From the East Kent Mercury 26th December, 1968, kindly supplied by Deal library.

From the Deal, Walmer, and Sandwich Mercury, 30 June, 1865. 1d.

PETTY SESSIONS

Edward Hammond, painter, appeared in answer to a summons, charging him with shaking his fist in the face of G. Hamilton, and challenging him to a fight.

George Hamilton deposed: Yesterday, I was in Beach Street, when defendant left his work and came across the road and asked me to pay him what I owed him. I told him I would pay him 2s., which I offered him. He then used angry words and threatened to knock my eye out. I asked him to allow me to pass, and as I was doing so, he called me a rogue and a thief, and said that I had just come out of Maidstone Gaol, where I should soon be again. I then went into the "Fountain" where I stopped a short time, and on coming out, the defendant met me in the passage, and repeated his threatening language and challenged me to fight, which I declined. I then went into the street and he continued his abuse, ultimately I got away. Some time after this we again met, and he applied the same abusive language to me. This is the second time he has done so, and he has threatened me he would do it again, I go, therefore, in bodily fear of him.

In defence, Hammond stated that Hamilton owed him some money, which he asked for, and denied any threat on his part, but that plaintiff threatened him, but he admitted that he challenged him to fight.

He was ordered to pay 6s. costs, and be bound over to keep the peace for three months, in his own recognisance for £5.

From the Deal, Walmer, and Sandwich Mercury, 13 January, 1872.

ASSAULT CASE

James Larkins, waterman, was summoned by Mr. G. Porter, landlord of the "Fountain Inn," Beach Street, for having committed an assault upon him at Deal, on the night of the 6th instant.

Defendant pleaded not guilty.

George E. Porter deposed: On Saturday night last about half-past ten I was in the front room of the "Fountain," of which I am landlord, and the defendant Larkins came in. We had a quiet party in the room at the time. He called for a spencer of brandy, and my wife brought it to him. He said, "I want three more like that, and I don't mean to pay for them." "All right," I said "we don't want ant row, we are here to enjoy ourselves," and he said, "Who the ______ ____ are you?" I said, "I am nobody." I told the man who was singing, but who had stopped in consequence of this, to go on. Larkin again swore at me, and I told him to go away, as we did not want a noise in the house. He said, "You _____; who's going away for you?" calling me a rogue and other opprobrious names. He then came to me, and with his fist struck me in the face, and knocked me out of the chair. He then tried to get me by the throat, but I got hold of him and got him down in the corner. My wife then sent for a policeman, and then I let him get up. My wife stood between us to prevent him striking me again, and he then struck my wife in the face and made her nose bleed. I flew at him to defend my wife, and he then caught hold of my wife's hair and pulled her down with him as I was throwing him down. P.C. Cox came in just then, and I gave him into custody. Larkins had been drinking, but he was not drunk. The constable took him home, and he threatened to return, but he did not do so.

Defendant said the evidence was all wrong.

In cross-examination by defendant, Mr. Porter said: I do not recollect saying anything to you in front of the Reading-room the same morning. In did not say anything about a ship. I did not strike, or offer to strike you before you knocked me out of the chair.

Mark Nash said; I was at the "Fountain" on the 6th instant in the evening. I saw Larkins come in. He called for a spencer of brandy-and-water, and told Porter he was not going to pay for it, and he also told Porter he took people off to drown them, and that he was a monkey, and all his party. He also said that nothing but boys and trash used his house. I went out, and was away only about three minutes. When I went out both complainant and defendant were sitting on chairs close to each other, but when I came back they were struggling in a corner, and Larkins had hold of Porter's hair. I and Mrs. Porter tried to pull them apart. I saw Larkins hit Porter's wife on the wrist. I did not see him do anything more to her, but he might have hit her with his hands and I not have seen it. Potter I saw fall, and Larkins too. Larkins had hold of his hair, and pulled him down. Larkins got up first, and then Porter, and then Larkins got up and went out and came back in about two minutes and began "growl" - I mean quarrelling. Porter said, "Why don't you go?" and then he did go, and just as he got out P.C. Cox came. I did not see Porter strike Larkins, but they had hold of each other.

By the Mayor: Porter was bleeding in the face, and Mrs. Porter's wrist was also bleeding. Larkins knew what he was talking about, but I believe he had been drinking.

Defendant said he had no witnesses to call as he could not remember who was in the room, but from what one of the neighbours had told him, who said she heard the whole of the conversation that took place, they were talking together for a long time before any blows were struck.

P.C. Cox said: I was called to the "Fountain" on Saturday evening, and when I got there I found Porter and Larkins on the door-step quarrelling. Porter said, "Take this man in charge; he has struck me." I said, "I can't do so, as I did not see it." Larkins, when Porter said that, did not deny it, but said, "It was all through jealousy." Larkins went home - he appeared to be sober. I went as far as his house, and saw him go indoors.

Cross-examined by defendant: I did not hear anything said by Porter about doing for you, inside or outside. Porter followed to give you in charge, and I told him to go home, and he did so after I had told him three times.

In defence, Larkins said he believed Porter was as bad as he was. It was through him (Porter) the quarrel begun, and this was not the first or second time that he had tried to kick up a row with him. Porter had told one of the men on the beach that he was a better man than him (Larkins), and was ready to fight him at any time. This was enough to make any man cross, especially when he had a little drink. Both he and Porter had been to Ramsgate on the day in question, and they had each had more than they ought to - he knew he had. When he went into Porter's house he had a bit of an argument about a ship, and after a bit they quarrelled. He denied, most solemnly that he knocked Porter out of the chair - he had been in a good many squabbles, but he had never gone as far as to knock a man when he was sitting down. He had never taken such an advantage of any man.

Defendant said he should like his brother, who was in the room at the time, called, and he was accordingly sent for.

H. Larkin, the brother referred to, was sworn, and deposed the as follows: I was in the "Fountain Inn" on Saturday evening last with a few friends, having a pipe. The landlord was in the room sitting with us, and we were all pleasant. Mr brother came in between 10 and 11. He sat down, and after a bit spoke to Porter and they began to quarrel. Porter kept persuading my brother to be quiet and enjoy the song, but he would not be persuaded, and at last they got to blows, and Porter got the first of it, but not very hard - it was with the fist in the face. After that he got up to push my brother away, and then Porter's wife interfered, and that is all I saw of it.

The Magistrates consulted for a few minutes, and Mr. Brown in delivering the decision of the Bench said the Magistrates could find no excuse for the defendant who appeared to have gone into the "Fountain" in a very quarrelsome spirit, and very soon got to blows with the complainant. There was not justification for such treatment, and it was not the first time he had been before them for something similar. He was clearly in the wrong in this case, and so would be fined £1 including costs, or in default have to go to Sandwich gaol for 14 days with hard labour.

Defendant applied for permission to be allowed to fetch the money, and was rather dissatisfied when he was told that he could not go himself, but might send where he pleased. Ultimately, however, a friend was sent and the money was shortly afterwards paid.

From the Deal, Walmer, and Sandwich Mercury, 20 March, 1872. 1d.

BOROUGH PETTY SESSIONS

George Porter, landlord of the "Fountain Inn," Beach Street, was summoned by the Superintendent of police for selling during prohibited hours on Sunday last, vis., between eleven and twelve a.m. Supt. Parker said he visited the house in question about the time named and was admitted through the front door by the landlady. He went into the tap-room or front parlour which he found empty, but he afterwards looked in the back parlour and there he found the defendant and three others. They each had a glass containing malt liquor in front of them, and one of them was smoking. He told defendant that he knew he was doing wrong in the latter and said the men had just called in to settle about some sails which he had purchased of them. In defence, Mr. Porter said that he only arrived home from sea on Saturday night, and on the following morning two part owners of one of the south-end boats called upon him respecting a sail and cable he had arranged to purchase of them. The men had been to sea and had only arrived home on the previous evening, and on looking over their stores they found that the sail and cable he was going to buy was gone, and as they had recently lost things from their storehouses, they were anxious to know what had become of them, and at once came to him to enquire if he had got the things; which he had, as they had been brought to him previously by another owner. When the men, Lambert and Bayly, found he had got the things they said he might as well settle for them at once, and they then went into the parlour and the bill was drawn up. After this had been done, Bayley remarked that the rope would not wear well if it were not wet, and he then drew him a glass of beer, and also one for himself. The third person present was his brother-in-law. He could swear that the beer was not paid for. The room where they were was his private living room, and the rest of the house was all closed. Mr. Lambert, the person referred to, corroborated the defendant's statement, and the Magistrates announced that they would allow the case to be withdrawn without a conviction upon the defendant paying the costs, 4s. 6d., but they would warn him to be very careful in future, and not draw any beer under any circumstance during prohibited hours.

From the Deal, Walmer, and Sandwich Mercury, 8 November, 1873.

ASSAULT CASE

James Bailey, waterman, was summoned for assaulting Thomas Nash on the 4th inst.

Thomas Nash said: On the 4th inst. I was standing at the bar of the "Fountain Inn," Beach Street, about nine o'clock having something to drink. Bailey came in with some others and commences swearing, and he called all the Nashes all the scamps he could lay his tongue to. He then struck my brother, and I called out to the latter not to strike him back, but take out a summons. Bailey then turned round and struck me in the face with his fist.

Defendant admitted that he struck complainant, but pleaded provocation, the other Nash having called him all the rogues and other names he could think of. Whilst they were talking complainant interfered which he had no business to do. Complainant had only taken out the summons through spite, and for the purpose of aggravating.

The Magistrated considered there had been an improvoked assault, and fined defendant 20s.

From the Deal, Walmer, and Sandwich Mercury, 7 April, 1900. 1d.

JOHN FRIERS AND WIFE v MrS. WOODCOCK

This was a claim by Mrs. Friers, wife of the landlord of the "Fountain Inn," Beach Street, for £1 5s., for a piece of cloth rendered useless by the alleged bad workmanship of the defendant, who is a dressmaker. There was a counter claim for £1 12s., for work done and material supplied.

Mr. Wilks appeared for the defendant.

Plaintiff explained that she supplied to defendant a piece of cloth, two yards double width, to make a cape of, and when it came home she could not wear it, it was so badly made and finished, the scallops round it were all different sizes, and the stitching was zig-zag all round.

His Honor: And what is that soft stuff?

Plaintiff: That is the fur, for which she charged me 6s. 6d. a yard, and she has split it, and the width is not as when I first saw it.

His Honor: Who put the lining in?

Mrs. Woodcock.

And you supplied the cloth?

Yes.

What did it cost you?

25s.

Have you tried it on?

Yes; and I have a witness here who will try to fit it on me, and let you see it. It is a disgrace.

Is it? Have had it tried on?

Yes, I stayed three-quarters of an hour while she fitted it.

I should think it aught to fit beautifully, then?

It ought to, she tried to make it fit, but could not. She told me so herself.

Well, you didn't want another, did you?

To make it fit, she put two pleats in.

Plaintiff: Will you examine it?

His Honor?

No, I want to see it or...

Plaintiff then proceeded to take off the cloak she was wearing, and to put on the one in question.

His Honor: Is it a summer cloak?

Plaintiff: It's a winter cloak.

His Honor: You have got a lovely cloak already.

Plaintiff: Ever since November she has had it.

Have you been obliged to wear the old one?

Yes, and I wanted this to go to London with. Like a good many more, I suppose I wanted a new cape.

Plaintiff was by this time sporting herself in the garment over which the dispute had arisen.

His Honor: Now, what is the matter with it?

Plaintiff: Look at it. See how badly it hangs, and look at the back. Why it doesn't fit anywhere.

His Honor: Turn around. It is not intended to fit tight, is it?

Plaintiff: No sir.

His Honor: Turn round, so that the light shines on it. Ah, now it fits perfectly. What is the matter with it?

Plaintiff: I have a witness who will explain everything.

His Honor: Well, bring the witness.

Plaintiff: It will save your time, and trouble too.

His Honor: I should think it would be much better. Don't take the cloak off, please.

A young man stepped forward, and said his name was Herbert Bradshaw, and he was a practical tailor.

his Honor: Be kind enough to look at that cloak. What is the matter with it?

Witness: It is completely ruined in the cutting, sir. It is cut far too large up in the neck, and pleated under the collar to try and bring it back into its position.

But can't it be cut?

That would give it too small a flow at the bottom, and it is impossible to alter it. It is cut too short from the neck.

His Honor: I don't understand, but I daresay you are right.

Witness (passing his hand over the shoulder); All this should be entirely plain round here.

His Honor: Why can't that be taken away?

Witness: It is impossible. if you take it away there, you will have it drop here, and there will have to be a seam in here.

His Honor: Why? There seems to be too much of it, and I should have thought that if there were too much, you might get rid of some.

Witness: There has been an attempt made to get rid of it here, and a piece put in here.

His Honor: It is not the least use bringing a case of this kind before me. I don't understand it. I don't see why, if you cut that out, it would not come straight.

Witness: It is drafted entirely wrong. The neck should be cut to the size of the person.

But can't it be cut smaller?

It is impossible if the cloth is spoilt. The collar is the right size round the neck, but the cape is cut too large, and pleated round underneath it.

The more you cut it, the larger the hole will be, won't it? The more you reduce the neck, the smaller it will be round the bottom, it is not large enough at present. There is no flow to allow the arms to move.

Do you expect the arms to move, and the cape to remain unmoved?

There should be enough stuff in it for that.

Well, what else is the matter with it?

These scallops are not two alike.

Aren't they done with a scalloping machine?

I don't know.

His Honor (to defendant): Do you have a scalloping machine in the trade?

Defendant: No sir.

His Honor (to witness): What is the value of that cape?

Witness: About 50s., I should say, as it stands.

His Honor: The claim and counter claim only comes to £2 17s. It is only 5s. wrong then.

Witness: But the thing is spoilt. If you mean as it stands at present, it is not worth a shilling.

His Honor: But it can be worn, can't it?

Witness: I don't think so.

His Honor (to plaintiff): let me look again at the back. I confess I cannot see anything wrong with it. Turn around a little more. That's it; now the light shines on your shoulder. I daresay if it was another collar on it it would look very well, wouldn't it? It doesn't look bad now. Mr. Wilks, I believe you know all about this.

Mr. Wilks: I can't say very much about it. I believe it is the correct thing, according to the fashions of the day, to have it gathered on the shoulder.

His Honor: Oh, is it? It ought to fit round the shoulder, Mr. Bradshaw, hadn't it?

Witness: It ought to be entirely plain underneath the collar.

Defendant said she was a practical dressmaker, and had been practising in Deal twelve years. She fitted the cape on the plaintiff as well as one was able.

His Honor: Why did you make it so full round the shoulders?

Defendant: Because she had it altered. It was quite plain at first, and every scallop was perfect.

And what about the neck, of which Mr. Bradshaw seems to complain?

She said it was too tight round the neck, or something, and I altered it. I have done the best I could, considering it was too small, or too large. It was either too tight or too loose. I remember taking it in, but the young lady will remember what was done.

His Honor: It seems to be a little bulgy.

Defendant: It is a little full, but it could have been easily taken in in the shoulder darts.

His Honor: Haven't you got it too wide in the collar?

Defendant: No, sir, the collar is not too wide. We have not altered the outside collar.

His Honor: I mean the collar of the cape, under the down collar. Lift the collar and let me look at it. There, shouldn't that be smooth on the shoulder?

Defendant: It can be taken in in the darts. If I had pins I could show you.

His Honor: But you ladies always have pins.

Defendant: I have no pins with me.

His Honor (to the bailiff): Just get my waistcoat, will you?

The bailiff returned with the waistcoat and his Honor took some half dozen pins from the edge, and handed them down to the defendant.

His Honor (to the plaintiff): Do you mind her pinning your beautiful jacket?

Defendant had inserted several pins when his Honor remarked: Doesn't that lift it at the bottom, pinning it up like that?

Defendant: No sir, you will see it won't life it when i have pinned it in.

His Honor: You are not pinning the lady, are you?

Defendant: No sir, I am used to it.

His Honor: It seems to want a good deal of pinning. Now, Mr. Bradshaw, what is the effect of that?

The witness: It will have the effect of diminishing the size at the bottom.

Defendant (indignantly): Indeed it can't sir. Perhaps you have a different method. I did not take it on the tailor-made system.

Plaintiff (who had very patiently borne the ordeal of "trying on"): She has had the cape two months. I took it back to try to point it out, and she said, "I will not allow you to dictate to me." She has had the cape ever since, and said she would alter it. It was worse then than it is now.

His Honor: Tell me why it is so dreadfully full on the shoulders.

Defendant: I can't say that. I did not take it on the tailoring system.

Did you intend it to be bulgy like that?

It is not bulgy when it is stitched in.

Mr. Wilks: You can take these things out, and are quite willing to do so?

Defendant: Quite willing.

Mr. Wilks: It is the simplest thing in the world .

His Honor: You say so; is it, Mr. Bradshaw?

The witness: The thing is entirely spoilt, from my practical experience.

His Honor: Are you a ladies' tailor?

Witness: I have had fourteen years' experience in the trade.

His Honor: I have heard people talk about tailor-made gowns. I suppose they somewhat differ from others. Are they done upon a different principle?

Witness: They are cut on a more scientific principle altogether.

His Honor (who asked to be allowed to examine the cape more closely): What is the matter with the inside of it?

Plaintiff: Look at the difference in those scollops.

His Honor: Yes. How much would you charge for making a cape like this, Mr. Broadshaw?

Witness: It all depends. The making alone would be about 6s.

 Defendant: You work remarkably cheap.

His Honor: Including the lining?

Witness: No sir; that would include nothing .

His Honor: What about all that beautiful fur, and lovely shot lining?

Witness: Well, sir, that varies in price. I have not much experience in that cheap lining, sir.

Plaintiff: She charged me 3s. 6d.

His Honor: It is not fur you have in your hand?

Plaintiff: It is the fashionable fur they are using now.

His Honor: Now, Mr. Bradshaw, what do you say to this?

I don't like it myself (to defendant): You have put a large lump here. What was your idea of doing that? It should be loose.

Defendant: We never fit a cape tight. QWe always allow for it to be loose-fitting.

They are not meant to be?

They are taken away by darts - a piece taken out, and the material stitched together again.

How many darts would you have put? - According to the size of the figure?

And this figure would have required a certain number of darts?

Yes.

How many?

Four.

His Honor (again lifting the collar): Tell me about this piece of put in here.

Mr. Bradshaw: It should not be there at all.

His Honor: It looks odd. Mr. Wilks, what do you think of this?

Mr. Wilks: I understand there was not sufficient material.

His Honor: But surely it ought to be a triangular piece. How do youb explain this, Mr. Bradshaw?

The witness: It seems to be a piece put in - an attempt to alter the collar after the cape was made.

His Honor (to defendant): What do you say?

Defendant: When the cape was sent home, it hung alright. Plaintiff wanted pleats put in the back, and I had used all the cloth.

How would putting pleats in the back render this necessary?

It would catch up if it had not this piece in.

Defendant called Miss Rogers, an assistant, who said she had not nine months' experience. She had nothing to do with the cutting out. She merely took the cloak home. A younger assistant was also called.

His Honor: What did you do with this cloak?

Witness: i basted the lining, sir.

And what about this little piece?

I know nothing about it.

His Honor: Well, who was it that put that piece in?

Defendant: The bodice hand, sir.

Is she her?

No, sir.

These are very young hands, are they not?

There are five hands altogether. The other has been with me four years.

Miss Rogers said she took the cloak home in December. Plaintiff complained of the scallops not being the same size, and that it hung down at the sides more than at the back, and of the scallops not being even.

Mr. Wilks: My experience of ladies' capes for the last six months has been that they have been full on the shoulder, and this was made with that intention.

Defendant: To get the necessary quantity of material, it must be full there.

Plaintiff: I never saw one in Deal like it, and i would defy anyone to find one made like it.

His Honor: Then if you have the only one like it in Deal, there must be something special about it.

Plaintiff: It would be a disgrace to walk about in it.

His Honor: Oh, no; I think you look very well indeed in it. But I am not at all satisfied about this (again raising the collar and inspecting the shoulders). Was this intended to be full like this?

Defendant: She came in such a tiff, and did not say what was to be done with it.

His Honor: What did you do with it?

Defendant: Took it in on the shoulders, to make this a little larger.

His Honor: Can't it be taken in more as suggested?

Mr. Bradshaw: It will be spoilt. In fact it is entirely spoilt now.

Why not, if this is made tighter?

It is too large around the neck, and the larger round the neck the smaller the flow round the bottom.

Yes, but won't it still hang very nicely when these are taken in?

No, sir, it does not hang nicely now.

His Honor: Let me see it on again. I confess I don't understand it. (Plaintiff again put the cloak on). Now turn round, and place your arms as you would like to have them. (Plaintiff raised her arms). It does not seem to me too tight.

Plaintiff: I don't want to be laughed at as I go along the street.

His Honor: I don't think anyone who looked at you would do so.

Plaintiff: When I took it back to her place to alter, she flew at me.

His Honor: Take out the pins. I think we shall see better now. (To defendant). Did you intend it to be baggy like that?

Defendant: It is intended to be loose in the neck.

Plaintiff: No sir. It was fitted quite plain at first. I stood three quarters of an hour while she was trying to fit it.

Defendant: I have always made capes for Mrs. Friers before, and they have always been bulgy. Some dresses she wears have very large sleeves.

His Honor: How many "darts" are there?

Plaintiff: About forty.

Defendant: Four.

His Honor (to plaintiff): Do you want to have it altered?

Plaintiff: I decline to have anything to do with it. It was spoilt at the very first onset.

His Honor (to defendant): I think it requires improvement. Can you improve it?

 Defendant: Yes, I am willing to make any improvement the lady likes.

His Honor: What will you give for the cloth?

Defendant: I could supply a piece like that, the size of that cape, for 8s.

Double with at 4s. a yard?

Yes, sir.

Well, if you have that cape can you sell it?

Yes, but I can only give her the value of the cloth.

His Honor (to plaintiff): How much did you give for the cloth?

Plaintiff: 25s.

His Honor: What would be the cost, Mr. Bradshaw?

Mr. Bradshaw: That all depends upon the market.

What could you buy it at?

Well sir, I don't as a rule buy such myself.

It it what you call coffin cloth?

No, sir, far superior to that.

His Honor: I got a fur coat once, and my tailor told me it was coffin cloth. What do you put the value at?

Mr. Bradshaw: 8s. a yard.

His Honor: That's just what I thought. Judgement for plaintiff for 16s., and Mrs. Woodcock must have the cape.

Mrs. Friers asked for costs, and his Honor said he would allow fees on 16s. and the witness Bradshaw's expenses, which he would leave the Registrar to fix.

From the East Kent Mercury Thursday 30th December, 1971, kindly supplied by Deal library.

Above picture reproduced from another sketch of "The Fountain"

The "Fountain Hotel" once stood in Beach Street next to the "Royal Hotel." It was greatly used by seafarers, especially pilots. And many famous people who came to Deal to take boats to all parts of the world stayed there. It achieved notoriety in 1905 when its licensee was murdered. It ceased to function in 1910 and was demolished soon afterwards by Deal Corporation in one of its road widening schemes. In it heyday, the "Fountain Hotel" was known throughout the world to seafarers and its comforts were recalled as many a fine ship staggered around Cape Horn.

From the East Kent Mercury 13th October, 1982, kindly supplied by Deal library.

One of Deal's long forgotten public houses is the "Fountain Hotel," which stood on the east side of Beach Street, right next door to the "Royal Hotel." It was an eye-catching building with wooden boarded walls and its stagings overlooked the sea. It was, in its day, greatly used by pilots and seafarers of all nations. For most of its life the proprietors of the "Fountain Hotel" were themselves successful boatmen, providing a victualling service to the vessels at anchor in the Downs. And the landlords and customers alike were not averse to a little smuggling. Many a successful run was planned in the bar of the "Fountain hotel" and there were secret panels, false stairs and a tunnel all used by the smugglers. The "Fountain" lost its smuggling association when the activity came to an end in Deal but it became notorious again in 1905 when the licensee was murdered by one of the barmen. A few years later the old premises were demolished for the widening of Beach Street.

Above photo circa 1909 shows the "Fountain Hotel" between the two masts, centre of the picture. On the right of that is the "Royal Hotel." The building of the "Fountain" was demolished with the widening of Beach Street around about the same time and the site is now occupied by a car-park.