DOVER KENT ARCHIVES

Page Updated:- Sunday, 26 February, 2023.

PUB LIST PUBLIC HOUSES Paul Skelton

Earliest 1871-

(Name from?)

Wheatsheaf Inn

Open 2023

(Name to)

11 Warden Road / Mud Row

Eastchurch

01795 881768

https://whatpub.com/wheatsheaf

Wheatsheaf 1920s

Above photo, circa mid to late 1920s. Kindly sent by Rory Kehoe.

Wheatsheaf Inn

Above postcard, date unknown.

Walter Fagg and family 1949

Above photo 1949, showing Walter William and Mabel Fagg and family, kindly sent by Barry Fagg (son).

Wheatsheaf 2009

Above Google image, May 2009.

Walnut Tree 2019

Above photo 2019.

Wheatsheaf 2023

Above photo, 2023, kindly sent by Victoria Marfleet.

Wheatsheaf Inn sign 2009

Above sign May 2009.

 

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

Thanks for your co-operation.

I am informed by Victoria Marfleet that the pub was renovated some time before May 2018 and when opened that month the right hand side looking at pub continued to operate under the name of the "Wheatsheaf Inn," and the other side opened as the "Walnut Tree."
 

Kentish Gazette, 21 March1876.

NISI PRIUS COURT - MONDAY

ASSAULT BY A FARMER AT EASTCHURCH.

HOLDEN & WIFE v. KING.

This was an action for damages for injuries sustained by the plaintiff and his wife, in assaults upon them by the defendant, who pleaded "not guilty," and also that he had been summoned, fined and imprisoned for the assault in question. Mr. Gates, Q.C., with Mr. Glyn were for the plaintiff, and Mr. Winch for the defendant.

Mr. Gates, in opening the case, said the plaintiff and his wife were labouring people, and the defendant was a small farmer; and the action was for damages inflicted by King upon Holden and his wife, on the 10th July last. On that day plaintiff and his wife were in a public-house called the "Wheatsheaf Inn," at Eastchurch. The plaintiff was in the tap-room, while his wife went into the bar to sell some vegetables. The defendant was standing in the bar, and when he saw Mrs. Holden, he took a lettuce from her basket, pulled it to pieces and either threw it into her face or upon the floor. He did the same with a second lettuce, and the woman's husband then came forward and asked King what he was about. The defendant said, "What, do these belong to you? and his reply was "Yes."

In reply King struck Holden under the chin, and then felled him to the ground with a blow on the head, rendering him senseless. Mrs. Holden interfered in her husband's behalf, when without any provocation being given, defendant struck her a second blow, the effect of which was to break her jaw. A short time after that defendant was summoned before the magistrates for a common assault; and the matter having been investigated, he was fined 40s, for assaulting the man, and 5 for striking the woman, the justices indicting also in the latter case, a sentence of two weeks' hard labour. But the injuries inflicted upon the plaintiff's especially upon the woman, were a great deal more severe than could arise from any common assault, and the action was therefore taken to recover damages, to meet the expenses connected with the illness, and also for loss of service. The woman formerly kept her husband's house and also contributed by her daily earnings to the support of the family, but in consequence of this occurrence she was unable to do her usual work for 7 weeks; it was necessary to obtain her additional nourishment and a woman was employed to do the household work.

Mr. Winch said the facts related by his friends were exactly the same as were stated before the magistrates, and he admitted that the plaintiffs were proceeding in a casein which they had already taken criminal proceedings; although by those proceedings the defendant had been released from any further action that might be taken either in a civil or criminal court.

Mr. Gates contended that the fact of the magistrates having adjudicated in the case of the common assault did not prevent them proceeding for unlawful wounding. They were not to be stopped proceeding civilly because they have vindicated the law to the extent of a common assault.

In the result the case was allowed to go to the jury, who after a short consultation, returned a verdict for the plaintiff, assessing the damages at ten guineas for the injuries sustained by the woman, and five guineas to the man for the loss of his wife's services.

The learned Judge remarked that notwithstanding the verdict of the jury, he was of opinion that he must give judgement for the defendant. He considered that the case as now stated was for the same as that tried before the magistrates. He thought the proper wayto deal with the case would be to give judgement for the defendant, with leave to move to enter for the plaintiff for the sums of ten and five guineas, or for either of those amounts.

 

 

LICENSEE LIST

Last pub licensee had HUGHES John/James 1871-81+ (also grocer age 51 in 1871Census)

HALSEY George 1891-1903+ (age 72 in 1901Census) Kelly's 1903

BROAD George Thomas 1911-22+ (age 46 in 1911Census)

HAWKINS Arthur 1930+

SUTTON Henry William 1936 Next pub licensee had

FAGG Walter William 1942-48 Next pub licensee had

???? Dave & Sheila 2009+

https://pubwiki.co.uk/Wheatsheaf.shtml

 

Kelly's 1903From the Kelly's Directory 1903

 

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