From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday 20 September, 1867.

INFRINGEMENT OF LICENSE

Robert Halliday, landlord of the "Mariner's Arms" public-house, Commercial Quay, was charged with having his house open, contrary to his license, and was fined £1 and costs.

From the Dover Express and East Kent Intelligencer, 11 September, 1868.

THE ANNUAL LICENSING DAY

THE MARINERS' ARMS

Mr. Craddock, the landlord of this house, was informed that the Magistrates had resolved to suspend the renewal of the license until their meeting at Broadstairs, when he might apply again, the Mayor observing that the Magistrates hope the present landlord would then be able to show that he had conducted his house in the interim in such a manner as would justify them in renewing the license.

From the Dover Express and East Kent Intelligencer, 7 October, 1870. Price 1d.

DOVER POLICE COURT

Stephen Craddock, landlord of the "Mariner's Arms," Commercial Quay was fined 10s. and 9s. 6d. costs for having his house open during prohibited hours.

From the Dover Express and East Kent Intelligencer, 10 February, 1871. Price 1d.

SEAMAN'S ADVANCE NOTES

Mr. Fox appeared on behalf of Mr. Craddock, the proprietor of a public-house on the Commercial Quay, who, it appeared, had cashed an advance note of a seaman name John Hammond, whose case was before the magistrates last week, to the value of £1 8s., the man having engaged himself for a voyage in a ship from Dover to Aberdeen. The Magistrates on that occasion thought the conduct of Mr. Craddock was such as to recommend the Superintendent of Police to bring the matter before the Magistrates on the annual licensing day; but Mr. Fox's statement went to prove that the proceedings of Mr. Craddock in cashing the note was perfectly regular. The bench, however, declined to vary the directions, the Magistrates sitting on the previous week had given the Superintendent.

From the Dover Express and East Kent Intelligencer, 19 September, 1873. Price 1d.

John Halliday, of the "Mariner's Arms Inn," summoned for assaulting John Castle, was dismissed.

From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 25 January, 1889. Price 1d.

ASSAULTING A POLICE CONSTABLE

James Baker, a private in the Royal Irish Fusiliers, was charged with being drunk and disorderly on the Commercial Quay, and assaulting Police-constable Norman Fogg, whilst in the execution of his duty. He was also charged with wilfully breaking a pane of glass, value 4s., at 30, Commercial Quay, and stealing a bottle of sweets, value 1s.

Police-constable Norman Fogg said he was on duty in the Commercial Quay the previous night about 11.30, when in consequence of what he was told, he went down the quay. He saw the prisoner and another soldier not in custody coming along from the direction of the “Mariner’s Arms” public house. They were knocking the shutters of the houses with their sticks. Witness told then to go along quietly, and the prisoner, who was carrying a bottle, deliberately struck him on the helmet with his stick, threw the bottle down, and ran away. Witness followed and caught the prisoner near Limekiln Street, when the prisoner again struck him, and he closed with him, and, with assistance, handcuffed him and brought him to the Police station. The other man got away. Witness afterwards found that a pane of glass had been broken at a general shop, No. 30, Commercial Quay, and a bottle of sweets stolen. He found some sweets and pieces of glass lying on the ground where the prisoner threw the bottle down.

Anna Brown said she lived with he aunt, Mrs. Annie Newington, who kept a general shop at 30, Commercial Quay. The bottle produced was kept in the window, and was partly full of sweets. About 11.30 on Friday night she heard a crash of glass, and on coming downstairs found that the window had been broken, and a bottle of sweets were missing.

The prisoner, in answer to the charge, pleaded “Not guilty.”

An officer of the regiment who was present, said the prisoner had been in the service ten months, and bore a fair character.

The Bench fined the prisoner 4s. for the damage done, 5s. for the larceny, and 7s. costs.

From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 18 July, 1890. Price 1d.

RICHARD v. CULLEN

This was a claim of £5 10s, for a quarter rent of 45, Priory Hill. Mr. Mowll appeared for the plaintiff. He said Cullen was now the landlord of the “Mariner’s Arms,” Commercial Quay, and was in possession of £200. there was no defence, and His Honor issued an order for payment forthwith.

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

PROPERTY SALE

Yesterday afternoon Messrs. Terson and Son offered five public houses, the property of Mrs. Harding, for sale by auction at the “Royal Oak Hotel.” The result was, the “Mariner’s Arms,” Commercial Quay, £975.

From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 26 December, 1890.

SELLING SPIRITS WITHOUT A LICENSE

Richard Johnson Cullen, was called but he did not answer.

Police-sergeant Harman proved the serving of the summons on the defendant’s wife at his residence the “Mariner’s Arms,” Commercial Quay. The house was open, and there was a soldier in the tap room, but he saw no drink.

An information under 6th George 4th Chap 21 was then read, made by Thomas Skinner, officer of the Inland Revenue, charging Mr. R. J. Cullen, with selling whiskey by retail without a license, at the “Mariner’s Arms,” by which he rendered himself liable to a penalty of £50.

Mr. Thomas Skinner, officer of the Inland Revenue stated the case, and the Acts under which his information was laid, and he asked the bench to inflict a fine not less than £17 5s. 3d., the cost of the license and costs.

Mr. Frederick George Sherren, an officer of the Inland Revenue, said: On the 11th of October, I went to the “Mariner’s Arms,” Commercial Quay, and purchased a small glass of whiskey. The house was open as a public house, I saw Mrs. Cullen and a barman in the bar, I called for a glass of whiskey, and it was served by the barman in Mrs. Cullen’s presence. I tasted the liquor, and found that it was whiskey. Mr. Cullen knew who I was, as I had been in once or twice before about the license. They had a license last year, and the license transferred on the 10th of October. I called several times subsequently, but did not see Cullen. I saw him some time in November, and asked him to pay for the license, and he said he would do so the following day. He came up to the office and said that some friend would lend him the money, and he would send it directly. The license amounts to £17 for spirits including been and wine and 5s. 3d. for tobacco. I called again on the 11th of December, and was served with a small glass of whiskey. Mr. Cullen was present, but a woman served me. She asked what whiskey she should serve, and he told her. This is the only license in the town that had not been taken up. We give a few days’ grace, and I did all I could to get the money. The house has been open even since, as though the license were paid. Mr. Cullen made an entry of the house in his name, which entry I now produce. He signed the entry. He made the entry on the 17th of July 1890.

The Bench having considered the case, inflicted a penalty of £10 and 8s. 6d. costs, to be levied by distress, or in default one month’s hard labour. A distress warrant was ordered to be issued at once.

From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 28 August, 1891. Price 1d.

DOVER LICENSING SESSIONS

THREE ENDORSED LICENSES

Objections being taken to the “Mariners’ Arms,” (otherwise known as the Khedive), both by the Watch Committee and the Temperance Party, it stood over till the end, as did also the “Marquis of Waterford” for the same reason, and the “Northampton Arms.”

THE TEMPERANCE OPPOSITION

The Magistrates’ Clerk said the Magistrates would next proceed to consider the objections to the houses standing over.

THE KHEDIVE

Objections were taken to the renewal of the license of this house, both by Mr. Knocker on behalf of the Watch Committee and Mr. Mark Knowles on behalf of the Temperance Committee.

The notice in this case had been sent by registered letter, but it had been returned through the post.

Mr. Mark Knowles said that the holder of the license did not appear in Court to apply for the license, therefore, he took that the license would lapse; there was no application for the renewal.

Mr. Mowll said he appeared for the owner of the house and also for the present occupier, Mr. Joyner, and he asked under the decision in the case of Regina v. the Justices of Lancashire, that the license should be granted to Joyner.

James Joyner, the man in occupation was then called. He said: I am the occupier of the house called the “Khedive.” I apply for the renewal of the license to me as occupier.

In reply to the Bench, the Superintendent of Police said he knew nothing against Joyner’s character. He had conducted several licensed houses for different people in the town.

Mr. Knowles objected to a new tenant being sprung upon them without notice in that way.

Mr. Mowll strongly objected to any interference, and contended that Mr. Knowles had no right to be heard.

The Mayor: I am of opinion that you have no locus standi, (In law, standing or locus standi is the term for the ability of a party to demonstrate to the court sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party's participation in the case) no notice having been proved.

Mr. Knowles: I could not prove any notices. This is absolutely a new department.

The Mayor:’ I am advised that you have no locus standi, and cannot be heard.

Mr. Knowles: I would call the Magistrates’ attention to this –

The Mayor: I must ask you to sit down.

Mr. Knocker: I should like to ask how long this man has been in occupation of the house.

Mr. Mowll: My case is closed. The time has gone for asking my witness questions.

Mr. Bradley (one of the Magistrates): I should like to know how long this man has been in occupation.

The Mayor: How long have you been in occupation of this house, Joyner?

Joyner: About a week or fortnight.

The Mayor: Selling?

Joyner: No.

Mr. Mowll: Of course he could not sell.

Mr. T. V. Brown: Were the shutters down and the front doors open?

Joyner: Yes, the front door was open.

In reply to other questions, the man said he was the caretaker of the house. He had no agreement as a tenant.

The Mayor: We will decide this later on.

The Mayor said: I will now read the decisions of the Magistrates in the following cases:-

The “Khedive,” license refused.

Mr. Martin Mowll: may I ask on what grounds you have refused to renew the license for the “Khedive?”

The Mayor: I understand it is the duty of the Magistrates to give decisions and not reasons.

Mr. Mowll: There are certain cases where the persons interested are entitled to ask on what ground the license is refused.

The Magistrates’ Clerk: This is not one.

From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 16 February, 1906. Price 1d.

IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRED.

The Chairman announced that in respect of the “Mariner’s Arms,” Strond Street, the “Exeter Arms,” Limekiln Street, and the “Sceptre Inn,” the lavatory accommodation was inadequate, and the licenses were granted on the understanding that the owners gave an undertaking to put them in the shortest possibly term in a satisfactory state.

The undertakings were given.

The Magistrates Clerk announced that the ordinary licenses would then be renewed except in the cases where notice had been given by the Police, and which are dealt with in this report.