From the Dover Express and East Kent Intelligencer, 19 March, 1859.

SERIOUS CHARGE

George Solley, a large, powerfully built man, who described himself as a market gardener living at West Langdon, and whose eyes were sadly blackened, was charged with assaulting John William Sharp, a labourer, and breaking his leg on the previous Saturday night. It appeared that the complainant was unable to attend, being confined to the hospital from the effects of the injuries he had received.

John Wheeler, a shoemaker, living in Last Lane, examined - I was at the "Garrick's Head" public-house, in the Market Place, on Saturday evening. I saw the prisoner and several other men there. Among them was the man Sharp. The prisoner was drunk and very quarrelsome. He wanted to fight with every one in the room. Several endeavoured to persuade him to sit down, but he would not, and at last one man got up and said, "If you want your hide loosened, I'll loosen it for you." (Laughter). That was not Sharp. Upon that the prisoner left the room and went down the passage and stood in front of the bar. I did not leave the room at the same time; but in a short time afterwards, on hearing a disturbance, I went down to the bar. I then saw a man named Boorman bleeding from the mouth, and the prisoner lying on the ground. Prisoner said, "Let me stand up and I'll stand a quart of beer," and presently added, "There, let me get up, and I'll stand a gallon." (Laughter.) Upon that some people who were near him lifted him up. He then went behind the bar, and after a good deal of persuasion he left the house and went into the street. Sharp and his wife quitted the house very shortly afterwards, when prisoner made up to them. Sharp was speaking to his wife at the moment, and had got his head turned round, when prisoner caught him across the chest and tripped him up with his foot. Both men fell heavily to the ground, the prisoner coming on top of Sharp. The people near picked Sharp up and carried him into the house, and found that his leg was broken. There had been no quarrel between Sharp and the prisoner; all that Sharp had done being to request Solly to sit down when he was creating a disturbance up stairs. Solly and Sharp left the room about the same time. I cannot say which quitted first. When I got down stairs Sharp was standing by the side of the bar near to where the landlord was serving. Sharp did not appear as if he had been struggling or fighting with any one.

The prisoner, who had no questions to ask the witness, was remanded for a week.

The defendant was informed that bail would be accepted for his appearance if he could procure it.

From the Dover Express and East Kent Intelligencer, 12 September, 1863.

ANNUAL LICENSES

A spirit license was granted to Stephen Austen Hammond, of the "Garrick's Head," Market Place.

From the Dover Express and East Kent Intelligencer, 23 August, 1872. Price 1d.

APPLICANTS UNDER THE NEW LICENSING ACT

Mr. Coleman applied on behalf of the landlord of the “Garrick's Head,” Market Square, for permission to open his house at four instead of five.

The applications were ordered to stand over till the next licensing day.

From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 11 August, 1889. Price 1d.

DISGRACEFUL CONDUCT

Rose Beecham was charged at the Police Court on Monday, before F. S. Pierce, E. Bottle, and M. Pepper, Esqrs., with being drunk and disorderly and using obscene language in Cannon Street on Sunday night. Police-constable Knott said that on the previous evening shortly after ten he was in Cannon Street, and saw the prisoner, who was singing an obscene song, running to and fro on the pavement. She refused to go away, and so he took her into custody, put her on the ambulance and took her to the station. She continued to use the most disgusting language all the time. Mrs. E. Bailey, of the “Garrick's Head Inn,” said the prisoner came into the bar on Sunday evening the worse for drink and asked to be served. Witness refused and ordered her out of the house. She then took up a glass of beer and drank it. She was ejected from the house by the Police. The Superintendent of the Police said she had been sent to the prison on the 4th July for seven days on a similar charge. On arrival at Canterbury she was recognised as an old offender. She was sent to prison for 14 days.

From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 13 February, 1890. Price 1d.

A SISTERS QUARREL

Amy Panteney was summonsed by Elizabeth Bailey, for assaulting her on the 2nd February.

Mr. T. Lewis appeared for the plaintiff.

Elizabeth Bailey said that her husband kept the “Garricks head,” in the Market Square. The defendant was her sister, and lived at 2, Tower Hill. Some communication had been made to her by Mr. Hatton. On Monday last, she went to a house near her sister's and being up there she called at her house, but she was not at home. She was told that her sister was at the “King William,” and she went there and asked to see her, and she ultimately came out. She asked the defendant what she had got to curse her limbs for, and the defendant told her if she did not hold her tongue she would hide her, and hit her in the throat breaking her brooch, and also struck her in the right eye. As soon as it was done she went to Dr. Best, and has been under his care ever since. She could not see from here eye yet.
Alfred Hatton, in the employ of the Steam Laundry Company, and living on the premises, said that before Christmas defendant was living there, and she told him something about her sister.

The Magistrates dismissed the case.

From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 6 March, 1890. Price 1d.

STEALING A SHAWL

Stephen Ayres was charged with stealing a woollen shawl from the “Garrick's Head,” value 8s. 6d.

Elizabeth Bailey, wife of William Bailey, who keeps the “Garrick's Head” in the Market Square, said that the prisoner came into their house the previous afternoon with another man. Whilst they were in the house, she went to Castle Street to buy some fish, and on her way back, about five minutes afterwards, she met the prisoner by Mr. Igglesden's, and spoke to him. She then went indoors, and prisoner turned round into Church Street. There was a back-way to their house which led into Church Street. Previous to going up Castle Street she went into the market, and left her shawl on the table in the back room before she went; and on returning from Castle Street she found that her shawl had gone. Anyone going to the rear of the house would have gone through the room where the shawl was. She sent for the prisoner, and asked him if he knew anything about the shawl, and he said that he didn't. When her husband came in, she told him, in the presence of the prisoner, of her loss, and he went to the Police Station. The prisoner then said that he had seen a woman with it that morning, but she told him that she only took it off about a quarter past two. Prisoner said he thought he could find it, and left the house; he returned in about twenty minutes with the shawl, and he said he bought it off a woman for sixpence, at a lodging house at the top of Durham Hill. A person might take the shawl from the room and throw it over the wall at the back, and go round Church Street and get it.

Alexander McQueen, a boy 13 years of age, living at the “Garrick's Head,” said that he saw prisoner come into the house whilst Mrs. Bailey was out, and go out the back. The prisoner came back, and went straight out, he did not notice whether he had anything or not.

Eliza Wellard said that she kept a lodging house at Bowling Green Hill. The prisoner did not come there at all. She was at home, and must have seen him if he did.

Sarah Pay said that her husband kept the “Half Moon” public house in Blucher Row. The prisoner came to their house about three o'clock, and brought the shawl (produced) and asked to leave it for a short time. He came for it about a quarter of an hour afterwards.

Police-constable Knott said that he went in search of the prisoner, and ultimately found him at the “Half Moon” at quarter past ten. He took him to the Police Station, and on the way there he said that he received the shawl from a woman he did not know, but thought he should if he saw her again.

Prisoner pleaded guilty.

The Magistrates sent him to prison for one month with hard labour.

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

THE MARKET SQUARE DEADLOCK

CASE BEFORE THE COURT OF APPEAL

LLOYDS CAN START BUILDING

On Saturday in the Court of Appeal, High Court of Justice, Lord Justices Vaughan Williams, Roberts and Cozens-Hardy had before them the case of Thomson and Sons, Ltd., Lloyds Bank, which was an appeal from an order of Mr. Justice Joyce of November 5th, 1903, by the defendants.

The action was by the plaintiffs, the owners of the “Garrick's Head,” Market Square, Dover, against the defendants, the owners of No's 6 and 7, Market Square, for an injunction to restrain the defenders, their servants, and agents from erecting or permitting to remain erected and buildings on the site of their premises as such a manner as to interrupt the full access of height to the plaintiffs' windows as on the same has hitherto been enjoyed and for damages.

The plaintiffs' case is that the defendants' proposed buildings would naturally interfere with the light coming to certain of their windows. The premises of the plaintiffs and the defendants adjoin and part of the plaintiffs consent of an open passage and a tap-room alongside of it which are upon the ground floor and the rooms over them. The windows of these rooms abut onto an open yard which is also part of the plaintiffs premises. The highest part of this buildings off the defendants did not exceed 40ft from the ground level. The plaintiffs and their predecessors in total had enjoyed without interruption for more than 20 years prior to the commencement of this action the full access of lateral light to the windows of these rooms over the defendants buildings, and the windows were ancient light. Defendants plaintiffs said intended to put down their buildings and erect new buildings on the site carrying them to a height of 60ft, and if this were done the light to plaintiffs windows named would be materially obstructed, and it would be necessary to use artificial light. Plaintiffs would suffer in consequence.

Defendants in their defence stated that as part of their proposed new building which could in any way effect the access of light to plaintiffs windows was to be as high or nearly as high as 60ft. The proposed main wall was to be of a height of 31ft 6in, above ground level, and was to be 3ft further south and away from the plaintiffs windows than the existing back wall. The ridge or roof would rise to a height of 49ft, but would be so sloped and set back from the main wall at the eaves so as not to interfere with the access of light to plaintiffs' windows. The only parts of the proposed buildings which would approach to a height of 60ft was a small turret at the south-eastern corridor, which would not have any effect on the access of light to the windows. If there was any obstruction which the plaintiffs did not admit it would be lateral obstruction of an insignificant and immaterial character, and in such as to cause any appreciable damage to plaintiffs.

Mr. Justice Joyce, in granting the plaintiffs an injunction and ordering the defendants to pay the costs of the action said in his opinion none of the lights coming to the plaintiffs premises could be spared. The obstruction to the plaintiffs light would be purely lateral, as the defendants' witnesses had admitted, and the effect of the defendants buildings would be to interfere with the plaintiffs lights to some extent. All plaintiffs' windows got their light from a kind of wall, and he was satisfied that it would be very much darkened if the defendants' buildings were erected, and there would be an obstruction to divert sunlight to the plaintiffs' windows during a part of the day. Such obstruction to the plaintiffs' ancient light would not be trivial, but would be such as to justify the Court granting the plaintiffs an injunction.

From the decision the defendants now appealed.

Mr. Younger, K.C. and Mr. C. V. Sargent represented the applicants and Mr. Hughs K.C. and Mr. McSweeney the respondents.

Mr. Younger was addressing the Court on behalf of the appellants when the further hearing was adjourned till Monday.

On Monday the hearing of this case was resumed.

At the conclusion of the arguments the Court allowed the appeal of the defendants with costs.

Lord Justice Vaughan Williams said this action was tried before the case of Colls v. Home and Colonel Stores was decided by the House of Lords. Of course the Council engaged in the case directed attention of the witnesses to the question of which were material as regards to the law suit was declared to the Court of Appeal in the Colls case. The decision there was merely given upon the basis that there was a right of light and a right of property which if substantially violated disturbed the person whose right had been thus related to a injunction. That being the proper question to be enquired into at the time this action was tried upon that basis. But they knew that according to the decision of the House of Lords they must admit that the real question to be asked was whether the effect of the defendants' building was to diminish the light and as so as to sensibly effect the occupation of the defendants premises and make them unfit for occupation. This was the matter they now had to deal with. Under these circumstances the rest was not a trial of the real circumstances to be tried. It had been suggested that the case should go to a surveyor for his findings on the general view of the case, but this suggestion was not accepted. His Lordship was not satisfied that the plaintiffs had made out such a case as to justify the Court giving them an injunction and looking at the model he was not prepared to say that the plaintiffs would make out their case. Under these circumstances the appeal would be allowed with costs. If the defendants went on with their buildings they did so at their own risk and if they did damage they must hear the consequences.

Lord Justice Roberts continued and said that the parties had left the case in their hands. They would decide in the defendants favour. Lord Justice Cozens-Hardy agreed.