7-8 Peter Street (St. Peter's Street)
Above picture is of the Globe in Peter Street, date 1927.
George Beer and Rigden were the last brewers to use this one. The street
dates from 1830 but some of the houses are dated 1872. This particular
property was licensed by 1844. Its size may have altered at some time. It
was just number eight in the nineteenth century.
From the Dover Telegraph and Cinque Ports General
Advertiser, Saturday 30 March, 1844. Price 5d.
Mary Madden, aged 30, charged with uttering a counterfeit shilling.
Mrs. Clark deposed, that on 21st March, prisoner came to the "Globe,"
at Charlton, for half-a-pint of beer, for which she tendered a shilling,
which she (witness) changed, and put into her pocket. She had no other
shilling there. Shortly after a man came in to change half-a-crown, and
she gave him the shilling, which he returned, saying, he did not like
it. She then went out to see if she could find the woman, but could not,
and gave information to the police.
Superintendent Corral was about to produce the coin, when the
recorder observed, that the evidence was not sufficient to make out a
case. The last witness having parted with the shilling, afforded an
opportunity of practising the well-known trick of "ringing the change."
The prisoner was then discharged with a caution that the Court was aware
of her tricks at Canterbury.
From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday 18 July, 1873.
INFRINGEMENT OF LICENSING REGULATIONS
Edward Pay, landlord of the “Globe” public-house, Peter Street,
Charlton, for having his house open at a quarter past twelve on Sunday
last, was fined 5s. and costs.
John Phipps and Thomas Molloy, charged with being in the house at the
time, were dismissed.
From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 12 February, 1904. Price 1d.
DOVER LICENSING SESSIONS
A question had arisen as to the closing of the back entrance of this
house, but it was stated that Mr. Adcock, one of the Justices, had
visited the house and found that it was impossible to close the
entrance, and the Magistrates therefore made no order.
From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 20
GAMBLING AT THE GLOBE
SMART RAID BY THE POLICE
At the Dover Police Court on Friday, before Messrs. L. J. Bradley and
H. F. Edwin, William Henry Rogers, landlord of the "Globe" public house,
was summoned on the information of the Chief Constable for unlawfully
suffering gaming, to wit, card playing, on his licensed premises, on
Sunday, November 1st.
Mr. Budden, from the Town Clerk's office, prosecuted, and Mr. Rutley
Mowll defended, and pleaded not guilty.
Mr. Budden, in outlining the case, said that on the evening in
question, Acting Police-sergeant Finch, with Police-constable Dunford
went into the private bar of the house. The sergeant returned later with
Police-constable Taylor, and went through the public bar into a room
behind it. As the constable went through the defendant tapped the window
communicating with the room. When the sergeant opened the door, he saw
several men scrambling for money and cards, which were on the table, and
he captured three of the cards, but none of the money. It was not
necessary fro him to prove that the landlord had actual knowledge, but
it was for the landlord to prove that he did not shut his eyes to the
Acting-sergeant Finch said he visited the "Globe" public house on
Sunday evening, November 1st, at 8.05 p.m. with P.C. Dunford. They
entered by the private bar, where they found a man and a woman. They
then left the house, went into the Street, and then through the public
bar into the room behind, which did not communicate with the part of the
house they first visited. In the room were six men sitting round a
table, on which was a single glass; otherwise the table was clear. When
they passed through the bar the landlord was in it. He an Dunford then
left the premises. About 8.45 witness returned to the house in company
with P.C. Taylor. They went through the public bar, witness going first,
and the police-constable following, into the same room at the back. On
opening the door witness saw several men sitting round the table, in the
centre of which was a board, about two feet square, covered with a green
baize cloth. On the board were three playing cards, a king of hearts, 7
spades and 7 clubs, also some money, which some of the men were
scrambling up. Witness made a rush and got hold of the three cards, but
did not get any of the money. He took the names and addresses of the men
in the room, seven in number. He did not recognise any of the men who
were there on his first visit. The names of the seven men were, Walter
Gibbons, John Knox, Henry Hoile, Frederick Hogg, two deaf and dumb men,
brothers named Head, and Frederick Ballard. The door leading to the
public bar faced the street, and the back room was straight through. At
the back of the public bar was a glass wicket, communicating with the
back room in which the men were. He sent for the landlord, who was in
the public bar, and found him what he had seen. He said, I was not aware
that it was going on; I know nothing about it." Witness asked who served
the customers in the back room, and stated, "They come to the bar
themselves, and I server them over the bar." He showed the landlord the
cards, and he said they did not belong to him. On November 10th he
served ma summons on the landlord personally, and he said, "All right, I
think I shall clear myself all right; I know nothing about it." It was
not possible to see the bar door from the table in the room. The wicket
was shut, and it was made of opaque glass. He did not think there was
anyone behind the counter assisting the landlord when he went in a
Mr. Rutley Mowll; When you say that you do not mean that there were
customers in the public bar behind the landlord? - I did not notice any.
There are a lot of partitions, and it would be hard to see, especially
when rushing through as I did.
Cross-examined. On the occasion of his first visit after he had been
in the room at the back of the public-bar, he said nothing to the
landlord. The wicket mentioned was really a window, but the glass was
worked with a design of leaves, rendering it opaque. There was only one
glass on the table.
In explanation to the Bench Mr. Mowll said there was no question in
serving in improper hours.
Mr. Bradley: No. If drink was served someone must have gone into the
room, or the customers to the bar? - That is so.
Cross-examination continued: On his second visit he went straight
through the bar to the door of the smoking room, and opening that
brought him directly into the room, there being no passage between. When
he entered the room he only saw the three cards, which were lying on the
board. The money he had spoken of consisted of five or six coppers.
Police-constable Mark Taylor stated that he went to the "Globe" with
Police-sergeant Finch at 8.45. He followed the sergeant through the bar
to the room at the back, and as he went through he saw the landlord tap
the window. He followed the sergeant into the room, and saw three cards
on the table, and also some money. Several men round the table scrambled
for the money, and he thought more than one had some of it. The names of
seven men were taken. Another man came from the back, but as he was not
seen at the table his name was not taken. All the men belonged to Dover.
Don't you know whether there were people in the bar; you went
through? - No, we were too much interested in the other job.
You mean in a great hurry? - Yes.
Cross-examination continued. He saw several coins on the table, but
he did not know how many. It would be about 12ft. from the bar door to
the other room, and the sergeant was about 2ft. from the door when the
landlord tapped the window.
Mr. Mowll: You saw all this while you were rushing through the bar,
and yet you are not prepared to say whether anyone was in the bar?
The witness said he watched the landlord while the sergeant's eye was
fixed on the door.
Mr. Budden. It was your duty to keep an eye on the landlord? - Yes,
and the house as well.
William Henry Rogers, the landlord, said that on Sunday, 1st
November, he was without assistance in the house, his wife, who
generally assisted him, being ill. That evening he had an exceptional
number of customers in the house, and was somewhat busy. He did not go
from the public bar into the smoking room at the back that evening, as
he had no occasion to, and the serving hatch mentioned was not once
opened; all the customers were served at the public bar, and took their
drinks into the other room. Until the police directed his attention to
the fact that he had not the slightest idea that there were any cards in
the smoking room, or that there was anything in the nature of gambling
going on. On the occasion of the last visit of the police he was behind
the counter wiping glasses.
Mr. Mowll: On the arrival of the police did you rap the window? - No.
As the constables came in I put a glass on the shelf, which is directly
under the wicket window.
By Mr. Budden. Some of the men in the back room were regular
customers, but others were strangers.
You were extraordinarily busy? - Yes, I was. I have been in the trade
27 years, and never had anything against me.
Cross-examined: The green baize board was his property, having been
left by a former landlord. It was seldom used. He did not know if the
chink of money could be heard upon it. He always kept in it the back
Mr. Mowll said the charge, one of unlawfully suffering gaming on the
premises, resolved itself into two parts. First, was there gaming on the
premises? and secondly, did the defendant suffer gaming on the premises. He would impress on the Bench that it was undoubtedly a fact that to
play cards on licensed premises was perfectly lawful and constituted no
offence. If a licensed victualler asked him the question, he would have
to tell him cards could be played on the premises, but he should most
strongly advise him to have nothing to do with them, because one knew
that some people who played cards were tempted to do what was wrong, and
not allowed on licensed premises - play for money. The mere fact of
having cards or of cards being played on licensed premises was no
offence whatever. In this case there was no very clear evidence that
there was gaming on the premises. Though it was stated there was part or
a pack of cards on the table it was made clear there were only three
cards, and it was not at all clear why the coppers were there. They may
or may not have been for the purpose connected with the three cards. It
was perfectly impossible for him on behalf of his client to answer that
question, for the simple reason that his client was not there. He had
been a licensee for 27 years, and had had licenses in the town for 14
years of that time, and he had never been summoned, much has previously
convicted on any occasion. He, therefore came before them with a
perfectly clean sheet. The next point to consider was whether he
suffered that gaming to take place. The defendant did not keep a potman.
his wife assisted him a s a rule, but on this particular evening she was
unwell. He consequently had his hands very full, with a larger number of
customers than usual, and having people in the two bars, the living room
at the back, and this smoking room. Customers from this room went into
the bar for their drink, and took it into the smoking room with them.
His friend, in opening the case, said it was not necessary for him to
prove actual knowledge on the part of the landlord, but one had to bear
in mind the true legal aspect in order to understand what that meant. He
quoted a case which laid it down that if a game is played without the
knowledge of the licensed person or the manager, and if of a mere casual
nature, no penalty was incurred, but the conduct of the landlord was
such that if he left the conduct of the house to a servant, and either
he or that servant closed his eyes to what was going on, the landlord
would be guilty of the offence. Mr. Mowll was proceeding to quote other
cases when the Chairman said he did not think he need go right through.
Mr. Mowll: I rather think I must read you the whole. I do not quite
know how your mind is working. (Laughter.)
Mr. Mowell read this and the next case, in which a potman was as
actual witness to gaming on his master's premises. The Magistrates
referred to convict, and their ruling was upheld by the High Court. He
pointed out that there was no suspicion of the landlord shutting his
eyes to what was going on. It was quite the reverse. The police had only
been in the house for a few minutes previously, and he had asked the
sergeant if he had any complaint to make against the conduct of the
house then, and instead of the landlord knowing that there was something
wrong going on, and shutting his eyes to it, it was the opposite, for he
knew the police had just visited the house. Here must be proof that the
landlord knew of it, or that he deliberately refused to take notice of
it. There was nothing of that sort here. He would like to refer to one
point which Police-constable Taylor, who appeared to have very quick
eyes, said he had noticed. He said he saw the landlord tap the window
when the sergeant was 2ft. away from the door of the very room in which
these men were. All he could say was that the constable must be a
marvel. (Loud laughter.) he was most sorry to hear that laughter,
because he would be the very last person in the world to make a
suggestion against a Dover police. But this young constable, on this
occasion, did see a great deal. There was the sergeant going on as fast
as ever he could to he room where the cards were found on the table and
the coppers picked up. The constable followed the sergeant, and saw all
the same things. He told them there was a scramble, and that he saw the
landlord tap the window, not one word of which had been mentioned by the
sergeant. He thought in that he had made a mistake. It was admitted that
whatever happened happened very quickly, and people often made very
honest mistakes. He could not for the life of him see what advantage it
would have been for the defendant to have tapped on the window, because
the sergeant was at the door of the room, and the passage of time
between that action and the sergeant's entry would be infinitesimal, and
would not give time for anything to be done. The landlord's explanation
of this was a very probable one. He submitted that the charge had not
The Magistrates retired to consider their decision, and on returning
the Chairman said they had carefully gone through the evidence, and
given it full consideration. They were bound to say that they had
considered the offence had been proved, but they took into consideration
the length of time the landlord had borne the character he had up to the
present, and therefore they would inflict but a very light penalty, £1
From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 5 August, 1910.
ALTERATION TO PUBLIC HOUSES
At the Dover Police Court this morning, before J. L. Bradley, M.
Pepper, J. W. Bussey, E. Chitty, H. F. Edwin, G. C. Rubie, F. G. Wright,
P. W. J. Mackenzie, and W. J. Barnes, Esqs.
Plans showing alterations to the bar of the "Globe," Peter Street,
From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 26 March, 1915. Price 1d.
DISORDERLY CONDUCT AT THE GLOBE
At the Dover Police Court on Tuesday morning, before Alderman F. W.
Prescott (in the chair), and Mr. J. H. Back.
James William Holt, Dover, was charged with being drunk and disorderly
in Peter Street, and further with wilfully breaking a glass panel in the
door of the Private bar of the “Globe Inn,” public house, Peter Street,
doing damage to the extent of 30s.
P.C. Fox said: On Monday evening at 6.15 I was on duty in Peter Street,
opposite the “Globe Inn” when I heard the prisoner there. He was drunk
and bleeding from the right wrist and being held by two men. I went
towards the Private Bar door when prisoner broke away from the two men
and knocked the soldier down and rushed into the Private Bar doorway,
when I stopped him and examined his wrist which had been bound up with
some rag. The landlord came forward and said he wished to charge
prisoner with breaking his window. I brought him to the Police Station,
with assistance, where he was cautioned and charged, and he said, “I
didn’t break the window. I don’t think I am capable of doing such a
thing.” Dr. Baird came and attended to the injury to his wrist.
Prisoner: I don’t think I broke it. I might have fallen back and done
Herbert Harvey, the landlord of the “Globe Inn,” said the prisoner came
to his house at a quarter past four on Monday afternoon. He appeared to
be sober. He stayed there until he was arrested. When he came in first
he had two of beer and later he had two of gin and a drop of ginger beer
mixed. There was a friend with the prisoner and they were having drinks
together. At about half-past five prisoner’s wife came in and asked him
when he was coming home to tea. He said all right and asked her to have
a drink. She drank two of stout and prisoner then asked her if she would
have another. Witness said she must not have any more nor prisoner
either. Prisoner then used strong language towards him and witness told
him that he did not think he should have to stand behind the Bar and be
insulted in this manner. The man prisoner the woman was with said “You
had better go home.” Prisoner said something like “Did you ever strike
China,” and hit the other man who fell down in the Bar. Two or three
soldiers who were going by and two more who were in the bar, got
prisoner out into the street. Witness closed the door and naturally
thought prisoner would not come in any more. A little later prisoner
rushed back and broke the glass in the Bar door. The damage was
estimated at 30s. Mr. Harvey further said that Holt had been in his
house on several occasions, but he always conducted himself in a most
respectable manner. Witness had been in his house for eighteen months
and this was the first time there had been any trouble there.
William H. Cloke, a bricklayer, who was in the Bar at about half-past
five on the evening in question, said the prisoner and his friend were
very sociable when he first went in. they then had a little argument and
with it Holt said something to the landlord which he did not approve of,
and the landlord said, “I refuse to serve you any more.” Witness did not
see how the glass was broken.
Prisoner told the Magistrates’ Clerk that he had nothing to say to the
bench, and added that he was working in the Bay.
The Chairman to the prisoner: In your case we have decided to fine you
half the damage, 15s. and 5s. doctor’s fee.
Addressing Mr. Harvey, landlord of the “Globe Inn,” the Chairman said: I
think your conduct has been bad in this case and we shall have the
matter reported to the Watch Committee.
From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 9 April, 1915. Price 1d.
ALLEGED DRUNKENNESS AT THE GLOBE
At the Dover Police Court this (Friday) morning, before Mr. M. Pepper
(in the chair), and Messrs. G. C. Rubie, H. Hobday, Capt. Cay, J. Scott
and W. J. Barnes.
Herbert Harvey, “Globe Inn,” Peter Street, was summonsed for 1.
permitting drunkenness to take place on his premises.
Mr. Vosper was for the prosecution and Mr. Rutley Mowll for the defence,
and pleaded not guilty.
The Chairman asked by whose orders the prosecution was taken?
Mr. Vosper: The Watch Committee.
Mr. Hobday a member of the Watch Committee, said that was not so, and
the Magistrates’ Clerk said that it was by the order of the Mayor.
Mr. Vosper said that the case arose out of a charge of drunkenness
against a man named Holt, on March 22nd, and the landlord had been
reported to the Watch Committee. The onus lay on defendant of showing
that all reasonable steps were taken to prevent drunkenness.
Mr. Mowll said Holt was charged on the 22nd with two offences, one was
at the instigation of the present defendant for breaking a window, for
which the man was convicted. On a charge of being drunk and disorderly,
which was brought by the Police, he was not convicted.
John Henry Holt, 9, Colbranch Street, a labourer, working for Messrs.
Mowll and Co., Ltd., coal merchants, said that on Monday, March 22nd, he
came ashore and had 2d. of beer at the back of the “Hippodrome” and then
went to the “Globe” getting there between 3.30 and 4 p.m. he asked for
2d. of beer. After that he had another 2d. of beer and later 2d. of gin
and ginger-beer. There was a miner there who started arguing about
breaking China, whatever that meant. About 5.30 witness’s wife came in
and asked him to come home. She had a drink but, refused to have
another. The miner then tried to get him on to have more drink, but the
landlord refused witness. After that he did not know what happened.
About a quarter to six he thought the miner must have put him into the
street, and he must have lost his temper and struck at the miner, but
broke the glass in the door. He did not know what happened until the
next morning when he woke up and found himself in the Police cell. The
witness remarked that he did not want to spend his money this way; he
could do with it at home.
Mr. Vosper called the witness’s wife.
Mr. Mowll said the prosecution had called a witness who had answered the
case in the defendant’s favour. Was the prosecution going to call
another witness to contradict the first witness’s statement that he was
The Bench decided to hear Mrs. Holt.
Mrs. Holt said she went to the Inn and saw her husband there. He was not
very drunk. She had a drink with him, and he asked her to have another,
and she said “No,” and signalled the landlady not to let him have any
more. The landlady said she was not going to serve him. Her husband used
an expression which the landlord objected to. The miner then began
pushing her husband about he bar, after arguing about the matter. She
then went home and told her brother what was happening. She told the
landlady not to serve her husband with any more drink as she thought he
had had enough.
Dr. Baird stated that on the evening in question he was called to the
Police Station. It was about 6.30. he saw Holt, who was asleep, lying
with his head down on the table. He was dazed, caused through alcohol.
The man was drunk, absolutely.
By Mr. Mowll. Dr. Baird said the man’s wrist was badly cut, in a way
that made it bleed profusely. The man was so drunk that he could not get
to the cell without assistance.
Mr. Mowll: Assuming a man had lost a lot of blood, and had knocked down
a man twice in the bar, he had knocked down two soldiers, and had been
marched down to the Police Station, do you say a man, after all that
would not naturally be dazed?
I would not like to say. Possibly, somewhat.
Detective-constable Fox said on the evening in question, about 6.15, he
saw Holt outside the “Globe Inn.” Being held by two men. He was drunk
and bleeding profusely from the right wrist. The glass of the Private
Bar door of the “Globe Inn” was broken. Witness went towards the door,
when Holt broke away from the other two men, knocked a soldier down, and
rushed into the Private Bar doorway. Witness found him inside the bar,
and the landlord came forward and said he wished to charge Holt for
breaking the glass. With assistance witness took Holt to the Station.
Later witness asked the defendant how long Holt had been in the Inn.
Mr. Mowll: Did you caution him?
The Chairman said it was utterly wrong not to do so.
The witness answered that he had no idea that any case would arise
against the landlord.
The evidence was not allowed.
Cross-examined, witness said he did not know that the landlord had
already sent for the Police before he (witness) arrived in peter Street.
Mr. Mowll: Have you ever known a case where the prosecutor, whose
evidence has been believed, has been turned into the defendant, and the
man, who has been convicted is brought to give evidence against him?
This is my first experience of a case of this sort.
Mr. Mowll: So it is mine.
The Chairman: The Magistrates are very divided in opinion, but the
majority say the case must be dismissed, but at the same time, the
minority say that Mr. Harvey should be cautioned, and I think so too.
You should be very careful to deal with these people at once.
Mr. Mowll said that it was only fair to say that he had a large body of
witnesses, who would seriously contest such evidence as was given on the
subject of drunkenness.
The Chairman: I take the opportunity of differing from you. We believe
the man was drunk.
Mr. Vosper said that there was another summons for selling intoxicants
to a drunken person. If their Worships were satisfied that this man was
not drunk, he should ask that the summons might be withdrawn.
The Chairman: But we are satisfied that he was drunk. The landlord was
Mr. Vosper: But the landlord was not charged with being drunk. If you
Worships are satisfied that Holt was drunk, I propose to proceed with
the next summons.
The Chairman: Then they will bring the evidence that he was not drunk,
and we shall stop here all night.
The Chairman said that he gave the defendant on the last summons a
caution. They appreciated the difficulty of managing this class of
public house, and, as he had been cautioned, the best thing would be to
drop the matter.
Mr. Vosper, after consulting the Police, said that he would withdraw the
From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 16 April, 1915. Price 1d.
THE GLOBE CASE
The way in which the Magistrates approached and dealt with the case
against the “Globe” public house on Friday last does not show any
disposition to be ready to give that assistance to the Police that is
required in these critical days. The man who was alleged to have been
served when under the influence of liquor was a War worker, i.e., he
coaled war vessels. It appeared from his own evidence that he went into
the house sober, and nearly three hours later he left under such
circumstances that the next thing he remembered was awaking in a Police
cell the next day. Evidence was given by the Police and the Police
Surgeon that the man was very drunk, and it was stated that he knocked
down two soldiers, as well as other people, and broke the window of the
public house. The cross-examination did not shake this evidence,
although the man who got into this state did not admit being drunk. Is
it here that the extraordinary behaviour of the Magistrates comes in, in
the face of this evidence the Chairman stopped the case and dismissed
it, without calling on the defence to rebut the evidence.
There is no excuse for a body of Magistrates dealing with a case in this
way at any time, but at the present moment, when excessive drinking is
delaying the completion of the War and sacrificing thousands of lives,
the Magistrates ought to make an exhaustive inquiry into such a case.
The offhand way in which it was dealt with is the more remarkable by the
fact that the Chairman expressed the opinion that the man served was
drunk and not the landlord – who was never charged with being drunk. The
Magistrates at the previous hearing dealt with the case in an
extraordinary way. Then the landlord had prosecuted the man, who was
alleged to be drunk, for breaking a window. The man was also charged for
being drunk and disorderly by the Police. On that occasion the
Magistrates adopted the strange method of fining the man for the damage
and making no reference in their decision to the charge of drunkenness,
although they ordered the facts to be brought before the Watch
Committee! It showed great carelessness in administration, and led the
way for the very strange conduct of the bench on Friday.
The Dover Bench has recently not covered itself with credit. It seems
that the time has arrived when a radical change should be made in the
administration of the law in Police Courts – either to re-organise the
Bench, or by stipendiary Magistrates being appointed to deal with
From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 6
February, 1931. Price 1½d.
DOVER BREWSTER SESSIONS
The licence of the "Globe Inn," Peter Street was transferred to Andrew
Reid Nicoll of Eltham, Kent.
The tenant said that he was afraid he would be unable to carry on the
The magistrates' Clerk: What is your disability?
A fractured thigh, and i have to wear a caliper.
You are no worse than when you took the house.
No; I am carrying on. I had an accident twelve months ago, and that is
why I am in the trade.
The magistrates' Clerk said that if he found he could not carry on he
would have to ask the brewers to find another tenant.
It was considered surplus to requirements in 1932. There were ten other
pubs within two hundred yards. The brewer had practically rebuilt it over
the past twenty five years and sales had increased from 159 barrels in 1925
to 201 in 1931. The opposition melted.
Twenty four years later, the brewer wished to enlarge by annexing number
In reply Dover Corporation gave twelve months notice of their intention
to purchase the property in the interest of redevelopment. (Which turned out
to be an extension of Dover Engineering Works).
The end came in March 1958. Charles Maxted had served at this bar since
1935 and then moved along the street to the "Friend in Need".
From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday 19
Stole Outside Public House
Probation for Bicycle Thief
Admitting stealing a cycle from outside the Globe public house in
Peter Street, 35 year old Frederick George James, of no permanent
address, was placed on probation for two years by Dover magistrates on
Chief Inspector F. Wood told the court that William E. Hoyle, of 15,
Whitfield Avenue, left the cycle outside the public house. When he
discovered it was missing he told the Police.
D.C. Bush made enquiries, and ascertained that Corpl. Lay of the T.A.
at Wanstone, had the cycle. Lay was seen, and he said he bought it for
£5 from James, who was working in the cookhouse at the camp. James told
the Corporal that the cycle had cost him £23, but as he was unable to
ride it any longer because of health reasons he wanted to sell it.
James was seen by the detective, and he agreed that he had stolen it
from outside the public house. "I had a few drinks, and took it to ride
back to camp," he added.
Three previous convictions were reported, two for stealing and one
for stealing by finding. The Inspector said the £5 had been recovered
and so had the cycle.
DOUGHTY Lewis Nov/1846+
GOODWIN William Isaac 1854
DAWES Charles Peter St 1857-58+
PAY Edward 1873-74 end
CASTLE Stephen May/1874-Sept/85
TAPPENDEN James Sept/1885-91+
(Stoker of Peter Street)
TAPPENDEN Mrs Jane Maria 1895-99+
KENDALL George Eastes 1901-1903
JORDAN George Frederick 1903-Dec/1904
CROOK/COOK Benjamin Dec/1904-07 end
LAWRENCE Edward John Feb/1906-June/1907
ROGERS William Henry 1907-09
GREEN Edward Carey 1909
PARKS Percy Alfred 1909-Oct/13
HARVEY Herbert Oct/1913-25 end
beer retailer of Folkestone
CRUNDWELL Albert 1925-May/27
BOND George James May/1927-29 (Of Gillingham)
LEWIS Percy Louis 1929
RADBURN L 1930-31
NICHOLL Andrew Reid Feb/1931-Aug/31
JORDAN Philip Harold Aug/1931-Aug/33
(Of Ashford, Metal Machinist)
GOLDING Ernest Henry Aug/1933-34
WAKERLEY John Lair 1934-Mar/37 dec'd
WAKERLEY Mrs Jane Amelia (widow) Mar/1937-Mar/38
GILL Walter Leslie Mar/1938-40
Ramsgate, motor driver)
SMITH Mrs Edith 1940
MARTIN Wilfred to Aug/1943
HUBBARD Stephen J Aug/1943-50+
PAYNE D J 1953-55 end
MAXTED Charles Herbert R 1955-58 end
From an email received 30 January 2008.
I cannot be certain of the full dates but in Feb 1906 and Jun 1907 I
have a Edward John Lawrence as a "Licensed Victualler" of 8 Peter
Street. Certainly by Oct 1908 he had moved back to London.
My uncle, who with his elder sister was born in Dover, always claimed
that it was The Friend in Need. Less charitable members of the family
have suggested that this might have been the reason for my fondness for
From Melville's Directory 1858
From the Post Office Directory 1874
From the Post Office Directory 1882
From the Post Office Directory 1891
From Pikes Dover Blue Book 1895
From the Kelly's Directory 1899
From the Post Office Directory 1901
From the Post Office Directory 1903
From Pikes Dover Blue Book 1923
From Pikes Dover Blue Book 1924
From Pikes Dover Blue Book 1932-33
From Pikes Dover Blue Book 1938-39
From Pikes Dover Blue Book 1948-49
From the Kelly's Directory 1950
From the Kelly's Directory 1953
From the Dover Express
From the Dover Telegraph