Sort file:- Ashford, October, 2022.

Page Updated Ashford:- Tuesday, 04 October, 2022.


Earliest 1855-

Duke of Wellington

Latest 1938+

(Name to)

33 Hempsted Road



Richard Ticknall tell me that this was closed and demolished for the construction of the Tufton Shopping Centre in 1975.

Also known as simply the "Wellington" but at present I don't know when the name was shortened.


From the Maidstone Journal and Kentish Advertiser, Tuesday 11 December 1855.


A recruiting sergeant for the Royal Artillery summoned Edward Ashurst, landlord of the "Duke of Wellington," to show cause why he refused to accept the billet for a recruit which have been drawn on the 20th of last month. The man had been regularly enlisted on the same day, but had not been attested, and on this ground the landlord refused to allow him to remain in his house, as he considered he was not a soldier within the meaning of the act. The man had deserted and was now about, and the sergeant believed it was partly through the treatment he received at the "Duke of Wellington." On reference to the Act of Parliament it was found that, as the man had taken the shilling, he was deemed to be a soldier, and that the billet was there for properly drawn.

As the sergeant was in communication with his commanding officer on the subject, the case was remanded till next bench day. The sergeant in the meantime expressed themselves satisfied to receive back the shilling and not press the case further. The landlord said he only wished the question as to liability settled.


From the Whitstable Times, 2 March 1867. Price 1d.


On Saturday afternoon last, an inquest was held at the “Duke of Wellington Inn,” Ashford, on the body of Arabella Clarke, a young woman aged twenty-five years, who died in consequence of injuries received from one John Tindall, with whom she cohabited. T. T. Delasaux, Esq., the County Coroner, presided at the inquest, and the following evidence was adduced:—

John Hornsey, labourer, of Ashford, said:- The deceased was the daughter of my present wife, and had for some time past been living with John Tindall in Ashford. Myself and my wife lived in the same house with the deceased and John Tindall, and on the night of Saturday, the 9th February, I retired to rest between the hours of eleven and twelve. In about ten minutes or a quarter of an hour afterwards I heard the deceased fall, and in consequence went down stairs, and found her lying on the floor with John Tindall standing near her. I lifted her up, and she said, “I am very bad.” In about forty minutes I again went to bed, leaving the deceased, my wife, and John Tindall together there. The deceased also said, “He” (meaning Tindall) “has knocked me down to which he did not make any reply. When I went to bed the first time my daughter-in-law (the deceased) was not in the house nor was my wife.

Mrs. Romsey deposed:- I am the wife of John Romsey, labourer, and mother of the deceased, who was 25 years of age. She had been living with John Tindall for about 10 years as his wife, but I believe they were not married. I have lived with them nearly the whole of that period, and they have generally appeared happy. I believe the deceased was at times flighty, and scarcely appeared to know what she was about, and this occurred when she was perfectly sober. On Saturday, the 9th day of February, I retired, to rest about 12 o'clock. My husband was then in bed. My daughter was at home the whole evening, but at about twenty minutes before twelve, she suddenly left the house, my husband and Tindall being from home. I immediately went in search of her and not finding her, returned and found her as well as my husband and Tindall. She was then, standing up, and said to Tindall “You ought not to have done so.” She had a bruise on her left eye, which she must have received after leaving the house at 20 minutes to 12, and before I returned. I asked deceased how she came by that eye, and she said Tindall gave it her. He at once said “No, I did not—you fell on the chair.” They afterwards all went to bed, witness taking her daughter with her. For the first two or three days after the 9th inst. Tindall and the deceased did not speak, but since then he had been very kind to her. Until within the last twelve months witness believed that they were married.

Mr. William Shepherd, of Ashford, surgeon, was then called, and described the injuries received by the deceased at length. He was first sent for on the 12th, and found the deceased in bed suffering from violent sickness and diarrhoea. There was a severe injury to the left eye, caused by a blow. Deceased was rather addicted to drink. He gave her medicine which checked the diarrhoea, but not the sickness, which continued upwards of a week. From her colour, he was led to the conclusion that deceased was suffering from some organic disease of the brain. Deceased gradually got worse, and died on Saturday morning. He had made a post mortem examination of the deceased externally, and found a contusion over the left eye and temple, and a bruise over the left breast, and on removing the scalp, the left temporal muscle was highly congested, and corresponded with the bruise externally. On opening the skull, the dura mater was also highly congested, and an effusion of serum over the whole of the left aide of the brain, and part of the right. There was also effusion at the base of the skull. The whole of the brain was also highly congested, but there was no effusion in the ventricles, and the cause of death was congestion and effusion on the brain, and the entire internal injuries corresponded with the external, and such injuries might be, and in all probability were, produced by a blow.

The Coroner having summed up the evidence at some length, the jury returned a verdict of “Manslaughter” against John Tindall. The Coroner then made out the usual warrant of commitment, and the proceedings closed.


Kentish Gazette, 29 March, 1870.


Petty Sessions, Tuesday.

Present: Col. Groves, Sir K. Knatchbull, Bart., G. B. Sayer, H. B. Walker, and W. D. Walker, Esqrs.

Wm, John Barnes appeared to summons, charged with wilfully breaking a street lamp in North-street between the night of Match 4th and the morning of March 6th. Mr. Towne, solicitor, prosecuted on behalf of the Ashford Gas Company, and Mr. Dawes, solicitor, defended. The court was crowded to hear the case, owing to the highly respectable position of certain parties supposed to be implicated in the affair.

Mr. Towne staled that for some time past the practice of extinguishing and breaking the public lamps had been carried on in Ashford, and the gas company had taken stringent proceedings to stop it. A ticket collector at the railway station named Knowles was called, and deposed that between twelve and one o'clock he was going home from the station when he passed Mr. Barnes, in North street, and his (witness) head being turned somewhat behind him, as it was a rough night, and the wind blowing in his face, he saw Mr. Barnes throw something at the lamp projecting over Mr. Furley's door, and smash it, and then run off. The next day a brickbat broken in halves was found on the pavement under the lamp. The lamp beyond had also been smashed in a similar manner; and upwards of thirty other lamps extinguished. In cross-examination Knowles said he had only been six weeks in the town, and had never seen Mr. Barnes before; but he was quite positive as to his identity. He saw Mr. Barnes on the following Monday evening at the bar of the "Duke of Wellington Inn," and immediately identified him, and gave information to the manager of the gas works, he did not know at that time that a reward of 5 had been offered for the discovery of the person who broke the lamps. Mr. Dawes called three respectable witnesses to prove an alibi.

Mr. Cobb, landlord of the "Swan Inn," proved that the defendant came to his house at about nine o'clock on the evening of March 4th, and did not leave until past two o’clock the next morning.

Mr. Manser, coachbuilder, and Mr. Chambers, printer, proved that they were in Mr. Barnes's company all the evening; they were having a bottle of wine together, Mr. Barnes being about to leave the town.

The beach dismissed the case, but Col. Groves made some strong remarks with reference to the conduct of Mr. A. Williams, wine merchant, whom the witness Knowles alleged had threatened him with proceedings for perjury.

Mr. Williams said that Knowles had told a lie.




Last pub licensee had AKHURST Edward 1855-62+ (age 62 in 1861Census)

SWAIN Henry 1874+

WHEELER Charles 1881-82+ (age 34 in 1881Census)

LINK John Alfred 1891+

GURR James 1901-03+ (age 56 in 1901Census)

SMITH William 1913-30+

SMITH Walter S 1938+




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