|
From the Sevenoaks Chronicle, 31 August 1852.
CITY ANNUAL LICENSING DAY.
On Saturday a special petty session was held before a full bench,
consisting of eleven magistrates, for the hearing of applications for
new licenses and for other business of the general annual licensing day.
Mr. Lewis, on behalf of Mr. James Prudhoe, proprietor of the "Railway
Tavern" beer shop, applied for a license for that house, the property of
Sir H. Maux and Co., and situate at the terminus of the North East
Railway at Strood.
Mr. King, solicitor, of Maidstone, opposed the application, and
submitted that the service of the notice had not been consistent with
the statute, inasmuch as the affixing on the church door only took place
on one Sunday and not on three several Sundays as prescribed by the Act.
The Court over-rules the objection, and the case proceeded with.
Mr. Lewis then stated the grounds on which he made the application,
which, although nominally for Mr. Prudhoe, was really on behalf of the
public. The house had been at an outlay of £1,000 and although having
every accommodation, was capable of further improvement.
Mr. King opposed the application on behalf of the owners of the
"Windmall Tavern," belonging to Mrs. and Miss Hulkes, and also the
occupier, Mr. Roffway. Mr. Roffway had occupied the "Windmill Tavern"
for about twenty years, a house containing all the accommodation that
was requisite, and which had been increased by improvement from time to
time. The application had been refused on two previous occasions, and
there were no new grounds, he submitted, for coming to any other
decision.
Mr. Coles said he was anxious to arrive at Mr. Prudhoe's position with
regard to the road. The magistrates had had recently three or four cases
before them, in which some doubt had been expressed as to whether it was
a public road. Certain omnibuses were kept out, which the South Eastern
Company said they had a right to keep out.
Mr. Lewis said there was an ancient public foot-path from Strood Street
to Frindsbury, but he could not say whether the road was a public one.
Mr. Alderman Essel explained that until of late years the public had no
right to the road. The pathway to which the public had a right was formerly on the top of the sea wall, but in order to negative the right
of the public way, a bar was placed along the road. The public had no
right to pass along that road with carriages, and it was not a public
carriage way. He then called Mr. Roffway, who deposed that his house was
within a minute or a minute and a half's walk of the station, and was on
the same side of the way. When the works of the new bridge were begun, a
great number of houses were taken down, by which he was deprived of a
large portion of the trade which formerly belonged to this house.
Mr. Lewis having replied, the magistrates granted the license.
|
)
