From the Kentish Gazette, 12 January, 1810.

TO BE LET, And entered upon at Michaelmas, 1810, With or without the following Land, or any part thereof.

THE "BULL INN," at Dartford, in Kent, one of the prettiest thoroughfares in England, and about 50 Acres of Land, of which 40 or thereabouts are Marsh Land, and the remainder Arable, situate in the parish of Dartford. Further particulars may be had of Mr, Williams, No. 50, Frith-street, Soho, London, or Messrs. Williams and Walker, at Dartford.

From the Kentish Gazette, 27 July 1810.

BULL INN, DARTFORD.

JOHN ESSENHIGH, BEGS leave to inform the Nobility, Gentry, and Public in general, travelling the Kent Road, (also the Friends of Mr. Warton,) that he has taken the above Inn, Mr. Wm. Lease expiring at Michaelmas next, and intends conducting it on the same principles which Mr. Warton has done for so many years; and hopes, by assiduity and strict attention, to merit their patronage and support.

Various reports having been circulated respecting the "Bull Inn" being shut from the Public as a Post House, J. Essenhigh begs to assure his Friends and the Public in general that he intends to continue the Posting as usual.

NEAT POST CHAISE AND ABLE HORSES.

Kentish Gazette, 16 March 1852.

Dartford.

An interesting ploughing match came off on Wednesday, in a field belonging to R. Wilkes, Esq., adjoining Dartford-brent, between two sporting landlords of Dartford, viz. Mr. John Smith, of the "Marquis of Granby Inn," and Mr. James Townsend, of the "Bull Inn tap," for half a sovereign aside and a supper to plough for the straightest furrow. The work was excellently performed. The umpires were unable to decide, when an old and experienced farmer, Mr. Lucas, a stranger to both parties, was passing, and was called in; his decision was that Mr. Smith's was the smoothest work, and Mr. Townsend's the straightest furrow; the latter was consequently declared the winner.

Southeastern Gazette, 16 August 1853.

Charles Crane and Benjamin Hollands, of Dartford, were charged before James ’Espinasse, Esq. (at the rising of the County Court, held at the Town-hall, on Monday), with stealing several trusses of hay, belonging to Mr. Rowley Edward Potter, the proprietor of the "Victoria Hotel," Dartford.

The prisoner Crane’s premises adjoin the stabling of Mr. Potter, who has missed a considerable quantity of fodder lately, and Mr. Pearce, a blacksmith residing in a house in Lowfield-street, which overlooks the prisoner Crane’s premises, seeing him removing some straw early on Sunday morning last, mentioned the fact to Mr. Potter, who immediately gave instructions to the police upon the subject, and Superintending-constable Thatcher, assisted by police-constable White, succeeding in apprehending the prisoners, which has resulted in their committal for trial. A young man named Wm. Streatfield was also apprehended on the charge, but there being no evidence against him he was discharged. The following evidence was adduced before the committing magistrate.

Wm. Charles Pearce, of Dartford, blacksmith, deposed:- I live in a house adjoining the premises of the "Bull Inn," in Dartford, belonging to Mr. Potter. On Sunday morning, the 7th August, at about five o’clock, I was looking from the window of one of the back rooms in my house. I saw the prisoner Crane remove a truss of straw from the back part of a shed on my premises; he took it down the yard towards a stable in his occupation. He came back from the direction of his stable to the back of my shed; he then took a truss of fodder in the same direction, and came a second and third time and did the same. The prisoner occupies the adjoining premises to me, and keeps a horse and cart and sells bavins.

Frederick John Thatcher, inspector of the Dartford police, went to the house of the prisoner with Mr. Potter, told the prisoner Mr. Potter had lost some hay, and asked him to let them look in his stable, to which prisoner replied "Yes, you may look in welcome, I know of no fodder being there, for I have not carried any in nor have I been in the stable for a week or ten days." In the stable witness found six trusses of hay and two of straw piled one on the other. Prisoner said he did not know how it came there, and denied putting it there. Some hay was scattered about the prisoner’s garden, and under a window of Mr. Potter’s stable, which abuts on the garden.

William Barnes, ostler to Mr. Potter, identified the property.

Charles White, police-constable, Dartford, deposed that at about one o’clock that afternoon he apprehended William Hollands, the other prisoner, in a field in the occupation of Mr. Parkhurst, where he was at work. Witness told him he took him into custody on a charge of stealing some hay and straw, the property of Mr. Potter, and selling it to Mr. Crane. He said the prisoner Crane has asked him several times to get him some hay and straw, and last Sunday morning he got him four trusses of hay and a truss of straw; that no one carried it from the stable but himself; that he put it out of the window and some man received it, and at about eight o’clock he received 5s. of Crane for getting the hay and straw.

The prisoner Crane denied asking the other prisoner to get any. Hollands, it appears, was in the habit of carting, the hay and straw to Mr. Potter’s from Mr. Parkhurst’s, of whom the hay and straw was bought, and the stable containing it was never locked.

They were both committed for trial.

Crane made application to be liberated on bail, which was refused.

South Eastern Gazette, 18 September, 1860.

DARTFORD. County Court.

This court was held on Monday, before James Espinasse, Esq., Judge. There were 108 causes entered for hearing, 3 of which were adjourned causes, and 17 unsatisfied judgments. Several of the cases were, however, struck out or settled before the court sat, and the remainder were chiefly for very small amounts. The only one possessing any features of interest was that of Hendon v. Bray, the plaintiff being the landlord of the "One Bell," and the defendant proprietor of the "Bull Hotel." The action was brought to recover damages which plaintiff alleged had been sustained by a carriage belonging to him, in consequence of one of the defendant’s servants negligently driving against it whilst standing at the station. It was expected that a question as to the right of the plaintiff to place his vehicle in front of the station would have been raised, but as the plaintiffs witness said that Mr. Bray’s man purposely drove against his carriage, and committed the damage in question, namely the breaking of one of the wheels, his Honour stopped the case, holding that though an employer was liable for any damage committed through the negligence of his servant, that was not the case where the damage was wilfully done. The plaintiff was therefore non-suited, the expenses of several witnesses subpoenaed by the defendant being allowed.