From the Dover Express and East Kent Intelligencer, Saturday 7 July, 1860.

Infringement Public House License.

Henry Langley, landlord of the Britannia public house, Buckland was summoned for infringing his license on the 1st. inst. He was fined 10s and 10s costs.

From the Dover Express and East Kent Intelligencer, Saturday 31 January, 1868.

Charlotte Catherine Wilson, 14, and Margaret Nuttall, was charged with stealing from the house of Mrs. Ann Markwick, the "Britannia," Buckland, 3s. 6d. in money.

Wilson pleaded guilty and was sent to prison for 32 days and was to go to a reformatory afterwards for 2 years.

Nuttall was dismissed with a caution.

From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 28 April, 1870.

SUMMARY EJECTMENT

Benjamin Pater, a pork butcher, carrying on business in Limekiln Street, was summoned for an assault on Mary Stanley, a middle aged woman, who had been lodging in his house.

It appeared from the evidence of Mrs. Stanley, who said that she got her living by needle-work that she had been lodging at the house of the defendant for the past five months, during which time she had got behind with her rent. On Tuesday night, at about half-past eleven o'clock, after she was in bed, the defendant came to her room, and throwing the door open ordered her to get out of bed and leave the house at once. She complained of being called upon to leave the house in the middle of the night, and told the defendant he should have either requested her to leave the night before, or have waited till the morning. He persisted, however, that she must get up directly, and he scarcely permitted her to get on her clothes. She had scarcely finished dressing, when he threw her her bonnet and cloak, and taking her by the shoulders pushed her out of the room, down the stairs, and out of the house. There were some things in the room belonging to other persons, and she wished to take them away, but he refused. When she found herself outside the house, it was nearly one o'clock in the morning, and she could find no house open where she could obtain a lodging. She walked in the direction of Buckland, and a policeman on duty there told her he would see she was not interfered with if she remained there, and she sat down on a step till daybreak.

By the defendant: When you came to my bedroom door you did not, before opening it, ask where my daughter was, and I did not tell you she had gone to get her living.

There being no witness in support of the complaint.

The defendant made no reply. He did not deny turning the complainant out of doors, but sought to justify what he had done. The complainant came to his house, and hired an apartment, stating that she had a couple of daughters in her service, and obtained her own living by needlework. It was not long, however, before one of her daughters came to live with her; and his attention had been drawn to the fact that her daughter was a good deal away from home at night. He had also seen a man peering in at the doorway. Knowing what he did about recent acts of Parliament, he had no desire to have his house “spotted” by the police, and he was therefore required to act upon the first evidence he could get and turn the complainant and her daughter out of his house, if he should ascertain that the latter was leading an immoral life. Finding that the daughter had not come home at twelve o'clock on the night in question, he went to the door of the complainant's room, but did not throw it open at first as she had stated. He asked her where her daughter was, and she said that she had “gone to get her living.” He took that to mean that she was out for an improper purpose; and in his examination he acted rather more precipitately than he intended, and forcibly turned her out.

James Bootland, a married man, in the employ of Mr. Laws, of Frith Farm, said he lodged at Pater's house. He heard all the passed on the night in question. At first of all he heard Pater ask the complainant where her daughter was. She replied in the terms already referred to, and the defendant then said, “Then out of this house you go, for I will not have my house disgraced by you, or anybody else.” The witness stated that from his own knowledge the girl in question was getting her living by improper means, and was at that moment lodging at a public-house at Buckland.

The complainant said it was true that her daughter was at present at the “Britannia” public-house, at Buckland; but she was there to do needlework for the landlady. She was there on the night in question, and in consequence of the lateness of the hour when she had finished her work, she remained all night. If ever her daughter had remained out all night it was owing to the like circumstances. The girl was well-conducted, and she was going to a situation that very day. As for Bootland, he had endeavoured to lead the girl astray, and because she would not consent to his solicitations, he had come before the bench to swear falsely.

The girl, who was in Court, was then called forward. She said that she got her living by doing needle work, and had been working for the past week for the landlady of the “Britannia.” It was not true that she had ever done wrong; but, if she had not, it was no fault of Bootland's, as he had wanted to take a room for her; and when he found that she would not yield to his attempts at persuasion, he tried to threaten her, and told her the detectives from London were after her.

The Magistrates asked her how long she had been out of a situation?

She replied three months – to her sorrow.

Bootland, who appeared to be a respectable man, declared that the statements made by the girl were devoid of the slightest foundation.

The Magistrates said that an assault had undoubtedly been committed, and they thought, whatever the facts of the case were, that the defendant would have done better, had he allowed the complainant to remain in the house till the morning. A small fine, however, would meet the case, and they therefore fined him 2s. 6d., and the costs, 10s. 6d. As to Miss Stanley, they would advise her to set her situation as quickly as possible.

The defendant thought he had been very hardly treated; but the Magistrates told him he had infringed the law, and it was impossible to deal with him more leniently.

Mrs. Stanley asked how she was to recover her goods, and was informed that she must proceed by means of the County Court.

From the Dover Express and East Kent Intelligencer, 3 February, 1871. Price 1d.

CHARGE OF STEALING

Thursday. [Before J. F. Crookes, and W. Mowll, Esq.]

Douglas Wood and George Edwin Wood, a couple of young men about 18 or 19 years of age, were charged on suspicion of stealing some cigars, the property of Mary Ann Gooderson, residing at the "Britannia Inn," High Street.

Police-constable William Ash said he apprehended the prisoners on the same morning. He told them he should take them into custody on suspicion of stealing some cigars, and they said they had bought them.

The prisoners asked for a remand in order that they might bring up some witnesses to prove that they had bought the cigars on the previous day off a sailor at the pier.

The Magistrates granted a remand till Monday next.

From the Dover Express and East Kent Intelligencer, 10 February, 1871. Price 1d.

REMANDED CHARGE OF BURGLARY

The two men, Douglas Wood and George Edwin Wood, whose case had been remanded on the previous day, were again brought up, and the evidence was proceeded with.

Mr. Page said he wished to contradict a statement he had made I his evidence on the previous day. He had stated that the gas was burning in the hall when he first came down stairs; but, in all probability, owing to the confused state of his mind, he had not particularly noticed whether it was burning there or not, and hence the mistake.

Police-constable Chapman, whose evidence was proceeding on the previous day when the case was remanded, now resumed his deposition: When I saw the younger prisoner (Douglas) in Bench Street, in company with another man, who went towards the Market Place, where the man was whistling. I saw the man who was whistling cross the Market Place and join the younger prisoner at the “Antwerp” corner, and they went up Cannon Street together.

The prisoner Douglas Wood: I first saw you in Bench Street, near Mr. Lukey's. I afterwards followed you up. I was close enough to swear that you joined the man who had been whistling.

By the elder prisoner: I can swear that the man who was whistling had dark clothes on, and wore a felt hat. I followed him across the Market and saw him join Douglas Wood and the other man at the “Antwerp” corner, after which all of them went up Cannon Street.

Chapman here said that there had been a misapprehension of his evidence on the previous day. The place where the elder prisoner first stopped was about 2 or 3 feet from the place where the cruet was found, close to the heap of bricks.

By the elder prisoner: I was about 10 or 12 yards behind you when I saw you halt. I know how a portion of this property was found. I did not find it myself; but I saw Sergeant Stevens pick it up.

Examination continued: The prisoner Douglas Wood was also at the “Britannia Inn” when I apprehended the elder prisoner.

Francis Shipley: I keep the “Chance,” in Adrian Street. I have seen the two prisoners before. I saw them on Wednesday night, at my house. It was pretty near 12 o'clock. I was waiting up for some lodgers, and they did not leave until two o'clock. They were together for some time. There were three of them; but I do not know who the other man was.

By the elder prisoner: I had seen the other man before; but I had not previously seen you. You were not drunk when you were in my house. I drew you two quarts of ale. I did not see anything wrong going on between you.

The prisoners, on being called on for their reply, denied that they were guilty, and called the following witnesses.

Anne Marwick, examined by Douglas Wood, said: I reside in the “Britannia Inn,” at Buckland. My husband's name is Stephen Marwick. I remember the day the soldiers went away. I remember your going to the cupboard. You cut off a piece of pork. I saw you put some mustard on it, and I think you gave some to George Edwin Wood. You had a piece of ham in your pocket in a piece of paper.

By the Magistrates' Clerk: The prisoner George Edwin Wood has been staying at my house since Monday night. The prisoner Douglas Wood has been lodging with me for 8 months. The prisoner did not both occupy the same bedroom. I do not know who the bags belong to. The man who is not here and the taller of the two prisoners (George Edwin Wood) brought the bags in together.

The prisoner G. E. Wood then called Sarah Woodward, who was examined by the Court, and said; I am a single woman. I have lodged there since Wednesday night.

By the prisoner G. E. Wood: I remember the scarf produced. You leant it me on Wednesday evening. I gave it you the next morning, when you were wearing the handcuffs. I also buttoned up your coat, because you complained of being cold. You asked me for tin in the presence of a policeman. I slept in the next room to you. The two bags produced were in the same room I slept in. they were on the table, and were not in any way concealed. Anyone who went into the room could see them. You did not come into my room during that night or the next morning. I do not know whether the bags were locked or not.

By the Court: Another young man slept in the same room with me that night; but I do not know his name. He remained with me all night.

By the Bench: I have lodged at the “Britannia” one or two nights before.

Police-constable George Ash, examined by the elder prisoner: I apprehended you in a room on the left hand side, going up stairs, and I partly searched you. I searched in the overcoat pocket and found what I was looking for. I took the coat you have on now down stairs with me. I also felt in the pockets of your other coat.

Examined by the younger prisoner: I found you asleep lying on the floor. Your head might have been lying on the chair; but your body was on the ground.

The Magistrates committed the prisoners to take their trial at the Maidstone Assizes, to be held on the 13th of March.

From the Dover Express and East Kent Intelligencer, 8 September, 1871. Price 1d.

ANNUAL LICENSING MEETING THE BRITANNIA BUCKLAND

In this case the license was renewed to Mr. Stephen Markwick; but the Magistrates reminded him that it had transpired, in a case which had come before the Bench during the year, that thieves were harboured in the house.

Mr. Markwick said that the parties were there only one night. He was proceeding with some further observations when the Magistrates told him that he had better not attempt to justify himself, or they would be compelled to dismiss the case upon its merits, and this might result it his license being taken away. The Magistrates desired to mention the matter, as a warning to him for the future.