Above photo, date unknown, showing the pub extreme left. Kindly sent by Nigel Humphrey.

From the Maidstone and Kent Journal, 18 April, 1868.

ASSAULT ON A PUBLICAN.

At the Petty Sessions on Tuesday, George Clark, Stephen Lawrence, and Maria Francis were charged with unlawfully assaulting Mr. Henry William Piper, landlord of the "Railway Arms," Tonbridge, on the 7th inst. Clark did not appear, Francis pleaded guilty, and Lawrence not guilty. The complainant stated that on Tuesday last about twenty-five minutes to eleven he heard some one scuffling in the passage of his house and went to see what was the matter. He found the two prisoners with several others pulling one of his servants along the passage by the hair of his head. Complainant told them not to kill the man, when the two defendants left the servant and commenced an attack on complainant himself. He was knocked down and Lawrence kicked him in the face; the woman kicked him on the fore-head leaving the scar he then had. With being kicked by the woman he became insensible, and did not recollect what took place afterwards. Thomas Williams deposed that he was the person whom the defendants had dragged along the passage by his hair. When in the passage complainant came to his assistance and then defendants assaulted him in the manner he described. The woman Francis owned she had struck complainant, but alleged it was in consequence of his having first struck Lawrence. Lawrence pleaded he had been first struck by complainant, and called a witness to prove his statement. The Bench were of opinion a very serious assault had been committed, and fined defendants 21s. each, including costs.

From the Maidstone Journal and Kentish Advertiser, 24 September, 1870.

ADJOURNED LICENSING DAY.

The Petty Sessions were held on Tuesday before C. Powell, Esq., (in the Chair), A. Pott, Esq., Major Scones, Sir David Solomons, Bart., M.P. and J. G. Talbot, Esq., M.P.

Mr. John Blackford, of the "Railway Arms, " beerhouse, applied for a certificate to sell beer there.

The bench granted the certificate.

From the Maidstone and Kentish Journal, 3 October, 1895.

THE OVERCROWDING CASE AT TONBRIDGE.

At the Tonbridge Police Court, on Tuesday, before a full Bench of magistrates, with J. G. Talbot, Esq., M.P, in the chair, Henry Joiner, landlord of the "Railway Tavern" beerhouse, High street, was summoned for that he being the keeper of a common lodging house, did, on the 21st September, receive a greater number of lodgers than fixed in his licence, granted by the Tonbridge Urban District Council; and he was further summoned for permitting or suffering persons of opposite sexes, not being man and wife or children under eight years of age, to sleep in the same room, on the 21st September.

Mr A. H. Neve, jun., clerk to the Tonbridge Urban District Council, appeared in support of the prosecution, and Mr K. E. Robb, solicitor of Tunbridge Wells, appeared for Jenner, who, however, under the advice of his Advocate, pleaded guilty to both charges.

Mr Neve explained that the defendant was the registered proprietor of a common lodging house in High-street, Tonbridge, which was also a beerhouse. According to his licence he could receive 16 lodgers, 8 of whom were to be accommodated in room No. 1. 2 in room No. 2. 4 in room No. 4, and 2 in room No. 5. and each of these rooms, were entitled for males only with the exception of room No. 1 in which four married couples were allowed. But on the morning in question between 12 and one o'clock, on the Sanitary Inspector of the Council making a visit, the defendant's house was found to be grossly overcrowded. In room No. 1 it was true there was not much the matter, but in room No. 2 were found an unmarried man and woman and a girl sleeping in one bed, whilst on the staircase landing there were men and woman lying asleep. It was in the kitchen which was not licensed at all where the most disgraceful state of things existed, for here the Inspector found no less than 28 persons lying about in various positions — some on forms, others on the floor and some on the tables. Two men were actually lying in their own filth and altogether 51 lodgers were found in the defendant's house, whereas the place was only registered to accommodate 15.

Mr Bradley, the sanitary inspector, deposed to visiting the defendant's common lodging house in company with P.S. Pritchard on the morning of the 21st September, and finding the stale of things as described by Mr Neve.

In reply to Mr. J. F. W. Deacon, Mr Bradley said several of the lodgers seemed to be under the influence of liquor.

Mr. Robb objected to the latter question, but the Chairman remarked that a man who kept a house licensed to sell intoxicating drinks had no right, whether a lodging-house keeper or not, to allow persons in a state of intoxication to remain upon his premises.

Mr Robb, for the defence, remarked that the facts were not disputed, and he had advised his client to plead guilty. The case was undoubtedly a bad one, but there were circumstances which showed that the defendant was not a free agent in what he did, and that in allowing all these persons to remain in his house he did so more out of compassion for them, and to prevent them getting into trouble outside, than for the sake of gaining any profits. Technically speaking all these 51 persons were lodgers, but the extra ones above the 16 for which defendant was registered were not lodgers in the strict sense of the word, as they did not pay the defendant for the accommodation they received. They entered the house late at night, said they could not get lodgings elsewhere, and had applied to the police station for accommodation, but had been refused. Had defendant turned these people outside they would have got into trouble for sleeping out of doors, and so he allowed them to remain, but did not pretend to sleep them, and never charged a single penny for the lodgers. The defendant was now under notice to leave the premises. He (Mr. Robb) urged the magistrates to take into consideration all the circumstances, and deal with the defendant as leniently as possible.

Some questions were asked by Mr. Deacon, and Mr. Robb respectfully submitted that any question of matters coming under the Licensing Act was irrelevant to the point now at issue.

The Chairman added he agreed with Mr. Robb, but the magistrates simply wished to learn whether Jenner was the man who had been cautioned as to the conduct of this house. The Chairman said the bench considered this case one of the most disgraceful of the kind that had ever been brought before the Court. Whether the defendant really believed when he admitted those people that there was no accommodation at the other lodging houses the magistrates could not say, but it was clear that he allowed his house to be used in a most disgusting manner, and defendant would be fined £2 in each case, and 9s costs, or £4 18s in all; failing distress defendant would have to go to gaol for two months. Addressing Mr. Neve, the Chairman said the Bench very much hoped that the public Inspectors, appointed under the Urban District Council, would do all they could to inspect these places from time to time, and not in future leave matters until they had grown to the height as this case seemed to have done.

Mr. Neve, replying said Mr. Bradley had only been appointed inspector a short time, but he had made inspections of these common lodging houses several times, and it was believed that Mr. Mitchell, the previous inspector, also made several inspections.

Addressing Supt. Bartlett, the Chairman said the Bench also thought it desirable that the police should give special attention to these houses, and see that the terms of the licenses were not transgressed.

Supt. Bartlett promised that this should be done, and remarked that the new tenant of the "Railway Tavern" intended to do away with the common lodging house.

Jenner paid the penalty.