Sort file:- Canterbury, February, 2022.

Page Updated:- Tuesday, 08 February, 2022.


Earliest 1844-

Eagle Tavern

Latest 1861+

Ivy Lane



I have reference to another "Eagle Tavern" addressed at 5 White Horse Lane, which is about half a mile away.


Kentish Gazette - Tuesday 2 April 1844.

On Friday morning a fire was discovered in one of the bed rooms of the "Eagle Tavern," Ivy Lane, Canterbury, which was fortunately extinguished before it had spread beyond the bed furniture.


Kentish Gazette, 2 December 1851.


Evading The Excise Laws.

(Before the Mayor, and Alderman Plummer, and Messrs. Mount and Dorman.)

Samuel Algar, proprietor of the "Crown and Anchor" dancing booth, appeared to answer four informations charging him with having retailed spirituous liquors during the last Canterbury Fair, he not having a license, whereby he had incurred the penalty of 50 in each case. The information referring to the 13th October, was then gone into.

Mr. Sadys appeared for the crown, and Mr. Brandt, counsel, was specially retained for the defendant, instructed by Messrs. Cox and Son.

Mr. Sandys proceeded at some length to state the case. He observed that it was pretty generally known that defendant had been in the habit, for many years, of attending Canterbury Fair, with a dancing booth, selling spirits, beer, and so forth, with the permission of the magistrates. In consequence of the demoralisation urging from that booth, the magistrates, a year or two ago, prohibited its continuance in the cattle market. Notwithstanding that prohibition and in defiance of the direction of the magistrates—in defiance of the revenue laws, and in fact, in defiance of all authority, Mr. Algar choosed to say that he would bring his booth to Canterbury, and carry on his usual trade. At the last fair Mr. Algar was of course not permitted to erect it in the cattle market, but he selected for its erection the bowling green of the "Eagle Tavern," kept by a licensed victualler in Ivy lane, having his (defendant name at the entrance, and on each side of the booth. Therefore there could not be the shadow of a doubt that he was carrying on business there on his own account. He should prove this, and that defendant, his wife, and servants, sold spirits there, without any license to do so. And he should do this, on the evidence not of a common informer, whose character was of a doubtful nature, but ot one of the public officers of the city. The informations were laid under the statute of 6 Geo. 4, c. 81. section 26, which he read to the Court, prohibiting the sale of spirits or beer by any person not duly licensed, and setting forth that for every violation of such the party was liable to a penalty of 50.

He then called Maurice Saunders, who said:— I am removing officer of the city of Canterbury. On the 13th October I went to the "Eagles" public house, and saw a booth on the green at the rear.

There was a covered passage from the street entrance to the entrance to the booth. Over the street entrance was the name of Algar, the same in the entrance of the booth—at the bottom of the passage. It was about 7 in the evening that I went, with Inspector Spratt. I was a special constable at the time. Being officers, we were admitted without payment. Some were also admitted free and others paid—both ladies and gentlemen. I had 1s. worth of brandy and water at the bar in the booth. Mrs. Algar mixed it, and the waiter gave it to me. I paid the waiter the shilling and he handed it to Mrs. Algar.

Mr. Brandt:— We admit that spirits were sold there and that Mr. Algar had a license so to do.

Mr. Sandys:— Then that proves my case.

Mr. Brands then proceeded to address the Bench on the part of the defendant.

He said that his client requested him to inform the Bench that it was out of no hostile feeling towards them that he had been brought down, or to occupy their time unnecessarily by raising any technical objection. If he had erred, it was threw ignorance, and if the Magistrate should consider him guilty, he threw himself entirely upon their merciful consideration. But he was prepared to show that his client had not committed any offence - and if he had it was totally through ignorance. He would first ask their attention to the system of licensing in general. The Bench were doubtless aware that an excise licence for the sale of spirits was never granted until the party applying for it had first obtained of the Magistrates an ale licence. The object of the Legislation in this procedure was one of public policy. The first question asked by the Magistrates in granting an ale licence was, what was the character of the party applying; and secondly, if that were favourable, whether the premises upon which it was intended to carry it on, were favourably situated. If satisfied on both these, they generally granted the licence. There were instances in which the character of the applicant might be unexceptionable, but the situation very objectionable - for instance, there might be many licensed houses in the same neighbourhood. Although the Magistrates had the power of granting licences, that were bound to look after the public morals, and had the liberty to refuse licences if they pleased. He mention this, to show that the system of granting licences was one of mere public policy; and asked whether, in this incident, it had been infringed. In the absence of evidence to the contrary they might assume that Mr. Friend's house (where the booth was erected) was well conducted. The premises attached to the house were licensed, so that the place in which the booth stood was licensed. Where then was the harm? The only fault in the eye of his learned friend was, that these premises will let to Mr. Algar. But had he infringed any rules of public policy? They heard nothing of there being any tumultuous assemblage, or of his booth having been badly conducted. Nay - so far from its being productive of anything of that kind, the magistrates themselves had in former years actually permitted the booth to be erected in the fair. Now supposing he had this year erected his booth out of the jurisdiction of the city magistrates, there would doubtless have been plenty of people flocking to it, and yet the situation might have been very objectionable. Instead of that, he had chosen a place within the jurisdiction of the magistrates, and actually licensed by them, and proved by that licence to be unobjectionable. But he should be able to show that Mr. Algar was entirely the agent of Mr. Friend that some of the spirits consumed was sent from London to Mr. Friend - that previously to the fair Mr. Friend consulted with Mr. Algar offering the use of the bowling green for the booth. Mr. Friend thinking that by having it there many customers will be drawn to his house, and that Mr. Algar might be able to realize some remuneration out of the surplus profits. He would also show that Mr. Friend had a bar in the garden as well as Mr. Algar - that Mr. Friend occasionally served the spirits behind Mr. Algar's bar; and that the name on the booth did not mean to signify that Mr. Algar sold spirits their, but that it was his booth for dancing - that there was Mr. Algar's booth for the dancing, and there Mr. Friend's bar for refreshments. He submitted that if the bench coincided with him in his view, they could not convict the defendant. It was a well-known rule in law that penal statutes were to be construed liberally; so that if the bench had any doubt, they should give the defendant the benefit of it. But if the bench should feel themselves bound to convict, the defendant would have to alter his course. And how would he do that? Why, by placing Mr. Friend all the time behind the bar, instead of a portion of the time and putting Mr. Friend's name outside the booth. That would be the only difference. They could not prevent Mr. Friend letting his ground for such a purpose, unless, indeed, they deprived him of his licence. The defendant had never before been before any magistrates, and he (Mr. B) hoped they would not by their decision say that such amusement as his client offered, should be withheld from the people at such a time as their annual fair.

He called William Friend, who deposed:— I am a licensed victualler, and keep the "Eagle" public-house, in Ivy-lane. Mr. Algar's booth was erected on my premises on the last fair, I had about three gallons of gin from London and some brandy and rum from Canterbury, for the purposes of the booth. Here are the permits for the brandy and rum. I wrote to Mr. Algar about the booth being erected on my premises, and he came down to Canterbury. He asked if I was duly licensed, I replied that I was. He then enquired my terms; I asked 20. He said he must not carry on the business at my house the same as he had been in the habit of doing in the fair. I understood by that he could not sell under my license. I told him if he would give me 20 of the profits, he should have the rest of the proceeds for the use of his booth. The spirits sold were mine. I served in the booth during the fair, but I can't say whether I did on the 13th or not.

Mr. Sandys objected that the evidence of the witness's serving the liquor, did not apply to the particular day to which the inquiry referred.

Mr. Brandt contended that it was one whole transaction, and that if he gave evidence of the witness serving in the booth during the fair, it applied equally to the whole enquiry.

The Bench decided otherwise. The inquiry was respecting the 13th Oct. and the evidence must refer to that day.

Witness.— On the 13th I was in and out of Algar's booth, superintending, but I cannot say whether I served that day. My daughter was serving there one whole day. I had a little booth adjoining, and a bar there at which I served—it was connected with Algar’s by a passage. Algar’s booth was well conducted. I have since had a settlement with Mr. Algar. I received 18 as a part of the profits arising from the sale of beer and spirits in the booth; and considered the defendant was to have the entrance money, and the surplus profits, for the expense of bringing the booth to my premises.

Cross-examined by Mr. Sandys.- Mr. Algar was my agent. I don't know that I could have called him my servant, but he served in the booth for my profit and benefit. It was a joint speculation between us. I do not consider myself bound to pay for the gin; it was sent by Mr. Algar.

Mr. Sandys replied, and denied that the defendant erred through ignorance, as was evidenced in the manner in which the preliminary arrangements were conducted intended that the agency was a mere piece of trickery. He submitted that the business was carried on by the defendant for his own profit, and therefore he (Mr. Sandy's) was entitled to the judgment of the bench.

The court was then cleared, and after a short period had elapsed the public were again admitted, when the Mayor inquired if the Excise authorities intended to press the other three informations, and was answered in the affirmative.

It was then agreed that a conviction should be entered on all the informations, Mr. Brandt objecting to plead guilty, as it would preclude him from appealing.

The Mayor then gave the decision of the bench. They felt compelled to convict the defendant in each case in the penalty of 50, which they would mitigate to 12 10s. The lowest penalty allowed; the defendant thus being ordered to pay 50. His counsel announced his intention of appealing against the decision.


Kentish Gazette, Tuesday 29 December 1857.

Mr Edward Aylett, of the "Nag's Head Inn," Dover Lane, beggs respectfully to inform his friends and the public generally, that he has taken the "Eagle Tavern," Ivy Lane, Canterbury, to which house he is now removing, and where he hopes to be favoured with a continuance of public patronage.



FRIEND William 1847-51+ Bagshaw's Directory 1847

Last pub licensee had AYLETT Edward Dec/1857-61+ (also carrier age 39 in 1861Census)


Bagshaw's Directory 1847From Bagshaw Directory 1847


If anyone should have any further information, or indeed any pictures or photographs of the above licensed premises, please email:-