35A (37) High Street
Chatham
Above Google image, June 2017. |
In 1872 the premises was operating under a Full license and was owned by
Edward Winch of Chatham.
Up to and including 1874 the address was given as number 49.
From the West Kent Guardian, Saturday 12 February, 1842.
FRIDAY. (Before the County Magistrates.)
FURTHER PROSECUTION OF LICENSED VICTUALLERS AT CHATHAM.
Yesterday week a full bench of magistrates assembled at the office
of Messrs. Essell, Hayward, and Essell, College-green, Rochester.
The justices present were the Rev. George Davies, chairman, Wm.
Elers, Edward Twopenny, James Smith, Thomas Bently, Thomas Baker,
and William Master Smith, Esqs.
The Court was inconveniently crowded with publicans and others,
owing to information having been laid against five licensed
victuallers, at the instance of the Chatham, Rochester, and Strood
Auxiliaries to the London Society for the Protection of Young
Females, &c.
Several gentlemen were accommodated with seats on the bench; among
whom was the Rev. Mr. Formby, the Rev. Mr. Alcock, and others.
Mr. Child, of the firm of Wire and Child, solicitors, of London,
together with Mr. Richard Prall, solicitor, of Rochester, attended
on behalf of the publicans. No one appeared for the society.
On the first case being called on, Mr. Walter Hills was asked by Mr.
Hayward if he appeared to conduct the prosecution, who replied, "No,
he had nothing to do with it; but before the case was heard he
would, with permission of the magistrates, make some observations
which he thought were demanded, in reference to a case (similar to
those now about to engage the attention of the Bench) which they had
heard some days since; and as some of his observations might apply
particularly to Mr. Essell, he should be obliged by the attendance
of that gentleman.
Mr. Hayward said Mr. Essell was from home.
Mr. Hills said he regretted that, but it would only compel him to
forego all observations which could apply personally to Mr. Essell;
and, with regard to Mr. Essell professional proceedings on the
occasion referred to, as Mr, Hayward, his partner, was present, he
apprehended the absence of Mr Essell would occasion no difficulty.
The case to which he (Mr. Hills) referred was that of Henry Winter,
against whom three informations had been laid for acting contrary to
his licence, in keeping prostitutes. The case was heard in this
court on the 14th of January last, he and his brother were the
solicitors for the prosecution. The information charged the
defendant not only with having committed the offence then to be
enquired of, but also of having been convicted in 1839 of a like
offence, so as to double the punishment if found guilty under the
Act. Although there were three informations laid against the
defendant, he (Mr. Hills) was instructed that there was no intention
to proceed on more than should be sufficient to effect the object of
the prosecution, viz., to inflict one double penalty on the
defendant, and lay before the public the whole of the evidence they
had against him, and which induced them to come forward as the
prosecutors. This object they endeavoured to effect by the first
information, but were frustrated by the decision of the founded on
the opinion of Mr. Hayward, that having brought the evidence up to
the end of the day named in the information they were precluded from
giving further evidence. That opinion of Mr. Hayward was
subsequently acknowledged by Mr. Essell to be wrong, but not till
after the magistrates had, in consequence of it, decided against the
admission of further evidence. The subsequent admission of the error
in opinion on the part of Mr. Hayward, would induce him (Mr. Hills)
to abstain from any further reference to it, except to mention that
it laid the foundation for all the difficulty which had risen in the
case. Having been thus prevented in that case from bringing before
the public the whole of the evidence, as desired by the prosecutors,
he (Mr. Hills) was compelled to alter his course, and, instead of
pressing for a double penalty, as he had intended to do in that
case, and waive all further prosecution, he abstained from givivg
evidence of the former conviction of 1839, and only pressed for a
single penalty for a first offence, which the magistrates inflicted.
He (Mr. Hills) then brought forward another of the informations, and
the magistrates having, on Sir. Essell's admission of Mr. Hayward’s
error, allowed him to go into the whole evidence, he did so, and
having thus obtained that object of the prosecution, he stated his
intention to abstain in that, as in the former case, from giving any
evidence of the former conviction, so as to have a single penalty
only inflicted in this as in the former case — two single penalties
being equal to one double one. Thereupon the Rev. Mr. Davis, the
chairman, said the defendant was convicted; but the Bench having
retired (as was supposed) to consider of the punishment, he, on
their return, said the defendant was acquitted, and Mr. Essell would
inform them of the reason; whereupon Mr. Essell said the reason was,
that the prosecutors had not proved the former conviction of 1839,
as charged in the information. Now having had no opportunity at that
time of observing upon the reason thus assigned by Mr. Esssell, he
(Mr. Hills) was desirous to take the present one, and ventured to
say that it evidenced either an extraordinary mistake, or a gross
ignorance of the law on a point of very frequent occurrence.
Here the Magistrates said, they must prevent Mr. Hills from
proceeding further, as his observations had reference to a case
which had been decided on a former day; and not to the one then
before them.
Mr. Hills said, he trusted that as no opportunity had been afforded
at the time for discussing the point, he should not
now be refused it; and he had prepared himself with the best, proof
the nature of the case admitted, viz., Mr. Bodkin's opinion, to
prove how entirely wrong was the advice of Mr. Essell, on which the
Bench had acted.
Mr. Davies (as the chairman), said, he felt bound to stop the
further discussion.
Mr. Hills again begged, as a matter of personal favour to himself,
that he should be allowed to proceed, as it had been intimated to
him, that some misunderstanding existed as to the course he had
adopted in this matter, which he was very anxious to have an
opportunity of explaining particularly to the Bench.
Mr. Davies assured Mr. Hills, that he stood in no need of any
explanation; for he was sure that he could answer for every
magistrate on the Bench, that they were perfectly satisfied of the
correctness of the motives and views with which he had acted
throughout the proceedings; but he felt bound to stop the
discussion.
Mr. Hills could only repent his regret at being prevented from
proceeding further; but must bow to the decision of the Bench.
At our request, Mr. Hills has been kind enough to give us a copy of
the questions submitted to Mr. Bodkin, on the point alluded to, and
his opinion thereon is as follows:—
QUESTION.
"Whether the informer can or cannot, if he wishes it at the hearing,
narrow the charge laid in the information by waiving
the prior conviction of the 26th July, 1839, and have the defendant
convicted for the first offence under the Act, instead of a second
offence as laid in the information, or whether he must prove the
whole of the information, viz.; the present charge, and also the
previous conviction, to convict the defendant at all; or in other
words, whether if he proves the offence now charged, but declines to
prove the first conviction, the defendant must be acquitted
altogether?”
OPINION.
"I am of opinion, that although the complaint may aver a former
conviction, it is competent to the Justices to convict of a first
offence, if ‘no proof be adduced to their satisfaction, that the
party has been theretofore convicted.’ "
W. H. Bodkin.
The clerk read the first information, which was against Mr. George
Lucas, of the "Cross Keys," Chatham, setting forth that on the 22nd
January last he, being a person licensed under the act passed in the
ninth year of the reign of King George the Fourth, intituled "an act
to regulate the granting of licenses to keepers of inns, ale houses,
and victualling-houses in England," was, unlawfully, guilty of an
offence against the tenor of his license, by suffering divers
persons of notoriously bad character, to wit, common prostitutes, to
assemble and meet together in the said house, contrary to the form
of the statute.
Mr. Child said, that he had been instructed to appear before the
Bench on behalf of Mr. Lucas; and felt it to he his duty, to raise
his objections to the validity of the information which had just
been read, and which did not, upon the face of it, prove having been
laid before any justice of the peace; neither did the name of any
magistrate appear in the body of it.
Mr. Hayward : It is not required.
Mr. Child said, he differed in his opinion. The information ought to
have stated — "Before me, James Smith, one of Her Majesty's Justices
of the Peace, &c." The information did not even specify who is James
Smith. That gentleman might be magistrate or not. As solicitor for
the parties he felt it to be his duty to persist in his objection,
before his client was called upon to plead.
The Magistrates consulted together some time, and then retired.
After an absence of nearly half an hour, they re-entered; when the
Chairman stated to the solicitor for the defendant that the Court
required the authority for his objection.
Mr. Child said, that he was totally unprepared to quote any Law upon
the point; but for the information of the Court, he would mention
there was a regular form laid down, for the use of the Courts of
jurisdiction, in Archbold's justice of the peace, and which form is
generally adopted in all the police courts of London, for general
purposes. On the face of the record, which is laid under a penal
statute, it did not legally state that James Smith is a magistrate
of this county or any other; for aught he knew, Mr Smith might not
be a justice of the peace at all.
Mr. Hayward:- Although such a course is laid down for drawing out
informations by Archbold, still he does not insist that it is
absolutely necessary.
Mr. Child replied, that to prove that informations must bear the
name of the magistrate before whom it was exhibited, he would refer
the court to Burn’s Justice, where it is distinctly laid down that
informations must be drawn out in the legal way.
The court referred to several law books, and retired to consult. On
their re-entering, the chairman said to Mr. Child that the court
admitted his objection.
Mr. Child said, of course the objection applies to all the other
informations.
The Court:- Certainly. And the defendants were all accordingly
acquitted.
Mr. Child then made some observations to the Bench, relative to the
licensed victuallers of this neighbourhood. He had been called on by
that useful class of men to stand forward as their adviser on this
occasion; and his objection was not raised with any hostile feeling
towards the Bench, but with justice to the parties accused. In
ranking a few observations to the court, he would mention, that he
attended a large meeting of the publicans last evening, and he could
assure the magistrates that he found they were fully determined to
abide by the law which regulated the rules laid down for the
guidance of licensed victuallers. The court were fully aware, that
the licensed victuallers in the neighbourhood were very differently
situated to those of London. The locality of Chatham, with its
garrison, where a number of soldiers are constantly kept, made it a
difficult matter to a landlord of a public-house to know how to act
with such characters who frequent licensed houses, he would instance
a circumstance which occurred last evening at a public house. Two
soldiers and some women came into the house, and after calling for
some beer, one of the soldiers improperly put his arm round the
girl's neck and committed other irregularities in the presence of
the persons m the tap room. The landlord, if he had interfered with
the soldier, might have caused some degree of excitement, which
would have placed the landlord in a position of infringing on his
licence, and been subjected to a penalty. He could assure the Bench
that he was a perfect stranger to the towns but he must say that
when he left the meeting of the victuallers at half past 10 o’clock,
he was surprised to find the streets so very quiet.
Mr. Child then entered into a review of the conversation which he
had had with the publicans; adding that he had told them distinctly
of their improper conduct, and had pointed out to them their course
to adopt; and from what passed, they fully agreed to yield to the interpretation of the interpretation
which he had given, and which the bench had already put to them.
|
Maidstone Journal and Kentish Advertiser, Tuesday 6 September 1853.
Unprovoked Assault.
Thomas Lawford was charged with assaulting Thomas Holliday, landlord
of the "Cross Keys," at Chatham, on the 25th instant.
The defendant went into the plaintiffs house about half past 10
o'clock at night, and asked for some bread and cheese, with which he
was served, and immediately went and threw it on the tap room floor.
He then came back to the bar, and asked Mr. Holliday for his coat.
Mr. Holliday telling him he had not left it there, the defendant,
who was drunk, became very abusive, and still persisted in saying
that he had left it there, and forcing the bar door open, walked in,
and sat down, daring Mr. Holliday to turn him out, and after more
abuse he attempted to strike the plaintiff.
Fined 30s., and 15s. costs.
|
South Eastern Gazette, 27 December 1853.
Wednesday. (Before the Rev. G. Davies, J. Smith, Esq., W. H.
Nicholson, Esq., and Major Boys).
Charles Wiltshire, who was brought up on Monday, and committed for
trial for stealing goods belonging to Mr. Butler, at Chatham, was
again brought up on another case of felony.
Benjamin Ogden, a waiter at the "Cross Keys," Chatham, said the
prisoner lodged at his master’s house on Thursday night last,
sleeping in the same room with witness but not in the same bed. On
awaking next morning he found the prisoner was gone, and on looking
under the bed for his boots found they were gone too. Another
soldier also slept in the same room with one of the men belonging to
the house, but witness observed him go away in the morning, and was
sure he did not take the boots with him. They were afterwards found
pledged at Clift’s, the pawnbroker.
George Palmer deposed that the prisoner offered him the ticket for
the boots, which he wished witness to buy for 1s. 6d., but for which
he ultimately agreed to take 1s. 4d. The boots were pledged for 4s.
Mr. Blyth, the shopman at the pawnbroker’s where the boots were
sold, remembered receiving the boots in pledge at 9 o’clock on the
morning of their having been sold. He did not think the prisoner was
the man who pawned them, but could not identify the person as there
were so many customers in the shop at the time.
The prisoner, who reserved his defence, was committed on this charge
also.
|
From the Worcester Journal, Saturday 11 November 1854.
On Sunday morning, a respectably dressed young woman of Rochester
was discovered lying in some water, with her throat cat from ear to
ear. She appeared to have been dead for some hours, and was found
near to the sea wall of the river Medway. It was soon recognised to
be the youngest daughter of Mr. William Saunders, of the "Cross
Keys," Chatham. The deceased was very good looking, and about 20
years of age. Those persons who knew her state that she has been
unhappy for some time, owing to some family differences. She was
last seen alive on Saturday evening, when she left her father's
house in a rather hurried manner. An inquest was held on the body on
Monday, and in the absence of evidence throwing any light on the sad
affair, the enquiry was adjourned till Friday (this day.) One
account states that the deceased has been murdered, and another that
she has committed suicide.
|
South Eastern Gazette, 3 January, 1860.
Rochester Quarter Sessions.
The Epiphany Sessions for this city were held on Saturday last,
before J 'Espinsses, Esq., Recorder.
Benjamin Ogden, 30, labourer, and Elizabeth Cook, 23, single woman,
were indicted for stealing, on the 9th of December, at St.
Margaret's, £3 5s., and a piece of printed paper, the money and
goods of John Cook, from his person. Cook pleaded guilty. Mr.
Russell prosecuted, and Ogden was defended by Mr. Addison.
The prosecutor Cook, who did not appear, and who's recognises were
ordered to be entreated, is a sailor, and on coming ashore from a
merchant vessel at Chatham, was picked up by the female prisoner,
with whom he cohabitated several days. On the morning of the 9th
December the prosecutor was at the "Five Bells" public house with
the prisoner Cook. They were in the bar parlour together, when they
were joined by Ogden. After remaining about an hour the two
prisoners left, the prosecutor remained asleep in the room. On being
awakened by a waiter, named Drury, prosecutor complained that he had
been robbed of his money.
The prisoner Cook was called as a witness for the prosecution by Mr.
Russell, and she stated that she was at the "Five Bells" public
house on the morning of the robbery and found prosecutor and the
prisoner Ogden there. They all remained there about an hour,
drinking together. Cook had had £2 1s. 6d. with him, which she saw.
Ogden told her to take the money, and if she would not he would. She
did not see Ogden do anything to Cook. After Ogden had told her to
take the money, she put her hand into his pocket and took it out.
Ogden told her to keep one sovereign, to give the other sovereign to
"the master" and to give him (Ogden) 1s. 6d. She gave Ogden 1s. 6d.
Before he left the room she showed him the money she had taken. The
person meant by "the master" was Mr. Holliday, landlord of the
"Cross Keys," Chatham. They afterwards went to the "Cross Keys,"
where Cook came to them. A policeman came immediately after, and
then Cook charged them with having taken his money. She gave Mr.
Holiday one sovereign, as Ogden had told her.
Cross examined by Mr. Addison:- She first met Cook at the "Cross
Keys," where she lived with him. Ogden is not exactly a waiter
there, but fetches beer in some times. The 1s. 6d. she gave him was
not for anything Ogden had done for her.
Mr Addison addressed the jury at great length for the prisoners
Ogden. Cooks evidence, he contended, ought to be discarded, as it
was unsupported in any material points.
The jury, after a few minutes' deliberation, returned a verdict of
guilty against Ogden. A previous conviction for felony two years
ago, having been proved against him.
The Recorder sentenced him to two years' hard labour. The prisoner
Cook was sentenced to six months' hard labour.
|
Maidstone Telegraph, Rochester and Chatham Gazette, Saturday 7th July 1860.
Rochester and Chatham. Conviction of an officer for an assault on the police.
On Monday the magistrates at Chatham were engaged in a lengthened
investigation relative to a charge preferred against Charles Francis
Barry, an ensign belonging to the 1st West Indian Regiment at
Chatham, who was charged with being drunk, and assaulting
police-constable Haysmore, 187, one of the Chatham police.
It appear from the evidence of the police constable, which was
substantially born out by that of witnesses, that the defendant and
three other officers were drinking in the "Cross Keys" public house,
High Street, until between 1 and 2 on Sunday morning. During the
time they were there a disturbance had arisen between them and some
of the inmates, and on their going out into the street it was
resumed, the defendant, according to the statement of the police
constable, being about to take off his coat to fight with a bagman
who was there, the crowd groaning and hooting the officers. On the
police constable ordering the defendant away, the latter struck him
twice in the breast and pushed him, on which he was taken into
custody, though it required extra police constables be sent for to
take him to the station house.
The defendant denied the assault, and called the three officers who
were with him, all of whom positively denied the assault, although
they corroborated some portions of the complainants statement.
The magistrates, after Consulting together, convicted the defendant
and ordered him to pay a fine of £2, and £1 3s. costs.
The money was instantly paid.
|
South Eastern Gazette, 10 July, 1860.
COUNTY PETTY SESSIONS.
MONDAY. (Before the Mayor, Rev. J. J. Marsham, and J. Hulkes, Esq.)
Assault on the Police by an Officer.
Ensign Charles Francis Barry, 1st West India Regiment, who had been
admitted to bail, was charged with being drunk and assaulting
police-constable Hasemore, 187.
The defendant, before the hearing of the charge, was requested to
remove his sword, which he was wearing.
Police-constable Hasemore said he was on duty in High-street,
Chatham, between one and two on Sunday morning, when he heard a
great disturbance, and on hastening to that part of High-street,
near Hamond-place, found the defendant in the act of taking off his
coat to fight a civilian. Witness requested him to desist and go
away quietly, but defendant made answer that he should go when he
liked, and immediately struck witness two violent blows in the
breast, and afterwards pushed him. Complainant asked him if he was
aware who it was he was striking, when defendant replied that he
was, and that he would strike him again. Witness took him to the
station-house. Defendant was not in uniform.
Annie Macpherson said she was a spectator of the disturbance, but
saw no blows struck by the defendant. Saw him push the policeman on
the shoulder, and heard him tell the complainant to consider himself
under arrest [laughter]. It was when the police-constable was in
Watts's-place that she saw defendant push him. She first saw them at
Hamond-hill, where there was a great crowd.
Fanny Moore, Rome-lane, saw defendant push the policeman, but did
not observe any blows struck. Witness followed them to the
station-house, and defendant went quietly.
Walter Colvill, a bricklayer, saw defendant put up his fist and push
complainant away. On their way to the station-house the defendant,
when in Watts's-place, refused to go any further, and by direction
of the police-constable witness went to the station to obtain the
assistance of some more constables.
Defendant said be was at the "Cross Keys" public-house until
halfpast one on Sunday morning, and was leaving the house in company
with three other officers when the crowd outside began to hoot them.
At that moment the police-constable came up and caught him by the
collar, telling him he had better not make a disturbance but go
quietly to barracks. Defendant replied that he should not go, as he
was not making any row, and walked on towards Rochester, when
complainant followed him and insisted on his not going that way,
stating that he should either go to the barracks or the
station-house. He then took him into custody, but defendant did not
know what for.
Ensign James Johnson Twining, 35th Regt., said he was with the
defendant, and two other officers, at the "Cross Keys" public-house,
on Sunday morning, when, as they were coming out of the door, a
drunken man made soma offensive remarks to them. Words then passed,
and a great noise was made, on which the police-constable came up,
and putting his hand on the defendant said "Come along with me."
Witness could not recollect what he said, but was quite sure he did
not assault the policeman. Witness could not recollect everything.
By Police-constable Hasemore:— Defendant was sober. They were all
perfectly sober. Heard no cries of "Murder." The man at the door
took off his coat to fight one of them, but no one else took off his
coat.
Ensign Henry Douglas Rooke, 63rd Regt., and Ensign Charles Henry
Richardson, 73rd Regt., gave evidence to the above effect.
Defendant was fined £2, together with £1 3s. costs.
|
Chatham News, Saturday 27 August 1870.
A gentleman, not a solicitor, whose name did not transpire, applied
for a licence for Mr. Owen J. Carter, 51, High Street, Chatham.
Mr. Hayward opposed for the landlord of the "Cross Keys," and said
that as the person applying was not a solicitor, he could not be
heard.
The gentleman said Mr. Carter was away, and could not attend.
The Magistrate said Mr. Carter must be present; they could not hear
the applicant.
The case was adjourned till the 30th of September.
|
LICENSEE LIST
WILHEY Thomas 1793+
WRAITH Richard 1828-32+
(48 High Street)
LUCAS George 1838-42+
SAUNDERS William 1854+ ?
HOLLIDAY Thomas 1853-74+
HAYWARD Mr 1870+
HOLLIDAY Thomas 1872+
MANNERING Charlotte 1881+ (widow age 32 in 1881)
McDONALD Thomas 1882+
https://pubwiki.co.uk/CrossKeys.shtml
Universal
British Directory of Trade 1793
From the Pigot's Directory 1828-29
From the Pigot's Directory 1832-33-34
Census
Licensing
Records 1872
Wright's
Topography 1838
Census
|