From the Whitstable Times and Herne Bay Herald. 14 September 1867. Price 1d.

THE LONDON HOTEL

Among the applications for licenses at the annual licensing sessions held on Saturday last, at Canterbury, was one from Edward Bolt Medlicott, represented by Mr. Minter, of Folkestone, and opposed by Mr. Delasaux and Mr. Plummer, of Canterbury, on the part of several publicans in the town.

Mr. Minter applied for an adjournment till the adjourned special licensing day; but the clerk said that was unusual, and the Magistrates decided that Mr. Minter should proceed.

Mr. Minter then said that he appeared on behalf of Mr. Medlicott, late landlord of the "Pier Inn," to apply for a license, for the “London Hotel," at present known as "Brunswick House." The house his client had taken was in every respect adapted for carrying on an extensive business, and consisted of 26 rooms. He had not produced any memorial as to the applicant's character, for the fact of the Magistrates having already granted him several licenses for the "Pier Inn" would he (Mr. Minter) thought be a sufficient guarantee.

Mr. Plummer produced a memorial (signed by the incumbent of the parish) stating that there were already a great many licensed houses in the town; and that another one was unnecessary.

Mr. Delasaux was about producing a plan showing that the "London Hotel" was surrounded by public-houses, when he was called to order by Mr. Minter, who protested against Mr. Delasaux producing anything he was not going to prove.

The application was ultimately granted.

From the Whitstable Times and Herne Bay Herald. 5 October 1867. Price 1d.

HERNE BAY. THE LICENSE OF THE LONDON HOTEL

At the adjourned annual licensing sessions for the Home Division of the County of Kent, held at Canterbury on Saturday last, Mr. Edward Bolt Medlicott applied for a renewal of the license of the "London Hotel." A license was granted Mr. Medlicott at the licensing sessions, subject to appeal at the adjourned sessions. The application was opposed by Mr. Delasaux, who contended that the notices were not placed on the parish church of Herne Bay.

The parish overseer was sworn, and said he put the notices on a board near the church at Herne Bay. Mr. Delasaux contended that that was not the parish church. There was only one parish church, viz., the one at Herne Street, to which the notices ought to have been affixed. Mr. Medlicott was then sworn, and said he posted the notices on the parish church at Herne-street; and saw that they were there for three Sundays.

The license was then allowed.