust its last penny in obtaining justice and fair play to the trade. He heard about the Chancellor of the Exchequer had promised to take off the sixpence a gallon on spirits, but he considered the money that had been received should be refunded. He had been a member of the society a number of years, and he thought all who wished well for themselves and their fellow tradesmen should also join.

After agreeing to meet again on the 4th of February, the members separated.


From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday 31 March, 1893.


A special sessions of the Licensing Magistrates was held to grant as license for music, singing, and dancing to Mr. Birch of the "Falcon."


From the Deal, Walmer, and Sandwich Mercury, 3 November, 1900. 1d.


An inquest on Mr. George Gilham, the old gentleman who died suddenly at St. James' Cemetery on Tuesday afternoon, whilst attending the funeral obsequies of Sir R. Dickeson, was held at the "Falcon Hotel," before Mr. Sydenham Payn, on Friday evening.

Mr. J. Simmons was chosen foreman of the jury.

William George Prescott, schoolmaster, of Guildford, identified the body, which was lying at the residence, 56, London Road, as that of George Gilham, whose age was 73 years. He was a retired prison warden. About two years ago he had a severe stroke, and he had had a milder one since, and this left had left a trembling, and his left eye was slightly affected. He left home alone on Tuesday about one o'clock, to attend the funeral of Sir Richard Dickeson, who had been a good friend to the deceased, and the latter had felt his death very keenly. Deceased ate a hearty dinner before starting. Witness believed his father and sister died very suddenly.

James William Parker, mariner, of 76, Wyndham Road, stated that whilst waiting in St. James' Cemetery on Thursday afternoon, he saw the deceased while walking down on the grass, and he came and sat down on a tomb beside witness. Witness asked the deceased the age of Sir Richard, and directly he had answered, his head dropped forward on his chest, and he began groaning. deceased lifted his head, and started, and then fell back. Witness called a constable, who loosened his clothing at the neck, but deceased only groaned twice after that, and turned purple.

Police-Sergt. Danson stated he was called to deceased about 2.30, and he went to him and bathed his forehead. Deceased was only just alive, and after drawing two or three breaths, he died. Dr. Bird was summoned, and the body was removed to the home of the deceased.

Dr. W. E. F. Bird stated that he examined the body at the cemetery, and found life was extinct. Death was due to apoplexy, no doubt caused by excitement.

The jury returned a verdict in accordance with the medical testimony.


From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 16 October, 1903. Price 1d.



An inquest was held on Friday afternoon last at the “Falcon Hotel,” London Road, by the Borough Coroner (Sydenham Payn, Esq.), on the body of an elderly man, named George Staveley, living at Alexander Terrace, Chapel Hill, who had been in the employ of Messrs. Coulthard and Wilson as a bootmaker for more than twenty years, and who died suddenly in bed whilst sleeping on his left side, to which the doctor attributed the cause of death.

The following were the Jury: Messrs. E. C. Simpson (foreman), W. Coles, E. Fry, W. Newing, G. Ravenhill, H. Hayward, A. R. Terry, T. Stone, J. Day, W. Wright, C. Simms, A. Wright, A. Ward, H. Meadows, R. H. Hadlow.

The evidence was as follows:-

Henry Staveley identified the body as that of his father, George Staveley, whose age, he thought, was 70, he was a shoemaker employed by Messrs. Coulthard and Wilson. Witness's father had always had good health. Witness was staying at his father's house about 9.30 on Wednesday evening and the deceased was in the back room. Witness had been with him, and had left him in the back room. About half past ten the housekeeper called witness. When he went to see what was the matter he found his father in bed and apparently dead.

Elizabeth Ann Dean, housekeeper for Mr. Staveley, said that about half past seven the deceased came home and he seemed as usual. She had never heard him complain of his health except as to his leg, for which he had a lotion. He ate a hearty supper, and he went to bed about ten minutes to ten. He slept on his left side. About a quarter past ten she heard him scream awfully, and she called for help, and also went for a doctor. Witness thought he died about twenty five minutes past ten.

Dr. Maurice Koettlitz said he was called soon after ten on Wednesday night. Witness found the deceased in his bedroom, and he was dead when he arrived. Death had taken place quite recently. There were no marks of violence. He had never seen the deceased before. His opinion was that the deceased having had a good supper and turning over on his left side, it stopped the heart's action, and the screaming was due to the stomach being full and perhaps a little wind in it.

A verdict in accordance with the doctor's evidence was returned.


From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 27 May, 1904. Price 1d.


An inquest was held at the “Falcon Hotel” yesterday afternoon by the Borough Coroner, Mr. Sydenham Payn, on Arthur William Adams, who died suddenly under somewhat tragic circumstances on Tuesday evening. He was chastising one of his children when he suddenly fell down dead. Mr. G. Wallis was the foreman of the Jury.

Mrs. Adams said: The deceased was my husband, and his name was Arthur William Adams. He was outside foreman carpenter to Mr. Bromley. He was 41 years of age, and lived at 35, Granville Street. Lately he had been working at Langdon Farm, walking to the top of Chalky Lane, and then driving to the farm. On Whit Monday and Tuesday he was at home, and did not go to work. He seemed quite well but for a pain in the back under the shoulder blade. For a long time he complained of his chest, and could not eat frequently. On Tuesday he, however, had a hearty dinner. After tea he sat downstairs. The four children went to bed about 20 minutes to seven. Afterwards they began to quarrel. He had called out to them to be quiet, but they would not do so, and he went up. I also went up. He took a cane with him and tapped one of the children, who said to him, “Who are you hitting of?” This boy was 12 years of age. His father said, “Do not speak to me like that, Jack.” He then sat down on the edge of the bed and swayed to and fro, and then fell. I caught him and laid him down on the floor. He appeared to die at once. I screamed for assistance, and a neighbour came. He has not been treated by a medical man, but had suffered a good deal from shortness of breath. He said he had a great difficulty in getting up the hill to Chalky Lane.

Mrs. S. Terry, 34, Granville Street, said that on Tuesday night about ten minutes to seven she was called. She went to the children's bedroom at the top of the house. Mr. Adams was lying on the floor, and was quite dead.

Dr. Koettlitz said that he was called after seven o'clock. He went at once, and found the body lying in the upper room where the children slept. Death had quite recently taken place and appeared quite natural. From the evidence he should imagine that the deceased suffered from chronic disease of the heart, which was accompanied by indigestion, and this with the excitement of correcting his children reacted on the weak heart and caused fatal syncope. The walking up the steep hill and the hard work he did no doubt accelerated the disease.

The Jury returned a verdict of death from natural causes, in accordance with the doctor's evidence.


From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 2 December, 1904. Price 1d.


Alteration in the bar were allowed at the "falcon Inn," London Road


From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 13 January, 1905. Price 1d.


A message of a fire was received by the Police on Saturday, about 12.55, from Mr. P. Wraith, of the Falcon Hotel,” that a fire had broken out. The reel was dispatched, and on arriving it was found that the chimney was on fire. This was extinguished by throwing salt and water on the fire. Miss Hicks, the barmaid informed the Police that some shavings had been thrown into the fireplace by a carpenter, and this was probably the cause of the conflagration.


Dover Express 28th May 1909.



At the Dover Police Court this morning, before T. A. Terson and F. G. Wright Esqrs. Henry Ratcliff was charged with being drunk and disorderly and using obscene language in High Street.

PC Leeming said: Shortly after eight o’clock last evening I was at Bridge Street point. The prisoner came down the London Road and went into the "Falcon." He was under the influence of drink. I followed him in and requested the landlady not to serve him. She said she would not. After some trouble I got him out. He then went up Tower Hamlets but came down again shortly afterwards and again went into the "Falcon." He commenced to create a disturbance there. He said that he had left a shilling on the counter to pay for drink the previous time and had not had it. The landlady and I requested him to leave and we only got him out after great trouble. He then would not go away and used bad language. He had to be thrown and handcuffed and I had the assistance of PC Fleet of the Metropolitan Police as well as two Dover constables off duty. He delayed the tram for some minutes and had to be carried to the Police Station.

Mary Jane Miles, landlady of the Falcon, said my husband was out when the defendant came in, soon after 8. He was drunk and was followed in by the constable. The policeman got him out. I never saw him leave anything. He had no time to take anything out of his pocket and I never saw him do so. He came back in a quarter of an hour. I refused to serve him and he said he had left a shilling there and came back for it. The people there told him he had not done so I called on the constable to remove him. He was awfully tiresome.

The Chief Constable stated that the man when searched had no money on him but this morning found 1/- 7d halfpenny.

The man persisted in the story. He promised to leave drink alone.

The Chairman said that the man was a great nuisance and that it was time he gave up drink. He would go to Canterbury for one month.


From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 7 February, 1913. Price 1d.


The annual general meeting of the Dover and District Licenses Victualler's Society was held at the “Falcon Hotel,” London Road, on Thursday afternoon. The chair was taken by Mr. T. M. Miles, supported by Mr. Panter (Vice-president), Mr. Dibley (Secretary), and a large number of members.

The following new members were elected:- W. H. Lynx and Mr. Gilbert Deverson.

The Secretary read the annual report, in which he stated that the balance showed a slight increase, amounting to 35 9s., as compared with 34 12s. 6d. in the previous year. He expressed regret at the death of two of their former members, Mr. Vass of the “King William,” and Mr. Howard, formerly of the “New Commercial Inn.”

On the proposition of Mr. T. Miles, Mr. Panter was unanimously elected chairman. A hearty vote of thanks was passed to the outgoing chairman for his excellent services.

Mr. Miles briefly responded, assuring them of his continued interest in the Society.

Mr. Panter briefly returned thanks for the election, and proposed the election of Mr. J. Lewis as vice-chairman. – Mr. Clarett seconded, and the motion was carried unanimously.

Mr. M. T. Miles said that the former Treasurer, Mr. J. Ward, had left the trade, and they therefore had to elect a new treasurer. They were all very sorry to lose Mr. Ward. He proposed Mr. J. F. Caspell as their new treasurer. – On being seconded by Mr. Groombridge, the motion was carried.

On the proposition of Mr. Panter, Mr. Dubrey was re-elected secretary.

The following gentlemen were elected on the committee, on the proposition of Mr. Miles, seconded by Mr. Lewis:- Messrs. C. G. Clarett, Waterhouse, Groombridge, Summers, Stanley, Kemp, J. Corless, Norris, H. Maslin, W. G. White, W. Whiting, G. A. Hinks, and J. B. Baker.

Mr. Miles said that he was sorry to inform them that Mr. Summers was seriously ill. – It was decided to send a letter of sympathy to his wife.

On the proposition of Mr. Miles, seconded by Mr. Clarett, it was unanimously decided to hold an annual dinner during the ensuing year. A sub-committee consisting of the officers of the Society and Messrs. Clarett and Kemp were appointed to make the necessary arrangements with regard to the date and place.

At the conclusion of the meeting, an illuminated address, which was presented to the Chairman of the Society in the year 1879, in appreciation of their kindness to the children of the Licensed Victualler's School on the occasion of their visit to Dover, and which has been retained by each successive chairman, was handed over to Mr. Panter.


From the Dover Express and East Kent News. 21 January, 1921.


The "Falcon" was granted an extension for the annual supper of the Tunbridge Wells Equitable Friendly Society on Wednesday evening.



At the other extreme, Nadin, 1964-69, saw the property sold to the town for 11,000.


Bridge Street was widened at this point early in 1970 and the necessary removal of the hotel took place to make that possible.


From the Dover Express and East Kent News. 17 March 1939.

There was a serious accident outside the "Falcon," London Road, on Saturday night. Mrs. Gamble, of 8, Bridge Street, being knocked down by a motor car driven by Mr. L Pearce, of 69, Folkestone Road. Mrs. Gamble was taken to the Hospital with a fractured left leg, abrasions to the right leg and suffering from shock.


Dover Express 9th August 1946.

Town, Port & Garrison.

The engagement has now been announced between Phyllis, eldest daughter of Mr. & Mrs. Beer, "Falcon Hotel," Dover, and Bill, son of Mrs. Knott and the late Mr. Graham of Heathfield Avenue, Dover.




TUCKER S C 1864+

BIRCH George 1865-1891 (age 51 in 1891Census) Post Office Directory 1874Post Office Directory 1882Post Office Directory 1891

BIRCH Edwin Mead 1892-99 Pikes 1895Kelly's Directory 1899 (Also hired out tents and marquees for parties)

NEWING William Henry 1901-Oct/04 Next pub licensee had Post Office Directory 1903Post Office Directory 1903Kelly's 1903Dover Express

Last pub licensee had WRAITH Mrs Phyllis E Oct/1904-07 end Dover Express

MILES Tom Mansell 1906-13+ (age 58 in 1911Census) Post Office Directory 1913

MILES Mrs Mary Jane 1907-20 end

Last pub licensee had HALL Edwin Thomas senior 1920-Mar/22 Post Office Directory 1922Dover Express

WARDELL George W Mar-Aug/1922 Dover Express (Of Sheffield)

BECKETT Edward Albert Aug/1922-24 end Next pub licensee had Dover ExpressPikes 1923

Last pub licensee had CLARK Herbert 1924-31 end Next pub licensee had Pikes 1924Post Office Directory 1930

Last pub licensee had ASKIE Frederick John 1931-Dec/32 Pikes 1932-33Dover Express

MARTIN Wilfred (Secretary to Messrs. George Beer & Rigden.) Dec/1932+ Dover Express

McDINE J 1933

TURNER Harold Leslie 1933-June/38 Post Office Directory 1938Pikes 1938-39Dover Express

BEER Edward John Frank June/1938-June/49 Dover Express (Former lorry driver)

Last pub licensee had CAIRNS James F R June/1949-53 end Dover Express

MOUNT Edward Latimer 1953-54 end

PARKER Frank 1954-56 end

GREEN Thomas 1956

BROWN Kenneth M 1959-60 end Next pub licensee had

SALMON Arthur T 1960

Last pub licensee had NADIN Walter 1964-69 end

Herbert Clark also ran the "Trocadero" between 1919 and 1934.


Post Office Directory 1874From the Post Office Directory 1874

Post Office Directory 1882From the Post Office Directory 1882

Post Office Directory 1891From the Post Office Directory 1891

Pikes 1895From Pikes Dover Blue Book 1895

Kelly's Directory 1899From the Kelly's Directory 1899

Post Office Directory 1903From the Post Office Directory 1901

Post Office Directory 1903From the Post Office Directory 1903

Kelly's 1903From the Kelly's Directory 1903

Post Office Directory 1913From the Post Office Directory 1913

Post Office Directory 1922From the Post Office Directory 1922

Pikes 1923From Pikes Dover Blue Book 1923

Pikes 1924From Pikes Dover Blue Book 1924

Post Office Directory 1930From the Post Office Directory 1930

Pikes 1932-33From Pikes Dover Blue Book 1932-33

Post Office Directory 1938From the Post Office Directory 1938

Pikes 1938-39From Pikes Dover Blue Book 1938-39

Dover ExpressFrom the Dover Express



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