Sort file:- Dover, March, 2021.

Page Updated:- Wednesday, 31 March, 2021.


Earliest 1863-

Packet Boat and London Family and Commercial Hotel

Latest 1866+

Council House Street



Often confused with another "Packet Boat Inn" situated in Strond Street. Coaches left both premises which again caused further confusion.

The Dover Express of May 1863 states that the license of the "Packet Boat and London Hotel" was transferred from the Executors of the late Mr. Newing to Mr. Kettle.

Further information found from 1866 seems to suggest that this could also be confused with the "City of London Hotel" both being situated in Council House Street. Indeed, perhaps they are one and the same. The licensee name M Kittel/Kettle does crop up on both licensee lists, so I will say they are indeed one and the same.


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


On the application of Mr. Kittel, of the "London Hotel and Packet Boat," Council House Street, for the renewal of license, the Mayor said complaints had been made of a great riot which took place outside the house on the night of the Regatta.

The applicant said that the soirée took place at his house on that evening, and the disturbance occurred through his refusal to admit several bad characters.

Superintendent Coram said a number of them were admitted, and the riot arose from the exclusion of parties who deemed themselves as much entitled to be there as those who were admitted. Several of the inhabitants in that locality had complained to him of these proceedings, which, if continued, would be a great nuisance.

The Bench informed the applicant that while they would consent to renew the license, the police would have instructions to see the house was not carried on so as to be a nuisance to the neighbouring houses, and they cautioned him as to his future manner of conducting his house; and M. Kittel promised to use his best endeavours to conduct his house in an orderly manner, and prevent and recurrence of the disturbance which took place on the night of the Regatta.


From the Dover Express and East Kent Intelligencer, 29 June, 1866.


John Kittle, proprietor of the "London Hotel," Council House Street, was summonsed on the information of Mr. Henry Cox, the station-superintendent at Dover of the London, Chatham and Dover Railway, on a charge of obstruction and disorderly conduct at the harbour station.

The same defendant was also summoned, on a second information, preferred by Mr. Charles Spice, proprietor of the "Harp Hotel," Strond Street, the defendant, as it was alleged having been guilty of threatening and obscene languages towards him.

Mr. E. Knocker appeared in support of Mr. Cox's information, and Mr. T. Fox on behalf of Mr. Spice. The defendant was represented by Mr. Minter.

The charges preferred by Mr. Cox was first proceeded with, and to this Mr. Minter, on the part of the defendant, pleaded not guilty.

Mr. Knocker said the information against the defendant was for having infringed the 3rd and 4th Vict. by refusing at the request of the company's premises, and he had thereby subjected himself to a penalty not exceeding £5. The occurrence which was the subject of the prosecution took place on the evening of the 21st June, on the arrival of a down train, by which, he believed, the defendant was a passenger from the Ewell station. The defendant took advantage of this circumstance to do what he had been expressly prohibited from doing, viz. to solicit some of the other passengers arriving by the same train to repair to his hotel. The interference of the company's officers became necessary, and the present prosecution was the result. But the particular offence for which the prosecution had been instituted did not stand alone. It was one of many misunderstandings which had transpired between the defendant and the officers of the company. He stated this because he should like the Bench to understand that the company would not have thought it necessary to put the statutory powers in force in a mere isolated case. But they had found it necessary, for the proper conduct of their business, and the good order and quiet of their station, to put a stop to such conduct as the defendant was in the habit of indulging in. Mr. Knocker then detailed the circumstances of the case, which are reported in the following evidence.

Mr. Henry Cox: I am station-master of the London, Chatham, and Dover Railway, appointed to the Harbour terminus. On Thursday, June 21, in three or four minutes after the arrival of the train due at 8.20 p.m., I saw the defendant in altercation with one of the company's policemen engaged upon the station. Seeing that the policeman could not succeed in inducing the defendant to leave the station, I walked up and asked the cause of the disturbance. In consequence of what the policeman had told me, I went to Mr. Kittel and civilly asked him to leave the station. He replied in a foul and abusive manner, and I then told the constable to put him off the platform. He afterwards made an attempt to re-enter the station, and also made a third attempt, but was repulsed, and the door was shut. I have had abuse from the defendant on prior occasions.

My Mr. Minter: I heard that Kittel was a passenger. The defendant has complained on me to the directors. Kittel does complain that I favour Mr. Spice. I do permit Mr. Spice to be upon the platform, but I object to Mr. Kittel.

By Mr. Knocker: I refuse Mr. Kittel admission to the platform, because it is contrary to the instructions of my employees to permit him to tout for his hotel. The general manager wrote to Mr. Kittel, telling him that he could not be allowed to come upon the platform. That was the result of the investigation made by the general manager in consequence of Mr. Kittel's complaint.

Charles Edward Camps: I am the police officer attached to the harbour station of the London, Chatham, and Dover Railway. On the evening of the 21st June I saw the defendant on the platform, about two minutes after he arrived of the 8.20 p.m. train. I have had orders not to allow him to remain on the station. He had a card in his hand and was touting. A family was alighting from the train, and he went to them and touted for his hotel. I went up to him, and said, "Mr. Kittel, you know you have no business here. You have had orders not to come upon the platform. and I beg you will leave, and not give me any trouble." He said in reply that he should not go off till he liked, not all the time Mr. Spice was allowed to remain. I told him that was nothing to do with me. I had had orders to keep him off, not Mr. Spice. At that time Mr. Cox came up. In reply to Mr. Cox's request that he would leave the platform, he made use of some obscene language, and said that he should not go off till he liked. Mr. Cox then ordered me to put him off. After I had done so, he turned round and shaking his fist at Mr. Cox, said, "Mr. ---- Cox, I'll have my revenge on you." He afterwards returned to the platform.

By Mr. Minter: I was on the platform upon the arrival of the train, but I did not see Kittel get out of it. I was afterwards told that he was a passenger by the train. I am a company's policeman, and have been regularly appointed, but not sworn in.

Emmerson Ward: I am signal man at the harbour station in the employ of the London, Chatham, and Dover Railway Company. I was at the harbour station on the arrival of the 6.20 train on the 21st June. I saw the defendant, Mr. Kittel, there. He was in the act of offering his card to a gentleman, one of the passengers. I heard Camps tell him to leave the platform. Kittel, in answer, said he should not, declaring that if Mr. Spice was allowed to tout he should tout also.

Mr. Knocker: Did you ever see Mr. Spice tout?

Witness: I have seen him ask passengers to go to his hotel.

Mr. Minter: In fact you have seen Mr. Spice doing the same thing as you saw Mr. Kittel doing, recommending his hotel as a very nice place?

Witness: Yes.

John Caleraft: I am an omnibus driver. On the 21st June, on the arrival of the 6.20 p.m. train, I saw the defendant leave one of the compartments of a first-class carriage. I saw him present a card to a gentleman, and heard camps tell him to leave. I also heard him abuse Mr. Cox.

By Mr. Minter: I was formerly in Mr. Kittel's employ. I am not in the employ of the London, Chatham, and Dover Railway Company now, but in the employ of Mr. Clements. Previous to seeing Mr. Kittel present his card to the gentleman, Mr. Spice was talking to the same gentleman. I did not hear what either of them said. I was too far off and was attending to my business. I had walked a little further when I heard what passed between the defendant, the policeman, and Mr. Cox.

The witness, after Mr. Minter had concluded his cross-examination, volunteered to report that he heard the defendant grossly abuse Mr. Cox.

Mr. Minter: You were not asked that. (A laugh.)

This being the evidence in support of the information,

Mr. Minter addressed the Bench on behalf of the defendant. He congratulated his friend Mr. Knocker on having a case supported by such extremely willing witnesses as those which had appeared in aid of this information. But there were two classes of witnesses whose evidence had to be received with a good deal of caution - the extremely willing and the extremely reluctant. There seemed in this case in more than one respect a great deal which did not appear upon the surface. Indeed the Bench had been frankly  told by his friend, Mr. Knocker, that the present prosecution had been influenced as much by prior circumstances as by the circumstances of this particular transaction. The Magistrates, however, he had no doubt, would confine themselves strictly to what was actually before them, and would consider how far the charge brought against Mr. Kittel had been supported by the evidence adduced that day. He had no hesitation in saying that the present prosecution was one of the hardest he had ever known, and he believed it would be the opinion of the Bench that that railway officials had been a little too hasty in taking the steps which they had thought proper to adopt. No doubt Mr. Kittel was obnoxious to the station-master, who was armed with instructions to keep him out of the station, which instructions he had communicated to the policeman and other officials. On the other hand, Mr. Kittel was anxious, so far as he could legally do so, to conduct his business with the facilities which other persons in the same line of trade were permitted to enjoy. Mr. Kittel, therefore, sometimes ventured within the precincts of the railway station; but no sooner was he seen then a kind of hunt commenced. Directly the policeman saw him in this instance, he walked up to him and without waiting to know what his business in the station was, told him that he was on forbidden ground and that he must retire, or he would be forcibly put out. It turned out, however, that Mr. Kittel was a passenger by a train which had arrived, and that he had just alighted from one of the carriages, so that whatever the policeman might have been justified in doing under ordinary circumstances, at appeared to him (Mr. Minter) that on this occasion he had a little overstepped his duty. As to Mr. Kittel presenting his card to one of his fellow passengers, he (Mr. Kittel) had yet to learn that it was an offence punishable by any law in England. Mr. Kittle might simply have been introducing himself, or he might, in addition, have been recommending his hotel as best that could be found. He was perfectly justified in doing either, and such an interference with him as that described was an outrage which, he thought, could not in any way be countenanced, even though the whole force of the London, Chatham, and Dover Railway Company, represented as it was by the forensic ability of his friends, Mr. Knocker and Mr. Fox, was brought to bear in support of it (A laugh.)

Mr. Fox: I appear for Mr. Spice.

Mr. Minter: My friend says he appears for Mr. Spice. No doubt he appears for Mr. Spice; but the case has not proceeded thus far without it being apparent to everyone that this is a railway prosecution, and I am sure I am correct in saying it is a railway prosecution "supported by the entire strength of the company." (A laugh.) Or is it, that Mr. Spice, for the sake of morality and the better government of the borough, has thought it necessary to lay this information against my unfortunate client? Mr. Minter then continued - It was perfectly true that his client did refuse to leave the station when he was roughly told to do so by the policeman, and he thought his conduct was very natural. He submitted that any passenger by a railway train would feel indignant if treated, immediately upon arriving at his destination, like a felon - in other words as the defendant in this case was treated. In conclusion he maintained that the defendant had a perfect right to do what he had done in presenting his card to a fellow passenger, and as the interference of the railway officials which followed was simply a gross outrage upon the defendant, he called on the Magistrates to dismiss the summons.

The Court was cleared, and after a few minutes' deliberation the doors were re-opened, when the presiding Magistrate said the Bench considered the offence proved and had determined to inflict upon the defendant a fine of 5s. and the costs.

The defendant paid the money, and at the same time pleaded guilty to the second information, which, it was stated, arose out of the circumstances of the case just disposed of.

In this case the Bench inflicted a fine of 2s. 6d. and costs, which was also paid.




NEWING Mr to 1863 dec'd Dover Express

KITTEL/KETTLE M May/1863-66+ Dover Express


Dover ExpressFrom the Dover Express


If anyone should have any further information, or indeed any pictures or photographs of the above licensed premises, please email:-