Above photo, date unknown, kindly sent by Ray Newman.

Above photo, circa 1897, kindly sent by Rory Kehoe.

Above postcard circa 1999, kindly supplied by Rory Kehoe.

Above photo 2012 by N Chadwick Creative Commons Licence.

Above photo circa 2017.

Above photo 2018 kindly taken by Karen & Barry Holt.

Above sign 1974.

With thanks from Roger Pester www.innsignsociety.com.

Above sign left 2014, sign right, 2015.

Above photo January 2021, kindly taken and sent by Jamie Goatman.

Kentish Weekly Post or Canterbury Journal 13 May 1828.

MIRACULOUS ESCAPE.

On Saturday afternoon, a little girl named Lurcock, about three years old, met with an accident which nearly proved fatal to her. She fell into a dry well, near the "Black Horse," Thurnham, sixty five feet deep, at the bottom of which (the well having laid open for some years) was a great number of stones and large lumps of chalk. Two young men (sailors) promptly descended by means of a rope, and brought up the child seriously hurt, but not dead, as had been fully anticipated. Mr. Allen surgeon, of Hollingbourn, was immediately sent for, and he found that the child had sustained a concussion of the brain, and some injury in the body; but we are happy to learn that she is in a fair way of recovery.

Maidstone Journal and Kentish Advertiser, Monday 20 March 1871.

KENT SPRING ASSIZE.

The Business of the Assizes commenced on Tuesday morning, Mr. Justice Hannen presiding in the Crown Court, where the following gentlemen was sworn on the grand jury. Sir G. F. Hampton, Bart. (forman). Sir William Young Yardley, Bart. R. Rodger. Esq. W. C. Moreland, Esq. C. Whitehead, Esq. A. C. Ramsden, Esq. J. R. Ward. Esq. M. G. Best, Esq. H. G. W. Sperling Esq. A. Beattie, Esq. J. L. Wildman-Lushington, Esq. J. Stone, Esq. J. W. Stratford, Esq. J. J. Ellis, Esq. H. B. Walker, Esq. W. H. Tylden Pattenson, Esq.

The proclamation of Her Majesty against vice and immorality having been read, His Lordship proceeded to deliver the charge.

He had he said he was not sufficiently acquainted with the criminal business of the County to say whether or not the number of cases in the calendar exceeding the average, but he thought, looking at the extent of the County, and its population, that it was scarcely up to average.

There was a case of Murder, to which he wished to direct the attention of the Grand Jury. It was number 4 in the calendar, in which a prisoner name Sellen was charged with a crime at Thurnham. It appeared to be a case arising out of a quarrel which took place between the deceased man and the prisoner, at a public house, where they were together. In the first instance the deceased man was the provoker of the quarrel, but afterwards the dispute was renewed, and the prisoner used a knife to stab the deceased man in the body, and he died very shortly afterwards of the wound. The only question which would arise was as to the character of the act. That it was done by the prisoner there could be no doubt on the evidence; but it would depend on the character of the provocation giving whether it should be regarded as sufficiently recent to reduce the crime to manslaughter. That was probably the matter of which they would not enter upon, but would leave it to the jury who would try the case.

London Evening Standard, Friday 17 March 1871.

SPRING ASSIZES. Home circuit.

Maidstone, March 16, before Mr. Justice Hannan.

Murder.

James Sullen, 31, labourer, was charged upon and indictment, and also by the coroner's inquisition, with a wilful murder of Peter Smith.

Mr. Byron and the Hon. Mr. Stanhope conducted the prosecution. The prisoner was defended by Mr. Ribton, and Mr. Walter Ballatine.

A good many witnesses were examined in support of the prosecution in this case, but the facts lay in a small compass.

It appeared that on the night of the 4th of September the deceased and several others labouring men were at the "Black Horse" public house, at a village called Thurnham, near Hollingbourne, when the prisoner came in, and they all remained in the taproom drinking together until about 9 o'clock, when they adjourned to the skittle ground, and the deceased and one of the party played at skittles. During the play the prisoner appeared to have chaffed the deceased in reference to his play, and the latter, who was, no doubt, a good deal irritated at the remarks of the prisoner, challenge him to play with him, and he refused to do so. The parties remained for some time in the ground, the prisoner and the deceased still continuing to wrangle and quarrel and eventually the whole of the party returned to the taproom. The prisoner and the deceased kept up their dispute and till 12 o'clock at night, when the house was closed, and they all left. When they got outside, it appeared that the deceased struck the prisoner a blow in the face, and challenged him to fight; but he said he did not want to do so, and they shook hands, and all the party proceeded homeward, the prisoner being about 30 yards ahead of the deceased and the others. When he had gone a short distance it appeared that the prisoner was heard to call out "Here I am, if anybody wants anything of me; here I am on the High Road." The deceased seemed to have accepted this as a challenge to fight, and he immediately went up to the place where the prisoner was standing, and directly afterwards the deceased called out that he was stabbed. Upon some of the other men going to the spot, they found the deceased lying on the ground, and the prisoner standing close to him with the deceased's jacket in his hand. Upon deceased being picked up, it was discovered that he had received a desperate wound in the stomach, two inches and a half in length, from which the bowels protruded. The prisoner appeared to have, in the first instance, denied that he was the man who had wounded the deceased, but he subsequently admitted that he had done so, but not till the deceased and struck him, and he added that he hoped the deceased would not die, as then he should only get 10 years instead of being hanged. The deposition of the deceased was taken in the presence of the prisoner immediately after the occurrence, and it was to the effect above stated, with the addition that the moment he came up to the prisoner and was in the act of taking off his jacket to fight him with the prisoner stabbed him, and in answer to a question put by the prisoner, as to whether he had not first knocked him down he positively denied having done so. A penknife, which was identified as having belong to the prisoner, and with which there was no doubt the desperate act has been committed, was picked up close to the spot where the final occurrence took place. The evidence established that both prisoner and deceased were the worst all liquor at the time.
Mr. Ribton made an able address to the jury on behalf of the prisoner, and, while admitting that it was impossible to dispute the fact that the deceased met his death at the hand of the prisoner, he contended that under the circumstances the offence did not amount to the serious crime of wilful murder, particularly having regard to the provocation the prisoner had received from the deceased.

Mr. Justice Hannan summed up the case very carefully, observing that there was this point undoubtedly in favour of the prisoner, that he had not gone in search of the weapon, but had it in his possession at the time the deceased went up to him, and he then pointed out to the jury that distinction in the eyes of the law between the offences of manslaughter and murder.

The Jury after a very short deliberation found the prisoner guilty of manslaughter, and he was sentenced to be kept in penal servitude for 15 years.

Maidstone Journal and Kentish Advertiser 09 March 1899.

BEARSTED POLICE COURT.

ALLEGATIONS AGAINST A PUBLICAN.

Ernest Wade, landlord of the "Black Horse Inn," Thurnham, summoned for being drunk and disorderly, at Bearsted, on the 23rd Feb.

Mr. A. J. Ellis appeared for the defence.

Corpl. Fowler deposed to seeing the defendant about 9.55 on the evening of the date named, near the "White Horse Inn," drunk and using very obscene language. He was molesting another man, who had same difficulty in getting away from his company. After much persuasion the defendant went towards his home. He had been ejected from the "White Horse."

P.C. Hughes said he saw the defendant enter his house drunk. Addressing the Bench, Mr Ellis commented on the absence of independent corroborative evidence. He called the defendant, who said on the date named as he was returning home from Maidstone he called at the "White Horse," Bearsted, from which house he denied the allegation that he had been ejected. Outside the house he met a man with whom he conversed about private affairs. The conversation became rather heated, but he denied using bad language.

Frank Telford manager of the "Black Horse," said when the defendant arrived home he was perfectly sober.

The Bench after a short consultation, decided to dismiss the case, although they had grave doubts as to the defendant's condition. They considered that the evidence had not been sufficiently placed before them by the police.