Kentish Gazette, Saturday 15 February 1783.

“Notice - The Creditors of John Marshall, late of the Parish of Waltham, deceased, are desired to attend, with the Account of their several Demands, on Tuesday the 18th Day of February, 1783, by Eleven o'Clock in the Forenoon, at the House of Thomas Cassell, called the "Five Bells," at Brabourn, in Kent, in order to receive such Composition [sic] as may arise from his Estate and Effects.

And all persons, refusing or neglecting to attend, will be excluded all Benefit of the Composition [sic].”

Kent Gazette Reports 3 September 1805.

To be SOLD by AUCTION,

AT THE FIVE BELLS, BRABOURNE,

ON Monday next, the 9th day of September, instant, at eleven o’clock, in the forenoon, (unless previously disposed of by private sale,)

All that Messuage or Tenement, with the stables, buildings, garden and four acres of very rich meadow land, be there more or less, to the same belonging, with their appurtenances, in the parish of Brabourne, in the county of Kent, and now in the occupation of Stephen Ratcliffe.

N. B. — The house is very advantageously situated for trade, near the new barracks on Brabourne Leese, and possession will be given at Michaelmas next.

For particulars apply to Mr. Starr, attorney, Canterbury.

From the Kentish Gazette, 12 December 1837.

TO BE SOLD BY AUCTION, Without Reserve, BY T FRIEND.

AT the "Five Bells," BRABORNE, on THURSDAY, the 21st day of December, 1837, subject to such conditions as will be then and there produced.

All that MESSUAGE or TENEMENT, and Three Acres of pasture LAND, more or less, situate, lying, and being in the parish of Postling, in the county of Kent, with two cow leezes, or right of pasturage for two cows on a certain common called Postling Leese, now in the occupation of the Widow Philpott.

Further particulars may be known on application (if by letter, post paid), to Mr. O. Andrews, Braborne; or at the Office of Mr. DeLasaux, solicitor, Canterbury.

Kentish Gazette, 4 July 1854.

ASHFORD PETTY SESSIONS.

George Andrews and William Fox a charge of assault.

The parties in this case reside at Brabourne, the complainant being a farmer there, while the defendant is the landlord of the "Five Bell's" and, so far as we could learn rather a disputatious character. On the 29th ult., there was a sale at Mrs. Pursehouse's, and complainant bought a lot of china, defendant buying another lot but of different pattern and colour. Defendant in packing up the lot he had purchased was about to include in it a jug and another article belonging to complainant, who spoke to him about it, as did other persons in the room. Defendant said he should take them home, and as his house was not far off, complainant could fetch what belonged to him. To this complainant demurred, saying there was no occasion as he could take them then. Upon this defendant became very fightable and abusive, and struck complainant twice in the face. The complainant’s evidence to this effect was fully borne out by two most respectable witnesses. The defendant said complainant struck him in the breast, and he being highly exasperated thereat, drew his hand across complainant's face. He was fined £5., and directed to be kept in custody until he should pay the money.

South Eastern Gazette, 23 October, 1860.

House Stealing at Brabourne.

Sidney Hammond and Edward Gimber were indicted for stealing a grey horse, value £3, the property of George Taylor, at Brabourne, on the 10th ult. Mr. Russell prosecuted, Mr. Biron defended Hammond, and Mr. Addison was for Gimber.

The prosecutor, a carrier, deposed that he lived at Brabourne. On the 10th Sept. he was riding a brown bone, and one of the prisoners came op. They said they had a horse which they thought would suit him - a grey mare. Hammond proposed to chop, and said be would give prosecutor £1 besides. They put his (prosecutor’s) horse in their van, and he rode off with the grey to a public house. He tied it up at the door, and they all went into the tap-room and had some beer. Hammond then gave him the £1. After several hours the prisoners left the house, and shortly afterwards prosecutor found that the grey mare was gone, and the brown horse was in its place. The following day he went with a constable in search of the grey mare, and found it loose in the parish of Lympne.

By Mr. Addison:— Whilst they were drinking he went out to look at another brown horse which the prisoners showed him. He did not agree to change it for the grey one.

Mary Lilley, landlady of the "Five Bells" at Brabourne proved that the prosecutor and prisoners were at her house on the day in question, and that she saw Gimber's wife with the grey mare.

Thos. Lilley said he saw Gimber’s wife feeding the grey mare.

Mr. Addison addressed the jury, and was about to call evidence on behalf of his client, when the court stopped the case.

The same prisoners were also indicted for having stolen 18s., a money bag, and a knife, the property of the same prosecutor, George Taylor, at Brabourne, on the 10th September. This case arose out of the last and the evidence was very similar. It appeared that the prosecutor got drunk, and he alleged that the money &c. were taken out of his pocket. Before the case was finished the court discharged Gimber, and the jury ultimately acquitted Hammond.

South Eastern Gazette – Tues 10 Feb 1863.

“Transfer of Licences – the License of the "Five Bells," Brabourne, was transferred from from Mr Gutteridge to Mr C Alexander”.

Kentish Gazette, Tuesday 7 February 1865.

Public House Offences.

Edward Rock, landlord of the "Five Bells," Braboume, was summoned for knowingly allowing gaming in his house on the night of Dec. 31st. The gaming consisted in a party of the Brabourne ringers, having a game of cards together, previous to ringing the old year out and the new one in. P.C. Edward Butcher happened to be listening outside the house, and heard what was going on.

Rook was further charged with being drunk and riotous on January 14th. It seemed he found the policeman Butcher watching outside his house that night, and quarrelled with him for being constantly there; but it did not appear that he was the worse for liquor.

The Bench dealt with both cases together, and fined the defendant 20s., including costs.