49 London Road (Buckland Street)
Today, 49-50 London Road is occupied by Spar. (2006)
Above photograph by Paul Skelton 9 April 2010.
Its name was derived from the milestone which stood outside. It was fully
licensed, served George Beer and was established by 1861.
It was considered surplus to requirements in 1910. The "Crown" stood
Not in its favour either was the fact that the licence had changed hands
six times in eight years. The Quarter Sessions in July that year thought
likewise and the licence was surrendered.
£771 was awarded to George Beer and Company and £50 to the tenant. It
then became a private residence and later a shop.
From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday,
11 February, 1870.
CHARGE AGAINST AN OLD SOLDIER
John Donovan, a pensioner was charged with stealing from the parlour
of the "Milestone" public-house a half-guinea, a shilling, 3d. in
coppers, and a portemonnaie the property of the landlord, Mr. Cooper,
and fanny Back, apparently of the unfortunate class, was charged with
receiving the same, knowing it to have been stolen.
Upon the case being called on Mr. Cooper said he should feel very
grateful to the Magistrates, if they would permit him to withdraw the
charge. The prisoner, he found, was an old soldier and was in receipt of
a pension of such an amount (1s. 1d. per day) as showed that he must
have eared it by exceptionally good conduct. He was aware that no
pension of such an amount was granted, unless the person receiving it
had been of the defaulters' book for sixteen years. If this case was
proceeded with, and a conviction took place, the prisoner would
infallibly lose his pension; and as the prisoner was without a wife, and
had a young boy to support, he did not know what would become of him in
The Magistrates enquired if the recommendation applied to both
The prosecutor said it did.
The Magistrates after consulting a short time, said they hardly felt
satisfied in condoning offences of this kind, and they yielded to the
prosecutor's request with some reluctance. It was a sad thing to find a
man like the prisoner, who had carried a substantial pension by good
conduct in the army, disgracing himself and risking the loss of his
income by such an act as he was charged with committing.
Dovovan said he was under the influence of drink at the time. or he
should not have committed the offence.
Magistrates said they could hear nothing from him on the subject of
the charge. They could only hope that, if the Bench acceded to the
prosecutor's request, the prisoner would allow this to operate as a
caution; for he might rely upon it that if he fell into the hands of the
police again the circumstances would be remembered against him.
The man and the woman were then both discharged.
From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 14 February, 1873.
H. Brown, the landlord of the “Milestone Inn,” Buckland, appeared in
answer to a summons charging him with selling a glass of spirits to
Patrick Macfadden, a drummer in the 38th Regiment, under sixteen years
of age, contrary to the new Licensing Act.
Mr. Worsfold Mowll defended, and Lieutenant Coner watched the case on
behalf of the 38th Regiment.
Patrick John Macfadden deposed: I am a drummer in the 38th Regiment of
foot, and am fifteen years and six months old. I went out with some
other drummers and band-boys on Saturday, the 1st of February. I do not
exactly know how many we mustered together, I think there were seven
including myself. I remember Vince, Skinner, McEroy, Welsted, Holmes,
and Bushell. There might have been some more. We all went into the
“Milestone” public house. I stood at the bar for a few minutes and had a
glass of beer. I asked the barmaid for two-pennyworth of rum. I said, “A
glass of rum please.” The barmaid gave it me. I gave her 2d. for that
and 1d. for the beer. I drank the beer myself, and gave Vince, who was
standing next to me, the glass of rum. After we had had our drink we
went into a room at the back of the bar.
John Vince deposed: I am a band-boy in the 38th Regiment of foot, and am
fifteen years and six months old. I was at the “Milestone” public house,
Buckland, on the 1st inst., with some other boys named John Skinner,
Thomas McEroy, George Welsted, Alfred Bushell, Holmes, and John
Macfadden. Some beer and ginger-beer was called for. While I was in the
bar, Macfadden called for a glass of rum and a glass of beer. The
barmaid served him with both, and he paid for them. He handed the glass
of rum to me, and drank the beer himself. I drank the rum. I was not ill
before I drank the rum, I was only cold. After I had drunk it, we
returned to the tap-room, where we skylarked about for a little while. I
afterwards felt sick, and laid down on three chairs. I don’t know how
long I remained there. Skinner and Bushell remained with me, and they
afterwards took me home. I felt very sick when I got home. I did not
have a very large glass of rum. I did not drink it all off at once.
Macfadden and McEroy were standing beside me when I drank it. I scarcely
knew what I was about afterwards.
Lieutenant Conner said he had another witness to corroborate the
statements of Macfadden and Vince, if the bench thought it necessary to
call him. All he was desirous of proving was that intoxicating liquor
was sold to the boys, and he thought that had been done.
Mr. Mowll said that he must deny that intoxicating liquors were sold.
The boys simply had a mixture of beer and ginger-beer – “shandygaff” he
believed it was called – and Vince had some rum given him because he was
Thomas McEroy, the third witness, was ultimately called. He said: I am a
drummer boy in the 38th Regiment of foot. I was at the “Milestone”
public house on the afternoon of the 1st instant with some other boys, I
had a glass of rum to drink there. The barmaid supplied me with it. I
paid her 2d. for it. I called for it myself. I am fifteen years and six
months old. I drank it at the bar. It did not make me sick.
This was the case for the prosecution.
Mr. Mowll then addressed the Bench for the defence. He submitted that
the boys had only been served with “shandygaff” until Vince complained
of being ill, when the landlady, out of kindness, gave him a little rum,
thinking that it might perhaps do him good. The statement of Mr. McEroy
was quite false. One of the boys certainly had asked the barmaid, Miss
Brown, for a glass of rum; but she exercised a wise discretion and would
not serve him. No infringement of the Act had been committed. He called
Amelia Brown, daughter of the defendant, who remembered serving in the
bar on Saturday afternoon, the 1st instant. She served some drummer boys
of the 38th with some beer and ginger-beer mixed; and one of the boys,
nicknamed by his company “Tommy Dodd,” being taken ill while at the
house, Mrs. Brown told witness to give him a glass of rum, and she did
so. The glass emptied the decanter, so that no one else could have had
rum afterwards. Witness’s mother bathed “Tommy Dodd’s” head with vinegar
and gave him some tea, before sending him home to barracks. He had been
sick, and had been lying up on chairs. Witness remembered one of the
boys asking her for rum, but she refused him.
In reply to Dr. Astley, witness said she was certain Macfadden was not
served with rum or beer. She gave the rum for Vince to a boy named
Skinner, who took it into the back room to him. Skinner was the biggest
of all the boys in the house.
Evelina Brown, wife of the defendant, corroborated her daughter’s
Joseph Pope, a carpenter, said he was standing at the bar of the
“Milestone” on the afternoon in question when a drummer boy of the 38th
came in and asked the barmaid to serve him with some rum, but she
The Magistrates retired for a few minutes; and on their return into
Court, the Chairman said the bench were of opinion that the law in this
case had been infringed, but were inclined to think that there must have
been some misunderstanding with regard to the serving of the spirit.
Defendant would be fined 20s. and costs.
Defendant paid the fine.
From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 24
October, 1873. Price 1d.
TRANSFER OF THE MILESTONE INN
Mr. Hatton Brown attended before the Bench and stated that he
intended to transfer his license of the "Milestone Inn to Mr. William
Watson, who had been keeping the "Golden
Permission was given to Mr. Watson to carry on the business till
From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 16 February, 1877. Price 1d.
DISTURBANCE AT A PUBLIC HOUSE
Edward Little was charged with being drunk and disorderly in London
Road, Buckland, and with wilfully breaking two panes of glass, the value
of 12s., at the “Milestone” public-house.
Police-constable Bowles said: last evening, about ten o’clock, I was
passing by the “Milestone” public-house. I was called by Mr. cane to
take a man into custody for wilfully breaking two panes of glass. I went
in the house and found the prisoner there. He was drunk and very noisy.
He said he would not come out for anyone and we had to force him out.
After getting him outside I told him to go home and advised the landlord
to summons him for the damage. He went towards his home with his wife,
and I went in an opposite direction. I had not gone far before my
attention was called by two little girls who said the prisoner had
returned. I went back and saw him at the bar and he said he would have a
glass of beer. I told him if he did not go away I should have to lock
him up. He persisted in going in and I took him into custody.
Mr. Benjamin Cane, father of the prosecutor, said; Last night I was at
my son’s house about ten o’clock. The prisoner was there when I went in.
He and another man were using very bad language and I asked them to
leave the house. The prisoner was not drunk; I believe he knew perfectly
well what he was about. They refused to leave the house and I called the
Police-constable and had them removed. The prisoner deliberately pushed
his fist through the window of the door. Another window was broken in
the bar at the same time which, I believe, was done by the prisoner. The
amount of damage done to the two windows is about twelve shillings.
Prisoner: Didn’t the other man swear at you?
Witness: Yes, if I knew his name I should have summoned him.
Prisoner: didn’t I offer to pay you for the window?
Witness: No, you did not.
Prisoner: I can bring witness to prove it.
Mr. A. Cane, proprietor of the “Milestone,” said the prisoner broke the
window in the bar striking at him.
Prisoner said he was after a soldier who had taken hold of him by the
neck and that was how the windows were broken.
The Bench ordered him to pay the amount of damage, 12s.; fine, 5s.; and
costs, amounting altogether to £1 4s.
Dr. Astley said he considered it a disgraceful position for the
defendant to be in.
From the Dover Express and East Kent Intelligencer, 14 February, 1902. Price 1d.
MARX v. ELLAND
This was a claim for 16s. for moving defendant’s furniture from Cannon
Street to the “Mile Stone Inn,” London Road. There was a counter claim
for £1 12s. for damage to the furniture moved.
Plaintiff having stated his case, defendant said in the move a wardrobe
was damaged to the extent of 10/-, three pictures were broken, a lamp
had part of the bracket wrenched off, a bamboo table was broken, the leg
of a flower stand and a music stool damaged, a quilt torn to shreds, and
some bedding damaged by being made dirty. He complained about this on
December 9th to plaintiff.
Plaintiff said he did not take the work on at a rate which included
being responsible, but at the owners risk. They had made hundreds of
removals without any complaints. They only charged 2/- an hour for two
men and a horse.
His Honour: Do you suggest you can do what you like?
Plaintiff: Certainly not! I deny there was any damage. I had nothing
said to me about the damage when I took the bill a few days afterwards.
He told me to call again. Being laid up some weeks, it was left, and
then when I called again he said the work was unsatisfactory, and I
could County Court him for the money.
William Barton, one of the men who assisted the move, said the only
thing broken was a picture, and another man, Terry, gave similar
His Honour gave judgement for 16/- on the claim, and 2/- Court fees, and
for £1 2s. and fees on the counter claim.
From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 12 August, 1904. Price 1d.
PUBLIC HOUSE PROSECUTION SERVING BEER TO A BOY
At the Dover Petty Sessions this morning, before J. L. Bradley, F. W.
Prescott, and M. Pepper, Esqrs., the landlord of the “Milestone Inn,”
London Road, George Ravenhill, was summoned for selling beer to be taken
off the premises not in a sealed container, to a boy named William
Croft, under 14 years of age. Mr. Reginald Knocker appeared to
prosecute, and Mr. Rutley Mowll for the defence.
Police-sergeant Hambrook, who saw the boy bringing the mug from the
house, said he did not look more than ten years old, so he took him back
to the house, when Ms. Ravenhill said she served the boy every day in
the same way, and that he had told her his age was 14 years.
The mother of the boy, who is French was called and through an
interpreter she admitted that the boy was but ten years old, but he was
tall for his age.
The Magistrates said that they would like to see the boy, and hear his
evidence, and as he had gone on holiday to Calais, the case was
adjourned for a week for his attendance.
From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 19 August, 1904. Price 1d.
PUBLIC HOUSE PROSECUTION
George Ravenhill, holder of the license of the “Milestone,” London Road,
was summoned for unlawfully selling beer to William Croft, under the age
of 14 years, not in a sealed vessel.
Mr. Reginald Knocker, on behalf of the Town Clerk, appeared to
prosecute, and Mr. Rutley Mowll appeared for the defendant, who pleaded
Police-sergeant H. J. Hambrook said: At 1.15 p.m. on Sunday, 7th July, I
was in London Road, when I saw a boy, William Croft, leave the
“Milestone Inn” carrying a jug. I asked what was in it, and he said
beer. On being asked how old he was, he first said nine and then ten. He
said he was served with the beer by the landlady.
Mr. Rutley Mowll questioned whether this was evidence against his
client, it being stated in his absence.
The bench said that they would take it in another form.
Witness continued: I did not think that the boy was older than ten. I
took the boy to the public house, and I said to the landlady, “You
served this boy with some beer.” She replied, “Yes, he is 14, he comes
here every day for beer.” I asked her if she had asked the boy his age,
and she said she had. The boy said, “You haven’t.” I told her I should
report the matter. I then took the boy to his home at 23, Bartholomew
Cross-examined. The landlady volunteered the information that the boy
came every day for beer. I believe the boy is French, but he speaks very
good English. He easily understood what I said. I did not know he was
French until I took him home. I saw that the jug contained beer.
George Ravenhill, in reply to Mr. Mowll, said: I did not serve the boy
on the day in question. I was downstairs at the time. I remember when
the boy first came to my house about four months ago. The boy on that
occasion came in and asked for a pint of porter, I said, “Hello, sonny,
are you 14?” and he said, “Yes, yes.” Of course I took it for granted,
and I served him. The boy being rather a tall boy I took him for 14. On
that occasion when the boy first came to my house a Mr. Gann was
Cross-examined: I took the boy at first to be English, but from the way
he pronounced his words I thought he was French. I thought he was 14
when I first saw him, and I put the question to make certain.
Mabel Elizabeth Ravenshill, the wife of the defendant, said: I know the
boy Croft. I think it was about four months ago that he first came to
our house. I have asked him his age, but not on the last occasion. On
the day when I first served him I said, “How old are you?” He did not
answer. I then said, “Are you 14?” and he replied, “Yes, yes.” I took it
that he was 14. We have sealing wax and labels for sealing down vessels
in serving children, and if I had doubted his word I should have put the
beer in a bottle and sealed it down. It was porter that the boy had on
Cross-examined: I have several times asked the boy his age.
By the Court: I never knew the boy’s parents until yesterday, not where
the beer was to go to.
The Court suggested that the boy should be called.
Mr. R. Knocker said that he was sorry the boy was not present, but he
had gone across the water.
Mr. Rutley Mowll thought that the prosecution ought to call the boy. He
said that he had advised his client to get the boy to give evidence, but
when they applied to the parents the mother said that the boy had gone
to France. The mother had told then that she asked the plain clothed
constable who served the summons if it was necessary to have the boy
present as he had to go to France, and he said it was not necessary for
the boy to stay.
Mr. Mowll said that the boy’s mother was present, but she was French and
would need an interpreter.
In reply to the Bench, the boy’s mother, interpreted by her daughter,
said that the boy had come to Calais, and he went last Sunday morning.
In reply to the Bench the mother said that the man who served the
summons was asked if the boy would be wanted as he was going to France
for a holiday, and he said, “Let the boy go; he will not be wanted.”
By the Bench: How old is the boy?
Witness: Ten, but he is very tall.
Mr. Bradley: The boy ought to be produced.
Mr. Mowll: I think it most desirable, but the onus lies on the Police.
I, as representing the defendant, should not be called upon to prove the
case of the other side, but in his absence the defendant ought not to be
Mr. Bradley: We will adjourn the case for a week.
Mr. Knocker said he would do his best to secure the attendance of the
boy next Friday.
There was also a summons against the mother for sending the boy for the
beer, and that was adjourned also.
From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 19 August, 1904. Price 1d.
THE MILESTONE CASE
This case, in which the landlord of the “Milestone Inn,” London Road,
was summoned for selling beer in an unsealed vessel to a boy under 14
years of age, was further heard. The boy who fetched the beer was
called, and he stated that he did not understand what was said to him
when asked if he was 14, but he said, “Yes, yes.” The Bench said they
had decided to dismiss the case. It was a very proper one for the Police
to have brought, and they thought the landlord might have used a little
more discretion, but there was doubt, and they gave the benefit of it to
The mother of the boy was summoned for sending her boy for the beer, but
as she was French and did not understand the law, the case was dismissed
on paying the costs, 6/-.
From the Dover Express and East Kent News, 12 June, 1908.
A PECULIAR APPLICATION
At the Dover Police Court on Friday, Mr. R. Mowll made an application
to the Magistrates in reference to the licence of the "Milestone" public
house, London Road. The licence had been granted to Mr. Harding, who had
been a stoker in the Royal Navy, last Friday. Mr Mowll now stated that
the owners had found during the week Mr. Harding had been in the house
that he had not sufficient strength of mind to conduct the house in the
way they wished. They had accordingly closed the house, and now asked
that the licence should be transferred to Mr. Stock, who had had
considerable experience as a licensed victualler.
In reply to the Chairman, Mr. Mowll said that Harding agreed, and he
would not lose anything as he would take the whole of his valuation
The Chairman said that this was the first time he heard such a case,
but as both agreed it would be allowed.
From the Dover Express and East Kent News, 11 February, 1910.
DOVER LICENSING SESSIONS
In respect to this house, notices had been served of objections to
the license on the grounds of redundancy.
Mr. Rutley Mowll appeared for the brewers and the tenant.
Chief Constable Fox said; The Milestone is a fully licensed house
situated in London Road. The owners are Messrs. George Beer and Co.,
Canterbury. The present tenant is Edwin Stock. It was transferred to him
on the 7th August, 1908. There have been six changes in eight years. The
rateable value is gross £24, net £19 5s. The licensed house in the
immediate neighbourhood are the "Rose and Crown," 61 yards, the "Crown" beerhouse, 132 yards. The frontage of the house is 13ft. 8in., the
accommodation front bar, bar parlour, and private room on the ground
floor, the kitchen in the basement, and upstairs three bedrooms. It is
next to the Wesleyan Schools. I visited the house at 10.50 a.m. on
Thursday, 20th January, and found no customers. At 3.05 on Monday,
January 24th, I found no customers. At 9.30 a.m. on Saturday, January
29th, I found no customers. At 6.50 p.m. on Thursday, February 3rd, I
found one customer.
Cross-examined: Do you really consider your evidence as to the number
of customers is of value having regard to the carefully selected times
of visiting the house? - I visited it morning, afternoon, and evening.
But look at the time of the week; there is no visit to the house on
either Friday or Saturday afternoon or evening? - No, I did not know any
reason why I should go here then.
You did not go when there was any chance of wages being left? - I
went on Monday afternoon.
When people aught to be at work? - I visited it four times. I did not
think it fair to go there on a Saturday evening.
The Mayor at once said: The Bench have come to the conclusion that
the four licenses ought to go forward. Of course we quite appreciate the
eloquence of our friend, Mr. Mowll, and if it were a question of dealing
with a matter from one of sentiment, it might have been decided
otherwise. We have a very difficult question to deal with, and the
decision we have come to must have regard to the question of redundancy
in the neighbourhood. before even this case went to Court great care was
taken that those houses which we really believed are redundant, are
those that come before the Court, and I think the Bench in this case are
of the opinion that all these houses are in that category, and that it
is important to do otherwise than to send the four cases to be dealt
with by the Quarter Sessions.
The licenses were provisionally renewed pending the decision of
From the Dover Mercury, Thursday 10 November, 2005.
Mayor Cllr Ken Tranter unveils the restored street signs with Eddie
Polished and back where they belong
TWO cast-iron plaques have been restored at a Dover shop, nearly 200
years since they were first put in place.
Mayor Cllr Ken Tranter went along to the Spar shop, in London Road,
to unveil the plaques, which were restored after being retrieved by a
The plaques mark '1 Mile To Dovor/70 Miles To London' and '14 Miles
It is thought the two adorned the 19th-century Milestone Inn which
once stood on the site.
Later this became Vaughan's Outfitters, which features in a 1923
photo in the London Road Community Forum 2006 calendar.
Fifteen years ago, a new frontage was installed on the Spar shop and
the two plaques were removed. Pete McGrino, who lives in nearby Leighton
Road, managed to retrieve them and keep them safe.
Members of the forum cleaned the plaques, removing layers of paint
and years of rust.
Shop owner Eddie Sall agreed the repainted plaques could be placed
back on the wall.
Forum secretary Bev Keen said: "It's excellent - a piece of Dover's
history is being replaced.
"The '1 Mile To Dovor' refers to when this was the edge of Charlton
village and was green fields between here and what is now High Street."
Copies of the calendar are available from shops in London Road, price
BROWN Hatton July/1871-Oct/73
WATSON William Oct/1873-Sept/74
ANNETT William Enos Sept/1874-Jan/75
GIDDINGS Joseph (Job) Jan/1875 (Late warder in Chatham prison)
WILSON J H 1875
GIBBONS William 1875 end
WILSON John Edward 1876
GOSLING/GORLEY Charles William May/1877-Nov/79
PARKER John Nov/1879-84 end
CHAPMAN John Goldsack 1884-90
POTT Daniel 1895+
HOAGOOD J to Jan/1897
STOKES H J Jan/1897+
BEAN H W F 1901
ELLARD James Stephen 1902-03
HAINES T Jan/1903+
NEWBLE Robert Frank 1902-Jan/03
AMES T A 1903 (?)
ELGAR T 1903 end (?)
HAYDEN G 1903 end (?)
HAYDEN Thomas Albert 1903 end (?)
RAVENHILL George 1903-07 end
RUSSELL Joseph Herbert 1907-Aug/08
HARDING Mr June/1908 for 1 week
STOCK Edwin Aug/1908-11 end
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 Post Office Directory 1901
From the Post Office Directory 1903
From the Dover Express