From the Dover Express and East Kent Intelligencer, 11 January, 1862.

TRANSFERS

An application for a new licence to the "Bowling Green" tavern, Military Road, was refused, it appeared that the late landlord was dead. It was ordered that another application should be made in the presence or the representatives of the deceased landlord, in March next.

From the Dover Express and East Kent Intelligencer, 29 April, 1865. Price 1d.

GROUNDLESS SUSPICION

Richard William Leamington, a private in the 2nd Battalion 60th Rifles, was charged on suspicion of having assaulted Mrs. Burton, the landlady of the "Bowling Green Tavern," and robbing the till; but Mrs. Burton was unable to identify the prisoner as one of the soldiers who had assaulted her, and there was no evidence that he was in the house, although he was found by the police near to it. The Magistrates dismissed the man, whose sergeant gave him a very good character.

From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday 26 February, 1869.

A VIOLENT CUSTOMER

John Wilson was charged with wilfully breaking  a wine glass, value four-pence, and also with threatening to stab the landlord of the "Bowling Green Tavern," on the previous night.

William Davis said: I am landlord of the "Bowling Green Tavern," Durham Hill. The defendant came into my house about half-past eleven last night, and asked for some refreshment, and I supplied him with two glasses of rum. There was a young woman in the room, and he asked her to drink with him, but she refused. he asked her a second time and she still refused, and he then took the glass and threw it down upon the hearth one and broke it. I then left him in the room and went in search of a policeman. On my return, I again entered the room, and the defendant asked me to serve him with more rum, but I declined to do so. He then used some very foul and threatening language towards me.

The defendant said he did not consider the value of the glass so much as the complainant had demanded, and he had therefore refused to pay that amount. He also said he did not break it wilfully. He also alleged that there were several woman of the town in the house at the time.

The Magistrates told the defendant that he must pay the value of the glass (4d.) and 2s. for the hearing, which he did.

From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday 30 April, 1869.

A SOLDIER IN TROUBLE

John Frederick brown, a private belonging to the 1st Battalion of the 4th King's Own Royal Regiment, now attached in this garrison, was charged with attempting to rob the till in the bar of the "Bowling Green Tavern," Military Road.

William Davis said: I am the keeper of the "Bowling Green Tavern."  last night the prisoner was in the back sitting room of my house. He was there for about ten minutes. I afterwards saw him in the bar near to the counter with the till open and his hand in it. The till is in the recess near the counter. I am certain the till had not been left open. I am not aware how much money there was in the till. When i saw the prisoner I went to him and touched him on the shoulder, asking him what he was doing, when he said something about a light.

By the prisoner: I am certain there was some money in the till.

Examination continued: I told prisoner I should take him outside, which I did, and seeing a policeman I gave him into custody for attempting to rob the till. I know there were some coppers in the till because I saw them there when prisoner took his hand out. I should think there were about a shilling's worth.

The prisoner desired to be dealt with at once; but pleaded not guilty. In his defence he said that he was in the prosecutor's house on the previous evening with another soldier, playing cribbage. he also played a game of cribbage with the prosecutor and his wife. he had one pint of beer, and asked prosecutor for a pipe; but he made him no reply. he then went into the bar, and seeing the drawer, thinking it contained the pipes, opened it. The prosecutor came up to him, and touched him on the shoulder asking him what he was doing there. Prisoner told him that he was looking for a pipe. he did not know that the prosecutor was deaf. He had no intention of stealing the money from the till.

The policeman said that on searching the prisoner at his station-house 1¼d. was all the money that was found on him.

In reply to the Magistrates, Lieutenant Macleod, the officer in command of the company to which prisoner belonged, said that he bore a bad character in the regiment, but that this was the first offence for which he had been brought before the Magistrates.

The Magistrates stated that there was some doubt in their minds as to the prisoner's intention, and they would therefore give him the benefit of that doubt and dismiss him; but recommended him to be careful for the future.

From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday 21 May, 1869.

REMANDED CHARGE OF UNLAWFULLY  ENTERING

George File and George Mason, two soldiers of the 17th brigade Royal Artillery, stationed in this garrison, were brought up on remand from the previous Monday, charged with unlawfully entering the parish church of St. James on Sunday, May 9th, or earlier on the following morning, and stealing there from the contents of the alms box and one shilling  and nine pence in stamps; also with having entered St. Paul's Roman Catholic Church and stealing the contents of the alms boxes, two candlesticks, and a cruet stand.

Mr. Thomas Fox appeared on behalf of the Churchwardens of St. James's in support of the prosecution; and the charge of unlawfully entering St. James's Church being first proceeded with, the following evidence was taken:-

Richard Moore: I am a verger employed at St. James's Church. It is part of my duty, after service is over, to close the church and lock the door. There was service in the church on Sunday, the 9th May. After service I locked up the church, and before doing so I noticed  that everything was all right. I always enter the vestry after the service  is ended and see that all there is safe. I am certain the alms boxes were all right and locked. I noticed nothing unusual that night. I locked the door at half-past eight, and took the key to one of the churchwardens, Mr. Kemp. There are two chairs in the vestry covered with velvet.

Police-constable Ash: I was on duty on Maison Dieu Road, on Saturday night week, near St. James's Church. it is my duty to try the doors of St. James's Church. I tried the doors at a quarter after eleven on that night, and found they were fastened.

Police-constable Corrie: I was on duty on Maison Dieu Road at half-past twelve on Sunday night week, and saw the two prisoners coming from the direction of St. James's Church. I said to them, "It is a wet night," and one of them replied, "Yes." I saw them go up Peter Stree, and subsequently saw them in Biggin Street.

By the Bench: It is not customary to ask soldiers in this garrison for their passes.

Daniel Coveney, a carpenter, said: I had occasion to go to St. James's Church on Monday morning last, at half-past six. When I got there I found all the doors locked, and went to the house of Mr. Kemp, who is one of the churchwardens, for the key. I unlocked the door, and on entering the church, the first thing attracting my attention was the alms box, which is placed against the wall near the font. I perceived that it had been broken open. The top had been prized off, and the front very much damaged. There were two of Hobday's three-inch locks on the box. The size of it is about ten inches by six inches. The only things left in the box were and piece of brass and two screws. It bore several marks made by a chisel. I am certain the marks were made by a chisel. A clasp knife would not make much indentation. I went to the vestry after I had discovered the box had been broken open, and found the doors standing open. I know it is usual to keep the doors of the vestry shut. There are two chairs covered with velvet in the vestry. I entered the vestry, and examined the lock of the door, and found that it had been prized on one side so as to let the lock pass freely. i noticed that several things were lying about the floor, and that a window was broken. There are three doors in the vestry, one leading into the chancel, one immediately opposite to the chancel door, leading out into the churchyard, and one that leads into a lobby which communicates with the church and the yard. There are two windows in the vestry. The bottom part of the window on the north side was broken open. there are some upright bars to one of the windows, but there are no bars to the other. The one without the bars has a ventilator, and was broken open at the bottom. The piece broken was about fourteen inches by eleven inches. The glass of the window is very thick, and is Warwick glass. Some of the lead work was pushed in, and it had the appearance of having been broken outside. I saw some glass lying on the floor of the vestry, and some outside. There was also some lead lying outside. I noticed a foot-print on one of the chairs. It was a dirty mark, as if the foot had been in the dirt. I afterwards compared a military boot with it in the presence of Stevens. I placed the boot on the chair, and afterwards measured the boot, and found it to correspond in every way with the mark on the chair. The boot produced is the same. The mark of the heel-clip was on the chair. I noticed a drop of blood on the wall near the fire-place, and two more drops on a box. I found that the drawer belonging to the table had been opened. The boots and clothes were lying about the vestry as if they had been disturbed. I went outside the door, and found the slip of wood now produced lying on the ground. The piece of wood belongs to the framework of the door. I went to the station-house, and reported the facts to superintendent Coram.

By the Bench: The sill of the window is about 3 feet 6 inches from the ground.

Police-sergeant Stevens said: In consequence of information received at the station-house on Monday morning last, I went to St. James's Church at half-past seven. I found the last witness there. I examined the church and found that the vestry window had been broken open. I found some glass lying inside the vestry, and some outside, and some on the stone sill of the window. I have heard the evidence of the last witness with regard to that window, and I found it in the same state as he has described it. I found a chair in the vestry covered with velvet. There was an impression of a boot upon the cushion of that chair. The heel of the boot showed three nails in a clip. We measured  the marks and found them to correspond with those on the boot. We measured the length of the boot, the length of the tread, the length of the heel, and the length between the heel and the mark of the tread, and they all corresponded with the mark on the cushion. I also compared the distance between the nails on the boot and marks on the chair, and found them to correspond. I examined the mark on the heel where it was worn away more than the other part, and found it corresponded with that on the chair. The impression was wanting in that particular spot. The impression was made by a left foot. I produce a sketch I made of the mark of the heel on the chair. The boot was taken from the prisoner Mason, and it is a military boot. It has the regimental number, "17th V.R.A.. 1310, 68." The prisoner was wearing the boot at the time I took him into custody. I notice some drops of blood in the vestry, one on the wall and the two others on a box. There were some foot marks on the box and they corresponded with the foot-marks on the chair. there were some footprints outside leading up to the window that was broken, and I compared the boot taken from the prisoner File and the one taken from the prisoner Mason and they both corresponded with these marks. The boots taken from the prisoner File are also military boots, and have regimental numbers. The soil outside the window is very soft and is covered with beach. The Sunday night being a very wet night, the foot prints were made very visibly. the footprints came in both directions. I did not trace the footprints. I and sergeant Bailey afterward apprehended the prisoners at the "Bowling Green Tavern" at ten o'clock. I noticed that the prisoner File had his finger tied up with a piece of rag. I also noticed the pocket-handkerchief which he had had some fresh drops of blood upon it. On taking the prisoners into custody and telling them the charge  one of them remarked that I must be  "joking." I then repeated it again, and took them to the police-station. At the station-house  I searched mason, and found upon him two shillings, two sixpences, and three half-pennies. Both the prisoners wore tunics, and wore orderly dresses. The Superintendent read the charge over to them and Mason said, "Yes." The Superintendent said one alms box , and when I reminded him that there were three, Mason said again, "Yes." I said nothing to File about his finger.

By the Bench: The cushion of the chair is soft. I did not try what impression I could make on the chair. I should say that the cushion of the chair is filled with horse-hair. A dry boot would not make a mark; but a wet one would.

Bt the prisoner File: There are five nails in the heel of the boot and there is an impression of only three on the cushion of the chair. The handkerchief was wet with blood.

police-sergeant Bailey said: I assisted the last witness in apprehending the two prisoners, on Monday morning last, at ten o'clock, at the "Bowling Green Tavern," and removed them to the police-station. I searched File and found on him four shillings, a sixpence, and five half-pence in money, a key, some matches , and a pocket handkerchief, with some marks of blood upon it, all of which I now produce. File's fore-finger on the left hand, near the knuckle was cut. I asked him how it became cut, and he replied, "I shall have you there, I have lots of witnesses to prove that I got that in cutting up the duff." I looked at him, and then he laughed and said, "While we were having dinner."

Richard Chard, the landlord of the "Laurel Tree" public-house, said: The prisoners came into my house at half-past six on the morning of Monday last and called for a pot of porter. UI gave them a pint apiece, and one of them paid me with a four-penny piece. They asked if they could have a wash, and clean themselves up, and i told them they could. They then took their tunics off. the prisoner File asked me if I could dry his coat, as it was very wet, saying that he had just come from Deal, about seven miles away from Dover. I took the tunic and felt it; but it was not very wet. I asked if I should put mason's down to dry, but he said that his was not wet. There was a man in the kitchen who lodges at my house, and they asked him to black their boots and brush their trousers for them, which he did, and they each gave him two-pence. Mason asked me if I knew where he could sell some old silver, and I said i did not. My lodger then said that Murden, in Snargate Street, would buy old silver. File said he knew where the place was very well. After they had done washing they wanted to play a game of cards; but I told them I could not allow them to play in my house, and i also said that, as they had had a wash, they had better go away. The only money I saw them have was a four-penny-piece they gave for the beer. They left my house at half-past seven.

Joseph mead said: I lodge at the "Laurel Tree"  public-house, Priory Street. I was there at half-past six on Monday morning last, and saw the two prisoners. I cleaned their boots, for which they each gave me two-pence. The boots were very wet. I saw that one of File's fingers was bound up with a piece of rag. I asked him if anything was the matter with the finger, and he said , "Yes." Mason asked me where he could sell some old silver, and I mentioned Mr. Murden's in Snargate Street. File said he knew where that was very well. They left the house at half-past seven.

By the Bench: I am sure the prisoners are the same men.

William Davis, the landlord of the "Bowling Green Tavern," said: The two prisoners came to my house on Monday morning last, at a quarter past nine. I asked File what he was doing out so early in the morning, and he said he had a day's holiday  and was going to Folkestone. I noticed File had cut his finger and asked him how he had done it. he said he had cut it while cutting up the "duff" at the barracks on Sunday. I offered to dress it for him and tied it up with some palm oil and rag. It did not look like it had been cut with a knife. It looked more jagged, and as if it had been done  only a short time before. The cut was not bleeding at the time. There was only a little blood on the rag.

Mr. John Walter, the gaol surgeon, said: I examined the prisoner File  in gaol on Monday morning last at twelve o'clock. I found a scratch on the left thumb, a cut on the left fore finger, and a scratch on the back of the left hand. the cut and scratches looked as if they had been made by a rough and sharp instrument. They were such as would be produced by broken glass. They are not such as would be caused by a knife.

John Reynolds said: I am a gunner in the 17th Brigade Royal Artillery, stationed in this garrison. I know the two prisoners at the bar; and they are gunners belonging to my battery. I was in a public-house with Mason on Saturday evening, the 8th of May. I did not stand any beer; but as he passed me to go out, I followed him, and asked him if he wanted the price of a pint of beer; at the same time giving him four-pence, and telling him that I had plenty of money, but that I knew he had not any. I saw him again on Sunday morning before going to church, when he brushed my clothes. I also saw him in the afternoon after dinner at half-past one, when he told me that I would not have been where he was on the previous night for £5. I told him that I did not want to know where he had been; but he would persist on telling him. he said that he and File  had been to a house on Saturday night; but that there was nothing in the house worth having, only furniture, and that they could  not get anything. He also said that they had another "crib" in view for that night, where something would be done. I went out shortly after dinner, and did not return until just upon roll-call.

Sergeant-Major Muddock said: I belong to no. 6 battery of the 17th Brigade Royal Artillery. I know the prisoners. They belong to my battery. I was present when the roll was called  on Sunday night, and they were both absent without leave. the prisoners had not been absent on any previous night of the week.

At this stage of the proceedings the Magistrates remanded the further hearing of the charge until Friday (this day).

From the Dover Express and East Kent Intelligencer, 22 October, 1869. Price 1d.

WILFUL DAMAGE

Robert Smith and William McNuckat, two men belonging to the 17th Brigade of Royal Artillery, stationed in this garrison, were charged with wilfully breaking two panes of glass, value 6s., at the "Bowling Green Tavern."

William Davis, landlord of the "Bowling Green tavern," Durham Hill, said that between eight and nine o'clock on the previous evening the prisoners came into his house, and had some beer. They enquired if the half-past eight gun had fired, and he replied that it had. After the prisoners had drunk the beer, he requested them to leave the house, when they used bad language towards him. He endeavoured to get them out of his house, when they turned round and broke two of the window-panes. The value of the windows was 6s. each.

The prisoners, in reply to the Bench, said that when they had gone a short distance from the house the complainant sent a woman after them, to call them back. They returned, and the complainant then tried to push them upstairs, and in their endeavour to prevent him from doing so, a struggle ensued, and the windows were broken.

The magistrates did not believe their ingenious story, but fined the prisoners 1s., the value of the broken glass, 12s., and the costs, 6s., which was paid on the prisoners behalf by an officer of the brigade, who was present.

From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 26 May, 1871. Price 1d.

ALLEGED ASSAULT

Thomas Hart, a private in the 102nd Regiment, stationed in this garrison, was charged with assaulting William Davis, and with breaking a pane of glass, value 3s. 6d., at his residence, the “Bowling Green Tavern,” near Durham Hill, on the previous evening.

William Davis, the landlord of the “Bowling Green Tavern, said: Yesterday evening the defendant came to my house. He said he had lost his gloves, and he shut the door and stood against it. There were some soldiers there, and I went round to them and asked them to show him their gloves. I don't think the defendant found his. He then struck a young woman, and made her mouth bleed. He afterwards struck me in the face and made a mark there. I then took hold of his shoulders and put him out of the room, and in endeavouring to force his was in again he broke the window.

By the Bench: I do not think he broke the window intentionally. The window is fixed in the door.

Examination continued: When he got into the room again he seized me by the hair of my head and threw me down, knocking me in the face both with his fist and with his knees. Some of his comrades then came and helped me to get him off, and I followed him down the hill until I saw a constable, when I gave him into custody.

By the defendant: I did not strike you first.

The defendant, on being asked what he had to say in his defence, said that on the previous afternoon he went to the complainant's house. He stopped there and played skittles with him for beer till five o'clock. he shortly afterwards came back again having lost his gloves. There were some prostitutes in the house, and knowing that it was their custom to steal soldiers' gloves from them, and give them to others, he went up and asked one of them if she had seen his gloves, and as she made him a very impudent reply, he touched her very lightly with the back of his hand. Complainant then came up and struck him, cutting open the inside of his mouth; and taking hold of him by the shoulders, pushed him out of the door. He could not say whether it was he or the complainant who broke the door, as the complainant was pushing on the inside to prevent his getting in, and he was endeavouring to get in on the outside; but on his gaining an entrance, complainant struck him, leaving a mark on his nose. He then struck complainant in the face with his fist; but he did not remember touching him with his knees. He was perfectly sober all the time, and was on the point of entering the station-house to report complainant's conduct when he turned round and was him walking behind him on company with a policeman.

An officer of defendant's regiment was present, and on being asked by the Bench as to defendant's character, said he bore a very excellent one and that he had not known him to be concerned in a matter of this sort before.

The Bench told complainant they thought it was a great pity that he had no witness, as it was totally impossible for them to come to a proper decision in the face of such conflicting testimony.

Complainant said there was no one present but one or two comrades of the defendant's.

The Magistrates told the defendant they were exceeding sorry to see him in such a position, when he bore so good a character in his regiment, and enquired of the officer whether any sentence they might inflict would injure the character he bore at present.

The officer said that any sentence, however small it might be, would materially effect his good conduct stripes.

The Bench enquired whether the complainant desired particularly to press the charge against defendant; because, if he did not they would be inclined to dismiss the case.

The complainant said he had no desire to press the charge further against the defendant, and expressed himself satisfied with the decision of the Bench.

The Magistrates then told the defendant he would be dismissed on paying 2s. for the hearing, and that he hoped the present occurrence would be a caution to him in the future.

From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 8 January, 1875. Price 1d.

THE BOWLING GREEN TAVERN – A CURIOS APPLICATION

It will be recollected that some time ago, Mr. Pooley, the landlord of the “Bowling Green Tavern,” left home, and his wife who was in charge of his public-house was overcome with the duties devolving upon her, and was taken to the Union workhouse where she remained a week. She came out and paid for her board and lodgings, and her husband has since returned. Mr. Worsfold Mowll now made application that the license should be transferred to another landlord, on the grounds that Pooley had been removed from the house. He called the owner of the house to give evidence.

Joseph Groombridge, the owner of the “Bowling Green Tavern,” said: I have let the tavern on lease to Mr. Leney, brewer. My attention was called to this house on the second week in November. I went to the house, a man named Green having called my attention to it. The house was closed. I knocked at the door several times about eleven o'clock in the morning. At last the landlady opened the door. I found her sitting on the bottom of the stairs in her night-dress, which was wet. I begged of her to go up stairs, for she said she was destitute of everything and that her husband had left her. I sent to the Police.

Pooley, the landlord, was in Court, and in coming forward said he wished to keep his license. He did not run away with another woman as had been said, or if he did he brought her back again. He often left home on business and left his wife in charge.

The Magistrates decided that the landlord, Pooley, had not yielded up possession in such a way as would justify them in transferring the license without his consent.

From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 13 February, 1890. Price 1d.

DRUNK AND INCAPABLE

James Forsdyke was charged with being drunk and using obscene language in Hartley Street, and Sarah Taylor was charged with being drunk and disorderly in the same street.

Police-constable Hughes said that about a quarter past one that morning, he was on duty in Hartley Street, near the “Bowling Green Tavern,” when his attention was called, by hearing a woman scream inside the public house. He waited outside about half an hour, when the two prisoners attempted to come out arm in arm. They were both drunk, and fell out into the road, got up, and fell down again. He asked the man his name, and he made use of some very strong expressions. The woman was lying on the ground, and he called for the landlord's assistance. He picked the woman up, and told her the landlord he had better take the male prisoner. He did so, and had not got about four yards when he let him go. He then took the man to the police station, and sent Police-constable Finch to fetch the woman.

The prisoner's were fined 5s. each, and costs 7s., or in default seven days' imprisonment with hard labour.

From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 28 August, 1891. Price 1d.

DOVER LICENSING SESSIONS

Objection to the renewal of this licence having been lodged by the Temperance Council, it stood over.

THE TEMPERANCE OPPOSITION

The Magistrates' Clerk said the Magistrates would next proceed to consider the objections to the houses standing over.

BOWLING GREEN TAVERN

This license was opposed by Mr. Mark Knowles, on behalf of the Temperance Council, the notice of objection served to the landlord, Henry Pinnock, being that “the license is not needed in the neighbourhood, and that you are not a fit and proper person to hold a license, and that you have been convicted of keeping the house open for that sale of liquor during prohibited hours.”

Mr. Wollaston Knocker appeared on behalf of the owner of the house to support the renewal of the license.

Mr. Wilkie, Secretary of the Dover Temperance Council, having affirmed in lieu of taking the oath, being a member of the Society of Friends, produced an ordnance plan of the locality, with the existing public houses marked thereon. He said: I know the locality of the house in question. There are several other houses near, the “King Alfred” on Durham Hill, about 50 yards away, the “Half Moon” in Blucher Row, about 30 yards away. There is the “Cause is Altered” in Queen Street, and the “Ordnance Arms” in Queen Street.

Cross-examined by Mr. Knocker: Have you measured the distances that these houses are apart?

No.

Then you only speak of the distances from what you have been told?

I have measured them on the plan.

You object to this license conscientiously, of course?

Yes.

You are a total abstainer, I suppose?

Yes.

How long have you been in Dover?

Almost two years. (A laugh).

The Mayor: I must have order. If there should be any more demonstration I will have the Court cleared.

Cross-examining continued: Do you object to public-houses generally?

I suppose I do.

Do you object top publicans receiving compensation for giving up their licenses?

That is a question which I should not like to answer with a single yes or no without some explanation.

The Mayor: Better pass that over, Mr. Knocker.

Do you know that the population has largely increased since this license was granted?

Do you mean during the past year?

No, I mean, has not the population increased since this license was originally granted?

I have no doubt that the population has increased.

Then the necessity for these houses has increased?

It would be commonly considered so.

I think you are a schoolmaster, Mr. Wilkie?

I am.

And you have opened a school next door to another, have you not?

No, there is another house, a public road, and a playground between. The other school is a considerable way up.

At this point there was again a demonstration of feeling in the back of the Court, and the Mayor again severely reprimanded the persons who were making the demonstrations.

You would not like your school to be done away with on the ground that there were too many?

I suppose that that would come on itself if there were too many.

Mr. Mark Knowles: Schools are not regulated by licenses like the drink traffic.

Police-constable Hughes was next called. He said: I recollect giving evidence against the landlord of this house for having his house open for the sale of drink during prohibited hours, that is at one o'clock in the morning on the 10th February.

An argument here arose as to whether the evidence of the Policeman was sufficient in this case.

Mr. Mark Knowles contended that it was only necessary to refresh the4 memory of the Court, as the facts were within their own knowledge.

Mr. Mowll contended that the record of the conviction should be produced.

Ultimately the record of the conviction was produced and read by the Clerk, to the effect that the landlord of the “Bowling Green Tavern” was convicted on the 13th February of keeping open house during prohibited hours, and was fined 20s. and costs. The conviction was not recorded on the license.

Mr. Knowles said that that completed the case.

Mr. Knocker: I appear for Messrs. Leney and Co. The Bench will recollect that the ground on which you are asked to refuse this license in the first place is that it is not needed in the neighbourhood, but your Worships having made a statement as to your intended future action in that matter, I need not dwell at length on the number of houses in the neighbourhood. With regard to the second point, that he is not a fit person to conduct a public-house, there has been no evidence given as to his character, except that there was a conviction against him.

The Magistrates' Clerk: It has been held that the fact of there being one conviction against the owner of a public-house is not evidence of bad character generally.

Mr. Knocker: I am much obliged to you. It is also a fact that in this case the license was not endorsed, so that the Bench must have considered that the fine of 20s. was a sufficient punishment. It is a custom in such cases for the landlord of the house to be called up at the Licensing Sessions that he may be cautioned to keep his house better in future; and I ask the Bench to adopt that course in this case. If they departed from their usual rule in this case, the owners of the house would be put to great disadvantage. It was well known to the occupants of the Bench that Messrs. Leney and Co. were anxious that their houses should be conducted properly, and if the sense of the Bench had been marked by the endorsing of the license that the man was not fit to keep the house, they would have obtained another tenant; but the license not having been endorsed, I ask the Bench to follow their usual course, and grant the license after cautioning the occupier.

The decision was deferred.

The Mayor said: I will now read the decisions of the Magistrates in the following cases:-

The “Bowling Green Tavern,” license granted.

From the Dover Express and East Kent News. 7 January 1938. Price 1½d.

SHOULD A DOVER LICENSE BE MOVED

APPEAL AT QUARTER SESSIONS

At the east Kent Quarter Sessions on Tuesday at Canterbury, there was heard an appeal which lasted two hours, against the refusal of the Dover Licensing Bench to grant the special removal of the full “on” licence of the “Bowling Green Tavern” to other premises known as Archliffe House.

Mr. B. H. Waddy appeared for appellant. Mr. James William Hover and Mr. H. J. Baxter for the respondents.

Mr. Waddy said that when the matter was before the Justices they did not give any reason for refusing the special removal asked for, and so he did not know what point he would have to meet, unless Mr. Baxter was prepared to tell them.

The Chairman (the Hon. Mr. Justice Luxmoore) asked if it were not a statutory duty to give notice in writing, of the grounds of refusal?

Mr. Waddy: Yes, but in the Court below no one appeared to appreciate the particular privileges attaching to this old on-licence.

The Chairman: What is the effect of their failure to state their reasons?

Mr. Waddy: Their reasons can be given now.

The Chairman: It does not make the order bad?

Mr. Waddy: No.

Quoting the Licensing Act, Mr. Waddy showed that Licensing Justices were enabled to grant a special removal on the ground that the existing premises were or were about to be pulled down under the Housing Act, a clearance order having been made. The Licensing Act said that a licence could be removed to any premises in the same area providing that they were fit and convenient premises for the purpose. That was, of course, a debatable point, and in that case the only debatable point was whether the premises were in fact fit and convenient for the purposes of having a licence. Had the Justices considered it a redundant licence they could have referred it to the compensation authority, but they did not do so.

Mr. Baxter said his submission would be that the premises were not fit and convenient for the purpose, and that the appeal that day was a re-hearing. Therefore, the Court had the power relating to the matter that the Justices had and could refer the matter to the compensation authority.

The Chairman: I do not think the Court has that power. I do not think we can deal with that. The question before us is whether the premises are fit and convenient for the purposes of carrying on the licence.

Mr. Waddy produced photographs of Aycliffe House, and also plans of the old premises.

The Chairman, looking at a photograph said, “It does not look like licensed premises.”

Mr. Waddy: Of course not, sir, it has not got a licence at the moment.

Colonel F. G. Hayward, architect, proved the plans, and said that the rateable value of Aycliffe House was £35, and that of the “Bowling Green Tavern” £18. It was proposed to provide better accommodation at Aycliffe House, with a tea room upstairs.

In answer to Mr. Waddy, witness said that from the point of view of the licensee and the brewers, he considered that the house was fit and convenient premises. Before the application was made plans were submitted to the Chief Constable of Dover, and there had been no objection from the Police as to their suitability.

Replying to Mr. Baxter, witness said Aycliffe House lay on the old Dover-Folkestone Road, and except for a few cottages, was almost the last house out of Dover. Near by was a building estate, the nearest house on which was about 100 yards away, but there were other houses between. There were 120 to 130 houses on the estate, and he agreed there were no other houses within half-a-mile. He also agreed that probably there were about 300 adults in the neighbourhood.

The Chairman, referring to the schedule, said he doubted whether the Bench had to consider anything more than the structural sufficiency or structural suitability of the building.

Mr. Baxter thought those phrases could apply only to a renewal of a licence, and that in regard to the special removal of a licence it was a case of “fit and convenient for the purpose” of having a licence.

Mr. Baxter suggested to Colonel Hayward that the road was very little used, and Colonel Hayward agreed that further than those houses it was not very much used except by the military. There were schemes afoot for making it a main arterial road. He believed it to be a military scheme.

The Chairman: Military or County Council?

Witness: I am not quite sure – I should say more military than County Council.

Mr. Baxter dealt with various aspects of the building as it was at present, and Col. Hayward agreed that it was impossible, without alterations, to comply with the usual requirements of the Police as to supervision by the licensee.

Mr. Waddy offered to call the licensee but Mr. Baxter said he had no questions to ask him, and the Chairman said there could be no question as to the way he conducted his house, and they could take it that no suggestion could be made against him.

Mr. Baxter submitted that the appellants had not satisfied the duty laid upon them of showing that there was a case for the special removal of the licence. He emphasised the phrase in Section 24 Sub-Section 4 of the Act – “fit and convenient premises for the purpose” – and said it was significant that that phrase did not occur in Sub-Section 3, which dealt with ordinary licences. In his submission it was obvious from that Sub-Section that the Justices had to consider whether or not the premises at the time of the application were “fit and convenient.”

The Chairman thought that if that meant that all the necessary alterations had first to be made, it would be an intolerable burden put upon the applicants. He suggested that an order might be made subject provisionally to all the alterations being carried out.

Mr. Baxter argued that under the Act that could not be done, and, having quoted the law, said the same difficulty arose regarding cinema licences.

The Chairman suggested that the present difficulty might be met by holding the appeal over until the alterations had been completed, but, he added, there could not be any “bargaining” in the matter.

Mr. Baxter formally submitted that as the premises were at present they were certainly not “fit and convenient.”

The Chairman agreed that without the alterations, they could not use them as licensed premises. If the alterations were made Mr. Baxter would have his chance to satisfy the Court that they were not suitable for a licence.

In regard to police approval of the plans, Mr. Baxter said that point of view was not necessarily a point of view to be considered by the licensing Justices, although he agreed that it was an element to be taken into consideration. He submitted that the Justices would almost inevitably have rejected such an application had it been a new premises for which a new licence was being asked. With only a few houses, and about 300 adults, it would have been considered not fit and convenient to have a licence there. On the grounds that the premises as they were, were not fit and convenient and that, even if the alterations were carried out, they would not be fit and convenient, he asked for the appeal to be dismissed.

The Chairman said the premises might be “fit and convenient” if altered, and he thought the majority of the Bench considered that the appellants ought to have the opportunity of carrying out the work.

Mr. Waddy thought his clients, from the practical point of view, would quite welcome the adjournment of the appeal until next Quarter Sessions. Although the Bench might take the view that they could not express any general approval of the plans, he thought he might invite either the Bench of Mr. Baxter to express any disapproval of them.

Mr. Justice Luxmoore said Mr. Waddy had the benefit that no one had as yet suggested that if the alterations were made the premises would not make them fit for licensed premises. He thought that in the circumstances the right course to take was to adjourn the appeal until the Quarter Sessions in April, and Mr. Waddy could then bring evidence as to what alterations had been made. The question of costs would be deferred until that hearing.

(Go to appeal.)

Dover Express, Friday 21 January 1938.

MR. W. SPRATT.

The funeral took place on Wednesday, at Charlton Cemetery, of Mr. William Spratt, whose death occurred at his residence, "Bowling Green Tavern," Hartley Street, Dover, on January 15th, at the age of 69 years. The late Mr. Spratt was the proprietor of the "Bowling Green Tavern." The Rev. S. W. Price officiated and the mourn present were Mr. A. Spratt (brother) Mrs. F. Goodban (sister), Mrs. A. Spratt (sister-in-law) Mrs. Menpes, Mr. C. Kemp and Mr. W. Smith.

Floral tributes were sent from:- Brother Alf, sister Fan and family; sister Floss, Bert, and Elsie; Charlie Kemp; Fremlin’s Directors; friends of Bowling Green; Mr. W. Smith and family, Mr. and Mrs. Finn; Mrs. Furlong; Mrs. Ransley. The funeral arrangements were by Mr. B. J. Andrews, of 22, New St., and 34, Longfield Rd., Dover.

From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday 20 March 1953.

DURHAM HILL FLATS

A view of the flats now being built on Durham Hill (1953), facing Military Road. Those on the right, near Bowling Green Terrace, are nearing completion. They will help to meet the demand for accommodation in the town centre.