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 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.