33 Snargate Street
Present in 1847, next door to the "Royal Clarence Theatre of Varieties".
Its demise came when the theatre was rebuilt on a much grander scale and
needed a larger site.
Kelly's Directory 1899 gave the name as "Tivoli Theatre" and Princess
From the Dover Express and East Kent Intelligencer, 19
Joseph Birch, landlord of the “Princess Alice” Snargate Street, was
charged on the information of Sergeant Geddes with infringing his
license on Sunday the 13th inst. by unlawfully opening his house for the
sale of beer at ten minutes to midnight. To pay the costs.
From the Dover Express and East Kent Intelligencer, 27
John Foord, a labouring man having the appearance of a bricklayer,
out of employ, was charged with maliciously breaking a square of plate
glass, value £3, at the "Princess Alice Inn," Snargate Street, on the
previous Saturday night.
Elily Gilles said she was servant to Mr. William Henry Styles,
landlord of the "Princess Alice" public-house, in Snargate Street. The
prisoner came down Snargate Street about eleven o'clock on Saturday
night, and. deliberately picking up a stone, shied it through the
window. She asked him why he had broken the window, and he replied, "To
get a night's lodging; I have been begging for two hours, and have not
been able to get anything." It was a plate glass window, and worth £3.
The defendant had no questions to ask the witness and all he had t
say in his defence was that he was in drink, being "well on," in his own
phrase, at the time he did it.
The Magistrates said they supposed he could not pay the damage he had
Defendant said he could not.
Sir Luke Smithett: Then you must suffer in another way. You are fined
1s., the amount of the damage (£3), and the costs 6s. In default, you
will go to prison for a month, with hard labour.
From the Dover Express and East Kent Intelligencer, 15 September, 1871. Price 1d.
ROBBING A WORKMAN OF HIS TOOLS
Alfred Moat, a seaman, was charged with stealing from the premises of
the “Princess Alice” public-house, Snargate Street, on the previous day,
a plane, a chisel, a square, and a pair of pincers, value 5s., the
property of William Caister.
Sarah Palmer, residing in Snargate Street, said: My husband, Henry
Palmer, is the landlord of the “Princess Alice” public-house. Yesterday
afternoon, between twelve and one, the prisoner was at my house. I had a
carpenter work on the premises, and he had been using the tools
produced, which he had with him in a bag. I heard the prisoner doing
something, and on going to see I found him at the carpenter’s basket. I
went away fro a few minutes, and, as I found him there on returning, I
called my husband. My husband came and met the prisoner in the passage,
when he stopped him. He asked him what he had been doing at the
workman’s basket. I did not hear the prisoner’s answer. My husband
endeavoured to detain him, whereupon the prisoner attempted to strike
him, and broke three glasses, which were standing on the bar. He then
ran away from the house, and my husband followed him.
Henry Palmer, the landlord of the “Princess Alice,” said: A carpenter
named Henry Caister, was at work in my house yesterday. In consequence
of something my wife said to me I went to look after the prisoner, and I
met him in the passage. I asked him what he had been doing with the
carpenter’s tools, and he said, “Nothing.” I then asked him if he had
any of the tools, and he said. “No.” I thought that he might have some
in his pockets, so I felt them, and they seemed to me to have something
in them. The prisoner thereupon tried to strike me, and he knocked three
glasses off the bar, breaking them. He then ran out of the house, down
the street, and I followed him until I saw a constable , when I gave him
By the prisoner: You did not offer to give me any of the tools.
Police-sergeant James Johnstone said: Yesterday morning, about half-past
twelve, I was on duty in Snargate Street and I met the prisoner. He was
running down the street and Mr. Palmer was running after him, crying,
“Stop thief.” I stopped him, and Mr. palmer gave him into my charge for
stealing some carpenter’s tools. The prisoner said he had no tools about
him; but on his being searched tat the police-station the plane, the
square, the pair of pincers, and the chisel produced were found in the
shirt pocket of his coat. The charge was read over him by the
Superintendent, and he made no reply to it. The prisoner offered a
great deal of resistance on the way to the Police-station, and in order
to handcuff him I was obliged to obtain the assistance of another man,
whom the prisoner kicked, causing him to fall down.
William Caister, the prosecutor, said: I am a carpenter. I was at work
at Mr. Palmer’s house in Snargate Street yesterday. I had a basket of
tools with me. The tools produced are the same, and they are my
property. They were in the basket which I left behind me when I went to
dinner. The value of them is 5s.
The prisoner desired to have the case dealt with summarily, and, in
answer to the charge, pleaded “guilty.”
Superintendent Coram said that the prisoner had been before the
Magistrates on one previous occasion, for an assault on the police; but
never before for felony.
The Magistrates told the prisoner that he had pleaded guilty to a very
aggravated offence, rendering him liable to three months’ imprisonment,
with hard labour. To rob a man of his tools with which he earned his
daily living was a cruel offence, and could not be passed over lightly.
He would have two months’ imprisonment, with hard labour.
The prisoner pleaded that he was drunk when he stole the tools.
The Magistrates considered that circumstance, supposing it to be true,
no excuse, and refused to mitigate their sentence.
From the Dover Express and East Kent Intelligencer,
9 February, 1872. Price 1d.
Mr. Coleman applied for the "Princess Alice" public-house to be
transferred from the present licensee, Henry Palmer, who was going to
leave the town, to Henry Thomas Allen.
There being nothing against the house, the application was granted.
From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday 14 November, 1873.
Mr. Thomas Fox appeared to apply on behalf of Mr. Alfred Pope, that the
license of the “Princess Alice” might be transferred to him. Mr. Pope
had kept a licensed house at Folkestone for some time, and could produce
Mr. Stillwell said his attention had been drawn to a police report in a
Folkestone paper, from which it appeared that the wife and a woman
staying at applicant’s house had been convicted of drunkenness and
misconduct by the Folkestone Bench, on the 8th of July last.
Pope said it was merely a family quarrel about some flowers.
Superintendent Sanders said he had been informed that defendant had
conducted his house well of late.
Mr. Fox said he did no think that any venial offence on the part of
defendant’s wife would deter the Bench from granting the application.
The application was granted.
From the Dover Express and East Kent Intelligencer,
18 December, 1874. Price 1d.
John Berac, who produced a discharge-paper from the Army, date a
considerable time since, applied for the license of the "Princess Alice"
to be transferred to him.
The Bench declined to act without a more recent testimonial.
From the Dover Express and East Kent Intelligencer, 17 March, 1882. Price 1d.
INFRINGING THE LICENSING ACT
Theodore Henry Nave, landlord of the “Princess Alice,” Snargate Street,
was charged with allowing drunkenness on his premises.
Superintendent Sanders said: On Sunday evening at eight o’clock I was in
Snargate Street, when I saw two seamen drunk refused admittance to the
“Duke of York,” and were afterwards refused at two other public-houses.
They then went to the “Princess Alice,” kept by the defendant and were
admitted. Ten minutes later I went with Police-sergeant Harman to the
house. The two sailors were in front of the bar, very drunk, with two
pints of beer before them. The bar was full of soldiers and civilians.
The landlady was behind the bar. I went in the back room and sent for
her to some to me. I asked her why she had served the two sailors, and
called her attention to their drunken condition. I received no reply,
but while talking to her I found that she was quite as drunk as the
sailors, as she fell down in the corner of the room. The sergeant picked
her up, and we found that she could not stand. I asked her where the
landlord was, and she said that he had gone for a walk. I then asked one
of the customers where the defendant was, and he said that he had gone
to bed. Five minutes later the landlord came down, and he was also
drunk. It was the time of leaving church. I cleared the house, put out
the gas, and shut the door up, and sent for a relation of the defendant,
who came and took charge of the house.
The bench fined the defendant the full penalty of £10 and costs 8s. 6d.
which amount was not then forthcoming. The license was ordered to be
From the Dover Express and East Kent Intelligencer, 8 September, 1882. Price 1d.
THE LANDLORD WHO LOVED HIS OWN LIQUOR
The Superintendent of Police said he had a complaint to make against H.
T. Nave, the landlord of the “Princess Alice,” Snargate Street, first on
the ground that he had been fined £10 and costs on the 17th of March
last for permitting drunkenness in his house, and secondly that he was
not a fit person to keep a public-house. In support of the charge
Superintendent Sanders said that on the 17th of March, being Sunday
night, he went into the house, and found drunken persons in front of the
bar, and the landlord’s wife was serving them. He went into the back
room, and called the landlady, but she was so drunk that before she
could get to him she fell down. He asked for the landlord and learned
that he was in bed, drunk. There was so much drunkenness in the house
that he cleared it, and kept possession of the house until a relative of
the man came in to take charge of it. He had previously seen the man
drunk, and when the licence was granted to him it was ascertained that
owing to drinking he had determined to commit suicide, but he for some
time after that led a sober life it was thought that they might trust
him. It appeared now, however, that he was not a fit man to keep a
Mr. Worsfold Mowll pleaded that the magistrates would not inflict on the
man the great pecuniary line of refusing the licence, which was worth
£200 or £300. The man would undertake not to open the house himself, and
let the licence be taken out in the name of the property agent, Mr.
Hayward, and the house would be closed until a suitable tenant was
The Magistrates agreed to that.
From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 3 May, 1889. Price 1d.
ABDUCTION AT DOVER
At the Dover Police Court on Wednesday, James Forbes, of no fixed
residence, was charged with enticing Bessie Elwin Chard, aged 10 years
and 9 months, from her home, 37 High Street, with intent to deprive her
father of her services.
Mr. Gabriel Chard said: I am a furniture dealer carrying out business at
37, High Street. I have known the prisoner about three years; when I
first became acquainted with him I kept the “Princess Alice Inn,”
Snargate Street. He was then a private in the Middlesex Regiment
stationed here in Dover, and he used to frequent my house then. His
regiment went away nearly three years ago, and he went with it, and I
have not seen him since Monday evening last. He came to my house on
Monday afternoon, but I was out then, and he promised to call again in
the evening. He came again about half past seven; a little conversation
was started when he came in about where he had been to, and how long he
had left the army, and he said he represented the firm of Peter
Robinson, in Regent Street, London, as a commission agent to sell
bankrupt goods. I asked him what business he had come down this way, and
he said he had business in Shepheredwell, and had some goods to show,
but I did not see them as he had not got them in the shop. I asked him
into the room and he sat down and had a cup of tea. My wife and two of
the girls – Bessie Elwin, aged 10 years and 9 months, and Florence,
between 12 and 13 years of age – were present. He talked and played with
the children, and went out and bought some sweets and I gave them to
them. He stayed till about 10 o’clock. He said he had to got to
Shepherdswell the next day, and expected to be back between four and six
o’clock, and I told him if he should come back to come and have a cup of
tea with us. He called back again about half past six on Tuesday, and my
wife made him a cup of tea – he did not have his tea with us, as we had
had out tea. He came into the room, and the children were there then;
and he stayed till about eight o’clock, talking about the toys he had
bought them when he was a soldier. He began by saying he should like to
give the children something before he left, as he expected to return to
London the following day, but he said it depended upon the replies he
had from his employers in London. He said he had seen a locket and chain
in the town – I understood him to say Snargate Street, but he would not
buy it, thinking my daughter would not like it after he had bought it.
He gave Florence a purse on Monday evening. He asked my wife and me if
we had any objection to Bessie going with him to select what she would
like out of the shop down the street, and promised to return in about
twenty minutes. I said I had no objection so long as he did not keep her
out over that time, as it was her bed-time; and he promised he would not
exceed that time. The child put on her hat, and the prisoner advised her
to put on her jacket, as it was cold, and she did so. Finding they did
not return, in about half an hour I sent Florence down the street to see
if she could find them, and as my eldest daughter did not return I put
on my hat and coat and went down the street, and in the Market Square I
found my eldest daughter and sent her home. I looked in most places I
thought it possible she might be. After looking in all the houses in the
Lanes and round the Market Square, I went to the Grand Shaft, and called
there to see if they were there. I then went to the Harbour and South
eastern stations, and afterwards to the Soldiers’ Institute, where he
had slept the previous evening. I returned home about eleven o’clock and
gave information to the Police. I had been home once or twice to see if
they had come back. Acting on the advice of the Police I walked to
Folkestone about four o’clock, and there met Police-constable Knott. I
went with a sergeant of the Folkestone Police to all the lodging houses.
We went to the “Edinburgh Castle Coffee House” in Tontine Street, and
ascertained that the prisoner and my child were there. I remained at the
coffee tavern, while the Police sergeant went away and Police-constable
Knott came to me. The manager went up to the prisoner and told him that
he was wanted, and he sent word that he should be down presently. About
twenty minutes afterwards he came down, leaving the child upstairs. The
manager told me he was down, and I asked him what he meant by taking
away the child. The prisoner said he was very sorry, and asked me to
look over it, if I could, and not get him into trouble; and I told him
the matter was in the hands of the Police. He said something about being
on the drink when he took the child. He was not drunk last night at my
house. On the way to the Folkestone railway station he said “This is a
bad job, but it might have been worse,” and I said “What do you mean?”
He said “I might have taken her up town,” or to London – I forget which.
Continuing, prisoner said “God knows what might have become of her.” He
asked me two or three times to look over it. He was brought here to the
Prisoner: Were not the words I said “It’s a good job, in the state I was
in, that I did not take the girl to London, where she might have been
lost?” – Mr. Chard.
Prisoner: Was I not favoured at your house, and you knew me to be a
Yes, at times.
Prisoner: Do you really believe that I intended to keep her?
Yes, I do positively.
What reason do you have for thinking so?
By your contradicting yourself. I think you took my daughter Bessie out
once when you were a soldier in uniform three years ago.
The children always like your company, didn’t they?
And did I not tell you my reason for taking Bessie out was to but her a
present, as I had given the other girl a purse the previous night?
Yes. You had nothing to drink at my house, and you were quite sober when
you left it.
Didn’t I appear to have been drinking?
No, I didn’t notice it.
Bessie Elwin Chard said: I live with my father and mother at 37, High
Street. I am eleven years old in July. I remember a soldier coming when
my father kept a public house and bringing me presents. I should not
have known this was the man without being told. He came to our house
last Monday and had some tea, and got talking and laughing with me and
my sister. I think he gave my sister a purse, but he did not give me
anything that night. He came again the next day, Tuesday, and had tea.
My father and mother and sister and myself were there, and he laughed
and talked again with us till he went. He bought us some sweets when he
went out on Monday evening. He said he had seen a locket and chain in a
shop window, and should very much like to give it to me, and I told him
I should like to have it, but he said it was not big enough. He asked my
father and mother if I could go out with him for about a quarter of an
hour or twenty minutes to buy something. Mother said she did not object
to it, and I put on my hat. The prisoner told me to put on my jacket, as
it was cold, and I did so. We left the house together, and went down the
street as far as the “Prince Albert Inn,” into which we went, and the
prisoner had a glass of beer. We then went down Snargate Street to the
South Eastern station. He said he saw a beautiful thing in a shop at
Sandgate, and that he would take me there. I said mother and father
would be cross, but he said they would not – he would make that all
right. He asked the porter at the station when the next train to
Sandgate would go, and the porter told him at a quarter past ten. It was
either twenty minutes past nine or twenty minutes to ten by the railway
clock when we got to the station. We went to a public house opposite,
and prisoner had two half pints of ale and bought me a sponge cake. He
took the tickets at the station for Shorncliffe – I heard him ask for one
and a half tickets to Shorncliffe. We got out at Shorncliffe and walked to
Folkestone. He went into a public house and asked whether they would let
him have a bed, but he could not get a bed there. On the way from
Shorncliffe to Folkestone the prisoner told me to say if I was asked
that I was his daughter. We then met a Policeman, and he asked him if he
could tell him where he could get a bed, and the Policeman told him an
hotel – I don’t know the name of it, but he said he could not get a bed
there. We then met two men and asked them, and they told us the place
where father found us. The prisoner asked for a room with two beds in
it. He had a cup of tea, but did not give me any supper. I think it was
a servant who showed us into the room. He pointed out to me which bed I
was to sleep in, and he got into the other bed. I lay in bed awake some
time, in the morning when it was light, the prisoner was still in bed I
saw him get up and go down, and he said he was going to get a shave. The
servant called me after he had gone down. When I got down I saw my
father, and the prisoner was there then. I came home to Dover. When we
were walking from Shorncliffe he said he would take me to London one
day, and I said I did not think mother would let me go. He said he would
take me to Sandgate this morning when he was in bed.
Cross-examined by the prisoner: Did you think I had been drinking a good
Yes: I mean you had one glass of beer at the “Prince Albert” and two
glasses of ale opposite the South Eastern station.
I did not say I wanted you to go with me, did I now?
Did you have any fear that I was going to take you right away?
No, I had not.
The prisoner was remanded till today (Friday).
From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 5 July, 1889. Price 1d.
STEALING A CHILD
James Forbes, 46, was charged with taking away Bessie Elwin Chard, a
child of 10 years and 9 months, with the intent to deprive the father of
the custody of the said child.
The prisoner pleaded “Not Guilty.”
Mr. Croft appeared for the prosecution.
Gabriel Chard, the father of the child, carrying on business as a
furniture dealer in High Street, said he formerly kept the “Princess
Alice” public-house. When he was there, the prisoner, who was then in
the Middlesex Regiment, made his acquaintance, and soon became an
intimate friend of the family. The prisoner left the town with the
regiment some years ago, and they lost sight of him until the 29th
April. He then told them he was a traveller for peter Robinson, and he
had been discharged from the Army some 15 or 18 months back. He made
himself friendly with the two girls, Florence and Bessie. He was also
invited to come to tea on the next day, Tuesday. He came in on Tuesday
afternoon and had tea, and about eight o’clock he asked Bessie if she
would like to have a locket and chain which he had seen in a window in
Snargate Street. He obtained permission to take the girl out for about
20 minutes. As the girl put only her hat on to go out, he told her to
put her jacket on, as the night was cold. As the child did not return
the father sent her elder sister to look for her, and she not being able
to find her he went out himself, and at length went to the Police
station. In the morning he went over to Folkestone, and from enquiries
made he discovered the prisoner at the “Edinburgh Castle Coffee Tavern.”
He was met there by Police-constable Knott, and after visiting a little
time the prisoner came down partially dressed, and having caught a
glimpse of the Policeman he hurried back and finished dressing himself,
and then came down again and tried to get out of a side door, but was
stopped. Witness said, “What sort of business do you call this, taking
away my child?” The prisoner said he was very sorry, and asked him to
look it over, but he refused to do so. On coming down to the station
prisoner said it was a good thing that he had not taken the child to
London, as she might have got lost there.
Bessie Chard, the next witness, was the child who was stolen. She said
she remembered the prisoner asking her on the 30th April to go with him
to buy a locket and chain in Snargate Street. After leaving the house he
went down the town. On the way down he went into two public-houses, and
when they got to the South-Eastern Station he went into another. He told
her at the station that he was going to take her to Sandgate, where he
had seen a nice locket. They went to Shorncliffe by train, where the
prisoner tried to get a night’s lodging at a house, but not being
successful they walked to Folkestone, and prisoner went to the Police
station, where he was recommended to go to the “Edinburgh Castle.” He
had previously told her to say that he was her father. On arriving at
the house they found it was locked up. They were let in, and after a few
questions had been asked they went to bed. They had at the suggestion of
the wife of the landlord separate beds. She went to bed in her clothes.
Abel Howard, the landlord of the “Edinburgh Castle,” corroborated the
evidence of the last witness. He did not think that the prisoner was
unconscious of what he was doing.
Police-constable Knott was then called, and he corroborated the evidence
of the father about what the prisoner said concerning the girl being
taken to London. He found 6s. 9d. and a few odds and ends on the
This closed the case for the prosecution.
The prisoner made a long statement in his defence, which took him over
three-quarters of an hour to deliver. He pleaded that he was under the
influence of drink, and had no knowledge of what he was about. He had to
go to Sandgate on some business, and had mixed that up with the child,
and had taken her there. When he was under the influence of drink he
very often did not outwardly show it.
He called Mr. E. Brown, landlord of the “Grand Shaft Inn,” who said that
the prisoner came into his house in the afternoon and had some whisky.
The Jury retired to considered the verdict, and in about five minutes
returned a verdict of Guilty.
The Superintendent of the Police said that the prisoner had been
discharged from the Army with ignominy in October, 1887, for theft and
desertion. He had also been before that Court in 1880 for breaking into
Mr. P. O. Potter’s and stealing umbrellas. He was drunk at the time, and
was acquitted. The man went out to India with the 77th Regiment, and
returned in 1885. He could not find out what he had been doing since he
left the Army.
The Recorder said that the case was an embarrassing one, because the
section of the statute under which the prisoner is indicted and found
guilty deals with offences of this kind as very serious. He had spoken
privately to the father, and was satisfied from what he said that the
child had not been molested in any way. In consequence of that he was
disposed to treat the case as rather an exceptional one. According to
the statute he could sentence the prisoner to seven years’ penal
servitude or two years’ imprisonment. The prisoner had been in custody
since the 3rd May, and he would be sentenced to four months’ hard
This concluded the business of the Sessions, and the Court rose at 1.30.
JACKSON William 1847-50 dec
(16 Feb 1850 aged 63,
BIRCH Joseph George 1858-Oct/63 end
STILES William Henry Oct/1863-66+
HATHAWAY Robert to Sept/1871
SAVILLE T Sept/1871+
PALMER Henry Nov/1871-Feb/72
ALLEN Henry Thomas Feb/1872-Mar/73
SHIPLEY Francis Mar/1873-May/73
NICHOLS Charles May/1873-74+
POPE Alfred Nov/1873+
HARRIS Frederick Wilmott 1874-75
HARRIS Frederick Wilmot Jan/1875
BRISE/BRISE John Jan/1875+
HOGBEN F G or HOGBIN 1877
RANDALL James 1879-Jan/1880
HOWSE Mrs Mary Anne (widow) Jan/1880-Jul/80
TREVOR John Arthur Jul/1880+
NAVE (Thomas Henry) H Theodore to Sept/1882+
BIRCH J C to Sept/1885
CHARD G A Sept/1885+
KENNEDY Robert 1895+
MASCARD Arnand 1899+
DEW Frederick 1903
From Bagshaw Directory 1847
From Melville's Directory 1858
From the Post Office Directory 1874
From the Post Office Directory 1882
From Pikes Dover Blue Book 1895
From the Kelly's Directory 1899
From the Dover Express
From the Dover Telegraph