From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday 31 December, 1859.

ALLEGED MALICIOUS DAMAGE

Henry Ratcliff, a labourer living in Tower Hamlets, was charged by Edward Groombridge, landlord of the "Sportsman" public house, Charlton Green, with maliciously breaking a square of glass and threatening to "do" for him.

Mr. Groombridge was sworn for the purpose of giving evidence, when the defendant applied for a postponement of the case until the following day for the production of witnesses who he said would be able to contradict the allegations of the complainant.

The Magistrates complied with the application, adjourning the further hearing of the case till Monday next, and admitted the defendant to bail in his own recognizance's.

From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 6 March, 1874. Price 1d.

IN LIQUIDATION, DOVER, KENT

Important sale of an old-established and well-arranged BREWERY, together with 13 Freehold and Leasehold Public and Beer-houses, a Private Residence, Malt-house, Stabling, &c.

WORSFOLD, HAYWARD, & Co. Have received instructions from the Trusteee of the Estate of Mr. G. S. Page (in liquidation by arrangement, in connection with the Mortgagees, to Sell by Auction, at the “Royal Oak Hotel,” Dover, on Tuesday, 24th March, 1874, at three o'clock precisely, in one or right lots, the following important and Valuable Property.

LOT 8.

Five fully licensed Public-houses, all situate in the Borough of Dover, comprising the “Lion,” Elizabeth Street, the “Sportsman,” Charlton Green, the “Northampton Arms,” Northampton Street, the “Three Compasses,” Finnis' Hill, and the “Spotted Cow,” Durham Place. Also two good beer-houses, the “Plough,” Laurestone Place, and the “Hope and Anchor,” Blucher Row. These houses are held upon leases having from 12 to 20 years to run, and present at first-rate opportunity to any brewer wishing to open or extend a connection in Dover.

From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday 25 September, 1881. 1d.

DOVER ADJOURNED LICENSING SESSIONS

THE SPORTSMAN, CHARLTON GREEN

Mr. Claris said he had an application to make on behalf of Mr. W. Bromley, the owner of the “Sportsman Inn,” Charlton Green. It would be recollected that on Licensing Day at Dover the application for the renewal of this license was refused, owing to the house having been shut up for some considerable period. It appeared that in the month of December 1874, this house was leased by the then owner, Mr. Prichard to Mr. Satchell, and the lease unfortunately did not contain the usual clause provided for keeping the house open and providing against anything being done by which the license might be jeopardized. Mr. Pritchard finding that the house was shut up, applied to Mr. Satchell for the sale of the lease, but he refused, stating that he should put in a tenant immediately. The owner, therefore, was obliged to stand idle by while the property was being depreciated, because a house of this sort was not half so valuable without a license as it was with one. On behalf of Mr. Bromley, the present owner, he applied for the license to be renewed, as he had a tenant, Mr. H. Larkins, of Military Road, Dover, who was prepared to occupy it immediately.

From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday 9 May, 1884. 1d.

PUBLIC-HOUSE TRANSFER

Mr. Coleman also applied for the license of the “Sportsman” to be transferred to Mr. Hawlk, who had kept a house in Elham, and had a good character.

It was granted.

From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 28 August, 1891. Price 1d.

DOVER LICENSING SESSIONS SPECIAL CASES

This stood over, notice of objection having been lodged in the name of the Temperance Council.

THE TEMPERANCE OPPOSITION

The Magistrates' Clerk said the Magistrates would next proceed to consider the objections to the houses standing over, and would commence with

THE SPORTSMAN

Mr. Mark Knowles: May it please your Worships: I appear, instructed by Mr. Montague Bradley, to oppose in this case; to oppose on the ground that the license is not wanted. But, before doing so, I wish first of all to put in this petition from the women of Dover. At this stage it will not be required to be proved, therefore, without occupying your time further on this point, I will just hand it in.

The Mayor: The Magistrates consider that this is quite irrelevant. The Magistrates have announced their decision on the general question of public houses in Dover, and do not wish that part of the question to be re-opened.

Mr. Mark Knowles: I do not propose to re-open it, and I will not occupy your Worship's time after the brusque way you have dealt with me. I simply wished to offer my client's protest amongst the large number of public houses in Dover, but I have no wish to irritate the Magistrates at all.

The Mayor: Then we will proceed.

Mr. Mark Knocker: But in other places there has been an idea given of the extent to which the Magistrates intend to carry their refusal of licenses in the future. At Bath on Saturday the Magistrates foreshadowed in some districts a reduction of 25 per cent.

The Mayor: The magistrates are not prepared to give any such information.

Mr. Mark Knowles: Then I will not carry that part further, but probably you will accept this evidence as being applicable to the whole of the houses that we ask to be suppressed.

The Mayor: Understand be clearly; we are prepared to deal with these houses seriatim, (Seriatim (Latin for "in series") is a legal term typically used to indicate that a court is addressing multiple issues in a certain order, such as the order that the issues were originally presented to the court) and your remarks must be applied to this one especially, and not to the general question of the number of public houses in the borough.

Mr. Mark Knocker: Beyond the question of the number of these houses, I wish to call attention to the changes in the ownership of these houses.

Mr. Martyn Mowll: Your Worship, I really must protest –

Mr. Mark Knowles: Will my friend sit down.

The Mayor: The learned Counsel –

Mr. Martyn Mowll: I wish this gentleman to confine himself to the notice of opposition which he has given.

Mr. Mark Knocker: I am submitting my case to the Bench within the lines of my notice, and the evidence that I propose to give as to why this license is not required. I contend that the fact that a license has changed hands frequently, is the best proof that the house is not wanted in the neighbourhood. If you do not wish to have that evidence I will not press it; but I submit that there is nothing more clearly to the point than such evidence.

The Mayor: Go on, we are prepared to hear you.

Mr. Mark Knowles: I simply wish to impress on your Worships this point, that the repeated changes of the occupants of this house, the knowledge of which is before the Court, is evidence that you should not renew it.

The Magistrates' Clerk: What evidence do you offer on that point?
Mr. Mark Knowles: It is within the knowledge of the Court.

The Magistrates' Clerk: The Magistrates can only adjudicate on evidence given before them on oath.

Mr. Mark Knowles: Then I will, without further occupying your time, call my witnesses.

James Gray, having been sworn, in reply to Mr. Knowles said: I delivered the notice now produced to the postal authorities, addressed to G. Long, at the “Sportsman Inn,” Charlton Green, and it has not been returned through the post.

The Magistrates' Clerk then read the notice of objection, the ground of objection to the renewal being that the license is not required by the neighbourhood. The notice was signed by G. Wilkie, who was in Court.

The Magistrates' Clerk: Is that Mr. Wilkie's signature?

Mr. Wilkie: No, that is a copy, the original was served on the holder of the license as proved.

The Magistrates' Clerk: It is usual for the original, and the copy to be signed.

Mr. Mark Knowles then stated that there were changes in the ownership of the “Sportsman Inn” in 1882, 1884 twice, 1885, 1886 twice, 1888 twice, in 1889 and 1890, and he called Superintendent T. O. Sanders, whom he examined as follows:-

Was the license of this house transferred in January, 1882?

The register will tell that, I cannot tell from memory. If I had known that I was going to be asked this question I could have prepared for it.

The documentary evidence is in your possession, and I am only following the usual course in asking this question; but I will ask you generally if the ownership of this house has not frequently changed?

Several times it has changed hands.

In cross-examination by Mr. Mowll, the witness said that the house had been conducted in a proper manner. He could not say that a change of hands was evidence that a house was being well conducted. No doubt if a landlord would encourage all sorts of persons he might sell more beer in some cases; in other cases the rough trade would drive the respectable trade away. There were four houses in the neighbourhood, the “Sportsman” the “Rose,” the “Grapes,” and the “Red Lion.” He could not say which was the best house; the “Sportsman” was the newest, but some people liked the old houses best. In 1882 this house received the special consideration of the Bench, and on that occasion the license was renewed and at an adjournment at Broadstairs.

Mr. Mark Knowles: I will not put Mr. Wilkie into the box now, so that will be the whole of the evidence.

Mr. Martin Mowll: I don't wish to lead this gentleman into a trap; but I should like to know if he has definitely closed the case or not.

Mr. Knowles: I said I had closed my case.

Mr. Mowll: Then I must first contend that he has not proved his notice; the gentleman should have put Mr. Wilkie into the box to prove that he was a person capable of objecting to this license. Who signed the notice? That has not been proved. I must take the ruling of your Worship on this point before going into the merit of the case.
The Mayor: The consideration of our decision will be adjourned until all the cases have been heard.

Mr. Mowll: I have a good answer on the merits of the case, but I first take this preliminary objection that the notice has not been sufficiently proved.

The Magistrates' Clerk: I think the notice has been sufficiently proved.

Mr. Mowll: There is no evidence that Mr. Wilkie is a ratepayer.

The Magistrates' Clerk: I don't think that evidence is necessary. If you or Mr. Knocker can show me that I am wrong, I shall be glad to put right.

Mr. Mowll: I see the clause says “any person.”

After some further technical points had been discussed, Mr. Mowll argued on the merits of the case, and there was no ground for refusing this license. The house was well conducted, and it was the best house in the neighbourhood. It was true that there had been changes in its management, but he contended that that was evidence of a desire to conduct the house properly.

The decision of the Bench was reserved to the end of the sitting.

The Mayor said: I will now read the decisions of the Magistrates in the following cases:-

The “Sportsman Tavern,” license granted.

From Dover Express 12 July 1907.

ASSAULT AT CHARLTON GREEN. SEVERE SENTENCE.

At the Dover Police Court on Friday, before M. Pepper, Esq., and a full Bench, Frederick Thomas Herbert, 19, Peter Street, and Henry Hatfield, 12, Charlton Green, were summoned for assaulting Eileen Amelia Dunk, Landlady of the "Sportsman Inn."

They both pleaded Guilty.

Mrs. Dunk said that her husband keeps the "Sportsman Inn" Charlton Green. On Monday last she went into the bar, when Herbert was disorderly, and would not leave when desired to do so. Hearing a scuffle she went into the bar, and Hatfield struck her, making her nose and mouth bleed. Her husband went out to fetch a policeman, she being in the house alone. She went to close the bar door, when Herbert came in from the street, and deliberately struck her in the eye.

The Chairman said that the men were cowards, and they would go to Canterbury gaol for one month with hard labour.

N.B. Clearly shows Henry Hatfield aged 12.

From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 5 August, 1910.

ALTERATION TO PUBLIC HOUSES

At the Dover Police Court this morning, before J. L. Bradley, M. Pepper, J. W. Bussey, E. Chitty, H. F. Edwin, G. C. Rubie, F. G. Wright, P. W. J. Mackenzie, and W. J. Barnes, Esqs.

Plans showing alterations to the bar parlour of the "Sportsman," Charlton Green, were approved.

The alteration would make a better means of access to the private part of the house.

Mr. Chitty made objections to the alterations, but the other Magistrates expressed themselves in favour of it, and the Chief Constable also expressed his view in favour of it. At present the approach for the applicant's children to the house was through the bar.

The alteration was approved subject to the gate leading to the new entrance being closed during closing hours.

From the Dover Express, Friday 8 April 1938.

Objection to extension.

The Magistrates Clerk said that there was an application from the licensee of the "Sportsman Inn" for an extension in connection with a darts match.

The Chief Constable said that he intended to object to the application on the grounds that it was not a special occasion, but as no one had attended to make the application that might save time.

Dover Express, Friday 29 March 1946.

The public enquiry. An objector disputes a statement.

To the editor of The Dover Express.

Sir, - At the enquiry into the proposal to acquire the compulsory purchase under the Town and Country Planning Act of 1944 of land for industrial purposes in the Charlton Green area you reported the Town Clerk as saying that Mrs. George Beer and Rigden were communicated with personally by the Borough Surveyor by letter informing them of what was proposed and no answer was received. If this is a correct report of what the Town Clerk said it is misleading. The facts are that on behalf of my firm (George Beer and Rigden Ltd.) I wrote to the Borough Engineer on the 5th September, 1945, stating that we had an application for the tenancy of the "Sportsman Inn," and asked for assistance to enable the necessary work of repair to be done. The Borough Engineer wrote on the 1st October, 1945, that:- "the premises are situated in an area which is the subject of a direction under article 5 of the Town and Country Planning (General Interim Development) Order, 1945, and furthermore it is probable that the Council, as the Planning Authority, will desire to acquire the premises in the very near future to enable the area as a whole to be laid out afresh. Under the circumstances I regret that it is not possible for me to either agree to carry out the repairs to the residential quarters, or to issue you a Building Licence to enable you to have the repairs effected by your own builder. I should add that the "Sportsman" public house is one of those properties which will receive immediate attention by the Council, it being the intention to acquire the whole of the property in the immediate vicinity of this house within the course of months, in order to make way for industry." He added:- "I have referred the matter to the Town Clerk, from whom, doubtless, you will be hearing within the course of the next few days." No further communication was received the from the Town Clerk or from the Borough Engineer. This being the position, as soon as I heard that the Public Inquiry was to be held it was agreed arranged to join in the opposition and steps were taken by me to this end. No formal notice was given of our intended opposition because I took the view that as it was a public enquiry and all those interested were invited to appear and state their views, no formal notice was necessary, but authority was given to those in charge of the opposition to represent my company in respect of the "Sportsman Inn," and it was correctly stated at the enquiry that my firm was opposing. I thought perhaps that the Town Clerk was led to make this erroneous statement in regard of my Company's attitude by the considerable heat, judging by the report, that was engaged at the Inquiry, but on my writing to the Town Clerk pointing out this error he replies in a long letter justifying his statement. To use his own words, he says that "I have refreshed my memory..... I could not wish to express myself any differently." No doubt this is the Town Clerk's considered view, but I think it desirable that the public should know the facts, and I should be grateful if you would allow this letter to appear in your next issue.

W. J. Jennings, Chairman, George Beer and Rigden Ltd, Kennington Hall, Ashford, Kent. 27th March, 1946.

From the Dover Express and East Kent News. 4 June, 1920.

PUBLICAN AND A CHEQUE

At the Dover Police Court on Saturday, before Messrs W. H. Brett (in the chair) and C. J. Sellons.

Charles Wilfred George Drummond, of 2 Selbourne Terrace, was charged with, on May 20th cheating the sum of of £5 18s. by means of a worthless cheque from Walter Scopes.

Walter Scopes, landlord of the "Sportsman Inn," Charlton Green, Dover, said "I first saw the defendant on Tuesday, May 10th, in the public bar. He said he was a cloth dealer, and had come to Dover to start a business. He asked me to change a £2 cheque. I did so and the cheque was all right and passed through. On May 20th he again came into the house and asked me to change a cheque for £5 18s. He undersigned the cheque. I passed the cheque through my banking account, and it was returned endorsed "R D" As I had changed one previously, I thought that this was also a genuine cheque."

In reply to Mr. Sellons, witness said that he could not read or write. His housekeeper told him that it was all right. He did not know the defendant's name.

P. C. Roberts said that on Friday evening he received the warrant, and was on duty in the Folkestone Road, he saw the defendant. He did not know him, but stopped him and asked if his name was Drummond. The defendant said "Yes," and he was told that a warrant had been issued for his arrest on the above charge. He replied, "There must be some mistake, as I pay £375 into my bank a few days ago, but I will accompany you to the Police Station and and explain matters to your inspector." At the Police Station, after the warrant was read over to the defendant, he was detained.

The case was remanded till next Friday, bail to be two securities of £50 and himself in £50.