Sort file:- Ashford, November, 2021.

Page Updated Ashford:- Wednesday, 24 November, 2021.


Earliest 1865-

Star Inn

Open 2020+

26 & 28 East Hill (23 in 1891Census)


01233 620391

Above photo 2011 by N Chadwick Creative Commons Licence.


Canterbury Journal, Kentish Times and Farmers' Gazette 09 September 1865.


The licenses of the public houses in the Ashford division were renewed. The following new licenses were applied for:—


Amos Walder, of the "Sun" beershop, New-rents, Ashford, was the next applicant, and Albert Lindfield, of the "Star" beershop, East Hill, Ashford, also applied for a license for his house. This was opposed by Mr. Langham on behalf of Mr. Butcher, of the "Queen's Head Inn," and the solicitor produced a memorial against it from several highly respectable inhabitants living in the neighbourhood of the "Star," who complained of the way in which the house was conducted and the class of persons using it.

The Bench retired to consider the applications, and on returning into Court announced that they had decided to refuse all of them with the exception of that for the "Man of Kent." Ashford, kept by William Richard Brown, and for that house they had decided to grant a license.


Canterbury Journal, Kentish Times and Farmers' Gazette, Saturday 14 April 1866.

Public House Offences.

Albert Lindfield, landlord of the "Star" beer shop, East Hill, Ashford, was summoned for having his house open for the sale of beer between in the hours of 3 and 5 o'clock on the afternoon of Sunday, March 18th.

Police Constable Cramp deposed that on the afternoon in question he knocked for 10-minutes at the door of defendant's house before it was opened. On going into the bar parlour he found two men and two women there who belonged to Ashford. There was two pots and two glasses on the table, each of which was about half full of beer.

Defendant said his wife was taken with a fit, and the parties were persons whom he had sent for to assist him. The pots and glasses had remained on the table from the closing of the house at 3 o'clock.
The Bench dismissed the case, as there were was no proof of the house being open for the sale of beer; the defendant might be proceeded against for another offence.


Maidstone Journal and Kentish Advertiser, Monday 8 January 1872.

Alleged robbery from the person.

At the petty sessions, on Wednesday, a travelling woman named Margaret Walsh, age 39, known about the country as a hawker of fish, was charged with stealing 5 16s. from the person of Samuel Flind. The prosecutor, and elderly man, had been lodging at the "Star" beer house for about 18 months. He is a pensioner, and having received his pension on Tuesday he repaired to the "Queens Head Inn," Mill Bridge, to spend it. In the evening he was treating the woman Walsh and some other person's in the room with liquor, and became somewhat intoxicated himself. In the course of the evening he dropped his money on the floor. It was returned to him, and he put it in his pocket. The prisoner sat near him, and shortly after the occurrence left. Prosecutor very soon discovered that his money was gone. The next morning the prisoner was apprehended, but there was no evidence against her, and the Bench discharged her.


From the Whitstable Times, 6 September, 1902.

Mary Ann Drisslarne, and Catherine Drisalarne, women lodging at the “Star” lodging house, Ashford, were charged with stealing a pair of pants and various small articles of grocery, valued, at 2s. from John Henry Rose, another lodger, on Sunday. Evidence was given by Rose and another lodger named Kennett, to the effect that the articles were placed in a drawer at 2 o'clock in the afternoon and that at five they were missing. George Skinner, the landlord, said he found some of the things in the prisoners’ bedroom, and Mary Drisslarne, a daughter of Catherine, said she saw her grandmother, Mary Ann Drisslarne, take a parcel containing two of the stolen articles upstairs. Both women said they were innocent but the magistrates imposed a fine of 10s. in each case, in default 7 days' imprisonment. The women went to Canterbury.


Kentish Express, Friday 9 February 1979.

Waiting for justice in our hard-pressed courts.

For trial by jury, queue here. By Richard Higgs.

FOR many people awaiting jury trial at a Crown Court, the figure of Justice is not merely blindfolded but seems to have one hand tied behind her back.

Often a defendant who gets through the initial stages of committal proceedings in the magistrate' court now has to wait up to two years for his case to be judged. And sometimes, after these years of ordeal, they are proved innocent.

In the Kent Crown Court, one of the South East's hardest pressed seals of justice, the mounting of untried defendants has the astonishing figure of 650.

According to one official, if no further cases were sent for Crown Court trial from today it would take three months to clear the residue.

Meanwhile, the accused person released on bail faces the anxiety of months of suspicion and trial by public gaze.

Some suffer ill health and are often worn down by the time they have to face the assault of the professional prosecutor. And sometimes charges might involve a mere 5 fine.

Defendants and witnesses are expected to recall minute details of an incident which occurred perhaps 12 months earlier.

Although the courts make every effort to deal with guilty pleas, juveniles and defendants remanded in custody, daily sittings by six courts are under constant pressure.

Pressure is increasing.

Officials responsible for listing cases for trial must fit in those defended which could, with very serious offences such as murder, take up to a month of sittings.

Increasingly defendants facing the more serious charges are being advised to elect to be tried by jury, so the pressure on an inadequate court system increases.

Despite provisions in the 1977 Criminal Law Act aimed at alleviating the squeeze on Crown Courts by empowering magistrates to deal with more types of crime, there has been little improvement.

At the centre of the Kent Crown Court administrative operation is listing office chief Mr. David Elham.

"If we never had another committal for trial from today we have enough work to keep six courts in Kent busy until the end of April," he said.

Delays cause stress.

Mr. Elham added: "The transfer of a variety of cases, including serious motoring charges, to magistrates court has made some inroads into the problem but the situation is still pretty static."

As for the stress experienced by waiting defendants, he said the court relied on solicitors representing cases of real hardship to advise them. In such cases the hearing was often brought forward.

One man who has faced the mental and physical strain of months of waiting for trial is Ashford publican Mr. Reg Ormes.

In July 1977 Mr. Ormes, who runs the "Star" on East Hill, was accused of shoplifting at Cartiers Superfoods store in Ashford. He denied the charge which involved 3 worth of meat.

Knowing that the alleged crime had simply been a misunderstanding over his pub food account and domestic purchases, he elected to have the case tried by a jury.

That way he felt the full story would be revealed and he would be duly cleared.

"My solicitor warned me when I was committed to Crown Court that it would be some considerable time before the case was heard. But I had not expected it to take so long," he said.

In fact it was 17 months before Mr. Ormes, who was on bail, could walk from the Canterbury Crown Court a free man when the case against him was dismissed.

But the delay took its toll. Reg, who was in perfect health before the first hearing, suffered a series of dizzy spells throughout the wait.

"It was terrible. I got anxious about the case and of course the bad publicity was harmful to my trade. But most customers were very understanding, although a few mentioned it.

Now Reg feels there should be some form of extra jury court to deal more rapidly with minor offences such as his. This would alleviate pressure on the courts while helping the anxious defendant.
To relieve the pressure on the Crown Courts sitting at Canterbury Maidstone and Gravesend up to 100 cases from Kent are transferred every year to Surrey or Sussex courts.

Some cases are referred to Kent for hearing though they are fewer in number.

So what is being done to tackle the Crown Courts shortage not just in Kent or the South East, but nationwide?

A spokesman for the Lord Chancellor’s Department, the Government body responsible for setting up new facilities, was optimistic that eight new Crown courtrooms in a 7 million courthouse would soon be built in Maidstone.

This is part of a nationwide court construction programme with a priority in hard pressed London and the South-East.

"Maidstone has been at the top of our list as there are no alternative buildings that could be suitably converted.

Money is not a problem.

"There is no lack of money for the programme. In Kent we have to allow for future demand on court space. Time has been taken in choosing the right site and ensuring accessibility he said.

The spokesman said the average delay for cases heard at Crown Court in Kent was around five months.

A spokesman for the Government’s Property Services Agency confirmed that it was intended to begin work on the new Maidstone Court complex, also providing one County Courtroom in 1980. Completion should be in 1983.

Until then two converted courts in North Kent would help to stem the overflow of delayed cases in the county.



After being closed in 2009 it reopened again in June 2011.



LINDFIELD Albert 1865-66

PATTENDEN John 1871-81+ (age 40 in 1871Census)

STERN William 1891+ (age 61 in 1891Census)

SKINNER George 1901-02+ (age 26 in 1901Census)

BARTLETT Henry 1930-38+

ORMES Reg 1979+

DIXON Paul & Heidi 2012+




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