DOVER KENT ARCHIVES

Page Updated:- Monday, 02 September, 2019.

PUB LIST PUBLIC HOUSES Paul Skelton

Earliest 1861-

Chequers Inn

Closed Aug 2019

Stone Street

Petham

01227 700734

https://thechequersinn.wordpress.com/

https://www.whatpub.com/chequers

Chequers Inn 2013

Photo taken 18 May 2013 from http://www.flickr.com by Jelltex.

Chequers Inn inside 2013

Photo taken 18 May 2013 from http://www.flickr.com by Jelltex.

Chequers Inn beer-mat

Above beer-mat, date unknown.

 

From the Kentish Chronicle, 9 March, 1861.

INQUEST AT UPPER HARDRES.

On Friday T. T. Delasaux, Esq., coroner, and a respectable jury, held an inquest at the “Chequers” public house, Stone street, touching the death of William Foulser, aged 50 years, the circumstances attending which will be best gathered from the evidence. The first witness called was Amelia Foulser, niece of the deceased, who had resided with him in the capacity of housekeeper for eighteen mouths. She stated that the deceased had been very strange in his mind for the last four or five months, and occasionally very low spirited. On Tuesday morning he left home as usual between five and six o’clock to go to his work, but did not return in the evening. She instituted a search for him without success, and his body was brought home on Wednesday evening.

Mr. Francis Castle, yeoman, of Petham, deposed that, in consequence of the deceased not having returned home as usual he, along with others, went in search of him. Between five and six o'clock on Wednesday afternoon he found the body of the deceased suspended from a piece of birch by means of a leather strap. He was quite dead, and appeared to have been so for several hours.

Mr. Thomas Gambrill, yeoman, of Petham, corroborated the evidence of Mr. Castle, and added that he cut down the body and assisted in carrying it home.

It appeared that the straps by means of which the deceased was suspended were his own property, having been in the habit of wearing them round the bottoms of his trousers.

The jury after deliberating for a short time returned a verdict to the effect that the deceased had committed suicide during a fit of insanity.

 

From the Whitstable Times and Herne Bay Herald. 7 July 1894. Price 1d.

A COSTLY AFFAIR.

Valentine Wood was summoned for refusing to quit the “Chequers Inn,” Stone Street, Petham, when requested to do so. He was further summoned for assaulting the landlord and for doing damage to a door.

James Johnson Freud Wood, the landlord of the “Chequers Inn,” was charged on a cross summons with assaulting Valentine Wood.

Mr. R. M. Mercer, solicitor, appeared on behalf of the Licensed Victuallers' Association for Mr. James Wood, and Mr. H. Broughton appeared for Valentine Wood.

Mr. Mercer, in opening for the prosecution, said there were three summonses in the case, the first summons being for refusing to quit licensed premises, the second for assault, and the third for damage. The facts of the case were that the defendant, who was in the “Chequers Inn,” used insulting remarks to a man named Gambrill, and a man named French reproved defendant for his conduct. The defendant then commenced an assault upon French, and when the landlord came to his help he assaulted him too. They managed between them to put defendant out of the house, but he returned and struck the door with a stake, causing the panel to be broken. The landlord, who was frightened by defendant's behaviour, then fetched his gun. The landlord was afraid of the man and went in fear of his life.

James Wood, landlord of the “Chequers Inn,” deposed that on the 21st of June defendant came to his house. Witness was at the back of the house when defendant went in. When he went in the house defendant was in the bar. After witness had changed his clothes he went into the bar. A man named Gambrill came in soon afterwards. Witness heard defendant say, when Mr. Gambrill came in, “Hallo, here comes old Jesus Christ.” Mr. Gambrill told defendant be did not care what he called him, but be did think he might use better language. Defendant continued calling him by this name. A Mr. French, who was in the house, remonstrated with defendant, whereupon defendant asked him what it was to do with him. Mr. French said he was sorry to interfere with him, only he thought he ought not to use such language. Defendant thereupon hit French in the eye. Witness then told defendant to leave the house, which he refused to do. Witness then went into the tap-room to get some men to put him out, but when be returned be found French and defendant fighting. French was knocked against the bar and they both rolled over the forms in the room; French then got hold of defendant's shoulders and witness took hold of his legs and they put him outside on the bricks. When they put him down he got up and knocked French again several times. Witness, who was standing outside the door, let French in and closed the door and held on the handle outside. Defendant then rushed at him and said be would serve him the same. He then struck at him, but it did not touch him; he struck again and hit him in the eye. Witness then closed with defendant and they both rolled over by the fence. Witness got away and defendant then got up and went to his cart and said “I will knock your brains out with my whip.” He could not find his whip and so he pulled the stake (produced) out of the hedge and said be would kill witness. Witness then went indoors because his wife was afraid he would get hurt. Witness shut the door in defendant's face. Defendant then banged at the door with the stake and broke one of the panels. Witness went to the bar and got his gun and said “If defendant came in he should disable him.” Defendant came and looked in the window and went away. Defendant came back in an hour's time between seven and eight, with a man named Swan. Swan came in and asked to be served with beer to be taken away from the premises, but witness refused to serve him, because defendant was outside. A carriage pulled up outside at the time and witness had to go outside with a glass of ale. Defendant, who was outside at the time, said be would do for complainant. A constable named Kelway came by at the time and witness called him and told defendant that if he did not clear out in five minutes be should give him in charge. Defendant then went away. Witness said he had had trouble with defendant before and he was afraid of him.

By Mr. Broughton: He was having his tea when defendant came in, and the row with French caused him to leave his tea and see what was the matter. He did not know Gambrill was called by the nickname of “Jesus Christ” because of his opinions. French told defendant be ought not to call a man that name. French never said that if a man called him that name be would give him a job in the mouth. He did not know who struck the first blow. Wood pulled his coat off and threatened French. Witness asked defendant to leave twice. He did not knock defendant down. When the man left the house he gave up his gun.

By the Chairman:- Defendant was sober when he came in the house.

Thomas Gambrill, living at Doddington, deposed that he was at the “Chequers Inn,” Petham, when defendant came in and he called him by a nickname. Witness saw a disturbance after a short time. A man named French told defendant that if he had insulted him as he had witness he should have given him a job in the month. Defendant then asked witness if he felt insulted, but witness told him it was of no consequence. Then defendant began to quarrel with French. Witness told them it was a foolish thing to fall out with each other, as he (witness) did not feel insulted. Witness turned away and a minute afterwards he heard a blow and then followed a general scuffle. The landlord tried to clear the house, but did not succeed. Defendant then went into the tap room and French followed and struck defendant. When French saw he was getting the worst of it he got hold of the bellows and struck defendant. There were some further blows and the landlord got them out of the house. French then got in the house before the door was closed and defendant tried to follow, but the landlord tried to keep him out and blows were exchanged. Defendant afterwards got a stake from a fence and went to the window, but did not break it. Defendant afterwards smashed a panel of the door. Defendant went away a little while afterwards.

By Mr. Broughton:- The landlord asked both defendant and French to go away.

William Eldridge, living at Stone Street, deposed that he worked for the landlord of the “Chequer's Inn.” Witness then corroborated the landlord's evidence.

By Mr. Broughton:- He heard French say to defendant, “You think yourself a big strong man, but I don't care for that.” French struck defendant in the mouth. The landlord's wife persuaded the landlord to go indoors.

Mr. Broughton, in defence, contended that the landlord was wrong in asking only defendant to leave the house, as French was as much in the wrong as he was. Defendant was assaulted by French before he had time to comply with the landlord's request.

Defendant pleaded not guilty.

The Chairman said they had decided to convict in this case, of refusing to quit licensed premises, but would hear the other summonses before they adjudicated.

The charge of assault was then gone into, and the landlord deposed that he was struck in the right eye and on the right arm by defendant. Defendant did his best to damage him, and he (witness) did his best to escape him.

By Mr. Mercer:- He only struck defendant in self defence.

William Eldridge corroborated.

Mr. Broughton, in defence, contended that there was no assault at all committed. The defendant had a row with French, and afterwards the landlord called French to help him put defendant out of the house. He had a witness who would prove that the landlord kicked defendant in the ribs - an act which was most unjustifiable. Defendant had to come to Canterbury and go to the hospital, and he would call Mr. Elliman, house surgeon, who would tell them the state of defendant's injuries.

William Stockbridge, for the defence, deposed that he lived in Waltham pariah, and he heard on the 21st at the “Chequer's Inn” a row between Valentine Wood and Arthur French. He saw the landlord pummble Valentine Wood. When Wood got up he was covered with blood.

By Mr. Mercer: When the landlord was fighting with Valentine Wood he (witness) saw them from the window.

Valentine Wood and French were behaving badly for men in a public-house.

George Andrews, of Petham, corroborated.

By Mr. Mercer: He saw the two fighting, out of a window five rods away. A fence came in the way. He could not say whether Valentine Wood hit the landlord or not.

Charles Wood, aged 13, son of Valentine Wood, then gave an account of the assault by the landlord on his father.

The charge of damage was admitted by the defendants solicitor, who said that it was done in a moment of passion, and they were willing to pay for it. viz., 15s.

The cross-summons against the landlord was then gone into.

Valentine Wood deposed he had a row with French, and was struck by him twice, and he (witness) retaliated. A scuffle ensued, and the landlord came in and scuffled with them. French and the landlord then got witness down and dragged him outside. The landlord knocked witness down and hammered him on the face. He kicked witness in the left side.

By Mr. Mercer:- He had a disturbance with the landlord four years ago. He believed the landlord had a spite against him.

Mr. Arthur Charles Elliman deposed that on Tuesday, the 26th, Valentine Wood came to the hospital as an out patient. Witness examined him and found he had a bad black eye and several grazes. He had a bruise on the right elbow and on the back of the right arm. Near the spine he had a contusion.

The magistrates after hearing the evidence, immediately dismissed the case, and then gave their decision in the other cases as follows:- First summons, refusing to quit licensed premises; fined 1, and costs 1 5s. 6d. Second summons, of assaulting the landlord; fined 1, and costs 13s. Third summons, for damage; fined 5s., costs 8s. and damage 15s.; the whole amounting to the grand total of 5 6s. 6d.

The money was paid.

 

The What Pub website suggests that the building we see today was erected in 1898, so it is obviously not the original one with that name.

As the information is found or sent to me, including photographs, it will be shown here.

Thanks for your co-operation.

 

LICENSEE LIST

FRIEND James 1851-Jan/1865 (age 66 in 1861Census)

PEGDEN Walter Jan/1865-71+ (age 44 in 1871Census)

PEGDEN Walter 1874+

NEWPORT John 1881+ (age 36 in 1881Census)

WOOD James Johnson Freud 1894-1911+ (also farmer age 56 in 1911Census) Whitstable Times

BOURNE George 1938+

???? Else & Vic (unknown date)

http://pubshistory.com/Chequers.shtml

 

Whitstable TimesWhitstable Times and Herne Bay Herald

CensusCensus

 

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

TOP Valid CSS Valid XTHML