From the Dover Mercury, 10 December, 2009.

Postcard is a souvenir of long vanished pub.

A view taken from the former Sandown Castle site, looking south towards Deal. The pub In the centre has since been demolished.

MANY of Deal's pubs have been converted into homes, with few keeping the original pub features so their history has been lost.

The Sandown Castle, close to the sea in the north of the town, was one of the pubs in the area which was demolished, probably in the 1980s, leaving no trace of its existence - except in old black and white postcards.

It stood virtually at the end of Sandown Road and was closed for some time before finally being knocked down.

The big detached property sat in its own grounds with a back garden and at one time was run by an employee at Betteshanger Colliery and his wife. The pit, off the Deal-Sandwich road, closed in 1989, the last colliery in the Kent Coalfield.

In the days when the Sandown Castle pub was open for business, the area also had a cafe and public conveniences on the old Sandown Castle site and it was a popular place for visitors in the summer.

Crazy golf

There also used to be a crazy golf putting green in north Deal, complete with a miniature windmill in the middle of the course.

In the old postcard the detached house with the distinctive roof, built in 1900, was virtually sitting alone until the Deal Borough Council's estate of council houses was built, now the Canute Road area.

The view shows a house standing close to the beach on the left, which is still visible today and now painted a shade of blue.

Deal Pier, not the present one, can be seen in the distance and there was a walkway along the seashore. This area now has a seawall and the beach washes closer in to the land.

Above shows a 2009 version of the old postcard view of the northern part of Deal's coastline.

From the Deal, Walmer, and Sandwich Mercury, 30 October, 1869. 1d.

Mr. Cattermole, landlord of the "Castle Inn", Sandgate, appeared before the Magistrates and said he had a written authority to gather stones from the beach, but on the previous afternoon two policemen, with a man and a cart, came and tried to take away five stones that were not worth 6d. He was not aware that he had taken away anything belonging to the town authorities, and the matter had caused a little ill-feeling between Mr. Parker and himself.

The Mayor said perhaps he could explain the matter. On the previous afternoon the Surveyor of the Pavement Commissioners, Mr. Simon Marsh, called upon him and stated that he had been instructed by the General Purpose Committee, or some of them to go down to Sandown Castle and get up and bring back certain old pavement stones which had been put for the accommodation of the public under the seat erected by the Commissioners of Pavement. The seat, however, was now no longer required and they wished the stones brought back again. Accordingly the Surveyor sent down for those stones, the men had returned without them and said Mr. Cattermole had refused to allow them to be removed. The Surveyor therefore came to him to know what he was to do. He told him he had better go down again from him (the Mayor) and explain to Mr. Cattermole that the particular stones that he wanted were not at all connected to Sandown Castle, but had been put down there by the Commissioners of Pavement for a certain purpose, and that they now wanted them back again and must have them. He (the Mayor) understood that Supt. Parker subsequently went down with Mr. Marsh and explained the matter to Mr. Cattermole.

Mr. Cattermole said none of them came to explain the matter to him, and he did not know they were down there till he was told they were taking the stones away. He had got two men present in Court who picked those very identical stones off the beach, and of course he did not know that they belonged to the Pavement Commissioners. If Mr. Parker had come to him in a proper manner and told him that the stones were the property of the Commissioners, of course he would have immediately delivered them up, but instead of that the Superintendent threatened to summons him and also to strike him with a big shillelagh which he carried, and which he thought a policeman ought not to be allowed to carry. Mr. Cattermole also said that on the first occasion when he saw the boy picking up the stones he spoke to him and asked him who had sent him to do so, and the boy was then exceedingly impudent to him.

Supt. Parker said that whilst they were collecting the stones Mr. Cattermole came out in a most violent manner and began interfering, and as he wanted to have it all on his own way he threatened to strike him if he did not leave off. He certainly would have done so to, if Mr. Cattermole had not desisted.

After some further remarks from both parties, the Magistrates sad they considered there had been some little misunderstanding, and that Mr. Cattermole had not given himself patience to understand the explanation. They were afraid he had been rather too energetic.

The Surveyor said there were still eleven more stones down there belonging to the Commissioners and he supposed he was to fetch them.

The Mayor said no doubt if Mr. Cattermole had got them in his possession he would give them up.

Mr. Cattermole said if they were amongst his of course the Surveyor could have them at once.

From the Deal, Walmer, and Sandwich Mercury, 6 November, 1869. 1d.

CHARGE OF ASSAULT

Thomas Cattermole, landlord of the "Castle Inn," Sandown, was summonsed for having on the 29th of October, unlawfully assaulted Mr. S. Marsh, the Surveyor.

Mr. Mourilyan appeared for the defendant.

Simon Marsh deposed: Last Thursday we were here, and met together. I had orders from Mr. Cavell to go to Sandown to get the remainder of the stones that were under the seat, and I accordingly went down there on the following day with my man Thompsett and a boy. The boy pointed out to us the place where we thought the stones were, which was underneath a lot of stones that Mr. Cattermole had collected together and the man then began moving them. Whilst he was doing so the defendant came out of his house and said to us, "What are you doing there?" I said, "Go on Thompsett, take no notice," and he did so and presently he found one of the stones, and shortly afterwards he also found another. This man (the defendant) then began at me and called me "an old ____," "a _____ villain," and "a _____ old scamp." I said to him, "You must be drunk or stupid, surely, to go o in this way." He said, "Yes, you old _____; I will let you know. You have your £40 a year, don't you, and I will do for you." I again asked him if he were drunk or sober and said to him, "You must be drunk, surely, or else you would never go on like this." He replied, "You _____, why don't you go and pay your rates; your poor rates, and your pavement rates, and all the rates you owe." Now, I have not been charged with these rates for these five years. I then took the two stones away, but I aught to have nine more. That is all I have got to say.

Mr. Mourilyan observed that if that were the complainants case he had nothing to say, as the charge against his client was for an assault.

Marsh added: I then left as he kept on threatening me. He threatened to do for me, and by those words provoked me to make a breach of the peace, and had I been a young man I should not have stood it. He did not strike me, but I thought he meant to, as he kept close to me.

In answer to the Magistrates, Marsh said he told the complainant that he must have got the stones, and he must have had them as they were found underneath some stones that he had collected, and they could not have got there by themselves.

After some discussion, the Magistrates said they considered Marsh had rather out-stepped his duty by making use of the observation he had to Mr. Cattermole, and the case would be dismissed. The Mayor, however, expressed his surprise that the defendant should, after the full and amicable explanation which had been given of the whole affair on the previous Thursday, have resisted a public officer in the discharge of his duty.

Mr. Mourilyan then said he should ask the Magistrates to allow his client costs, as he had never heard a more frivolous case. A public officer went down to Sandown and accused the client of what very nearly amounted to felony, and then complained that he used certain language to him, but then Mr. Marsh, according to his instructions, called Mr. Cattermole some equally delightful names. He did not think a charge like the present should be presented before the Magistrates on, he could not say light grounds, but on no grounds at all. because the complainant said the defendant did not even lift his stick at him.

The Magistrates said they thought the defendant had taken it out in abuse, and that they ought not to encourage such conduct. If they allowed the costs it would be almost like offering a premium to others.

Mr. Mourilyan enquired whether the Magistrates did not consider they would be giving a premium to persons bringing false charges, if they did not mark their sense of this case by allowing them.

The Clerk said it was hardly correct to say that Mr. Marsh had brought a false charge, because it was only a wrong one, and had he taken out an information against Mr. Cattermole for inciting him to commit a breach of the peace it might have resulted differently. Mr. Marsh had only been mistaken.

Mr. Mourilyan said the Magistrates must remember that they had only heard one side, and he thought according to instructions that it was "six one and a half-a-dozen the other."

The Magistrates still declined to allow costs, and the case then terminated.

From the Deal, Walmer, and Sandwich Mercury, 18 September, 1869. 1d.

ASSAULT

Thomas Cattermole, landlord of the "Castle Inn," Sandown, was summoned on the information of Sarah Ottaway, for having on the 14th inst. unlawfully assaulted and beaten her.

On being asked whether he were guilty or not, Mr. Cattermole said he was not aware that he had struck the complainant, as he was so full of drink. He had been drinking with the complainant's brother all the afternoon, and he was really not aware that he had done anything wrong. If he had he was truly sorry, as he was the last man to strike a woman. He did not believe the affair would have occurred if the complainant's brother had not brought up an old grievance.

The Magistrates inquired whether the parties could not make the matter up amongst themselves.

Mr. Cattermole said the complainant's sister (who had also summoned him for assault on the same occasion) was willing to do so, but she would not.

The Magistrates again recommended an amicable arrangement of the matter, and complainant then expressed her willingness to do so, but said that as the defendant had publicly insulted her, she thought he aught to make a public apology and be bound over to keep the peace.

The Mayor: And also pay the costs.

Mr. Cattermole said he was quite willing to, and did, apologise to the complainant, and certainly would not repeat the offence. He could not think how ever he came to do it. He then paid the costs, 10s., and also gave another 10s. to the poor-box.

From the Deal, Walmer, and Sandwich Mercury, 27 May, 1871.

USING THREATENING LANGUAGE

Robert Thomas Stanton, sail-maker and publican of Dover ("Crusader") was summoned by Mr. Cattermole the landlord of the "Castle Inn" for having on the 15th inst, offered to fight with him and threatened to do him an injury if he caught him anywhere.

Thomas Cattermole deposed: On the 15th of May the defendant came into my house, in company with two others, and asked for a glass of whisky. He had three-pennyworth, and he got up in a passion, and called me a _____ villain. He walked into the parlour where there were two pictures. He said, on looking at the pictures, "You are a _____ rogue, Cattermole, they aught to have been mine." I replied to him in these words, "Well, Robert, you know that at the valuation when my house was taken at Dover, I said if you give the valuation, I have no doubt that the person, Mrs. Chaney, who is going to take the house, will let you have them." She did consent, and I took the pictures down to the defendant's house. He had them for about twelve years without paying for them, and then, finding I did not get the money, and that no notice was taken, I applied for the pictures, and he (the defendant) on my application gave them up to me in a passion. He then came out of the parlour into the bar, and sat down on the bar seat, and asked for three pennyworth more whisky. I refused it and said, "You aught not to have any more, Robert," but I afterwards served him with it as he said he was not drunk. He then threw down two half sovereigns on the table, and said he wanted to fight with me. He was in a passion at the time. I told him to take his money up, and I said I thought he must have come down there to make a row. I went round to him from the inside of the bar, and he, thinking I was going to fight with him went out of the front door, for he had said he would not strike me in my own house, but he had asked me to go outside. As soon as he got outside I locked the door. I then had to go and pick up my wife, who, in consequence of what she had heard was in hysterics, and whilst he was outside he looked through the windows and sparred at me, and said, "If you will fight me for twenty minutes on your green I will pull your _____ liver out." Presently Mrs. Cattermole got better, and she went to the back gate to fasten it, and defendant, who was then round at the back of the house, said something to her which I did not hear, but which she told me afterwards. Defendant then left, and the other two men who had been locked inside with me also left.

Cross-examined by Defendant: I can't say the time you entered my house, but it was in the afternoon. You called for whisky. I did not have a glass then - you did pay for one for me, but I did not drink it. I only charged you 3d for it, although the usual price is 4d., but you being a victualler I let you have it at cost price. I did not order you out of my house. I will positively swear that. My wife did not take the poker up at you.

In answer to the Bench, Mr. Cattermole said he had no witness. His wife was too ill to attend.

Defendant then proceeded to make his defence, and gave his account of the picture transaction. The substance of this was that when Mr. Cattermole left his house at Dover, he (the defendant) said he should like to have a picture that was in the house (Old Dover Harbour) and Mr. Cattermole said although it was in the inventory no doubt he could have it, and another one (the Review at Spithead) as well. Accordingly he had the pair, and Mr. Cattermole told him that if he sent him 10s., that, and his services in storing and sending his things on to him, would be the value of the pictures. He (the defendant) offered him the 10s. at the time, but he would not take it, and said he was to wait till Mr. Cattermole got a house and they would then spend the 10s. and have a friendly supper together, or something of that sort. After two years he (Mr. Cattermole) went to his house and applied for the pictures, when he offered him 10s., but Cattermole had wanted £2. He told him that he did not feel disposed to give him that amount, and he had better give his (defendant's) wife the 10s. for storing the goods, and to consider himself no longer his friend. Cattermole then paid 10s. and took the pictures away. On the 15th inst., he had a little occasion to come over here on business with his sail makers, and being down at Sandown he asked the persons he was with to have something to drink. He knew that Mr. Cattermole kept the house, and they went into the "Castle Inn." When he went in there was a friendly greeting between himself and Cattermole and they all had glasses round. He saw the pictures which they had previously fell out about hanging in the room and that revived the old matter in his mind, and they had some words. He believed they were both as bad as each other. He denied that he threw down two half sovereigns or anything else, that he offered to fight with the complainant, or that he threatened him in any way. In support of this statement he called W. Pritchard, rope-maker at the North-end, one of the persons who accompanied defendant into the "Castle Inn," but all he knew of the matter was that while they were standing at the bar drinking some angry words were passed between the complainant and the defendant, but he paid no attention to it, and did not properly understand what it was about. Afterwards both Mr. Cattermole and the defendant went into another room, and he knew nothing of what passed there. He thought Mr. Cattermole was the "irritablist" of the two.

In cross-examination by Mr. Cattermole, Pritchard said he did not see the defendant take out his purse while they were at the bar and throw down some money on the table, nor did he hear him (Cattermole) say, "Well, Robert, you are more flash of sovereigns now, than when I used to know you." He did hear him tell the defendant that he thought he had had quite enough. He also believed that the defendant said that Cattermole was no man.

In answer to the Bench Mr. Pritchard said: I noticed that Stanton had had some drink, but he was not beastly drunk, as he could walk straight.

P. Finnis, sail-maker, was next called by the defendant to prove that he was not at all intoxicated when he called at his store late in the same afternoon.

He and Mr. Stanton was at his place twice on the day in question - at half-past 12 and again at half-past four o'clock. He was quite sober in his opinion on both occasions, and at the last visit he (Mr. Finnis) showed him some sails that he had to dispose of, but  they could not agree about the price. He had known Mr. Stanton for years.

The Court was then cleared, and on the re-admission of the public the Mayor said the Magistrates had gone carefully through the evidence, and their decision was that the defendant had first commenced the row by bringing up an old score which led to the dispute about the pictures. He also made a remark about Mr. Cattermole being no man, and there was no evidence to contradict the complainant's statement about the two half sovereigns. They considered that he by his conduct, and in commencing about the pictures, was the cause of all the row and annoyance, and he would, therefore, be bound over for three months, in the sum of £10, to keep the peace towards Mr. Cattermole. He would also have to pay the costs, 16s.

From the Deal, Walmer, and Sandwich Mercury, 2 August, 1873.

ANNOYING A POLICE OFFICER

Thomas Hayhow, landlord of the "Castle Inn," Sandown, was present to hear a complaint from P.C. Spicer. It will be remembered that on Thursday last Hayhow was summoned for having his house open during prohibited hours on Sunday, and that he was convicted upon Sergeant Spicer's evidence. On Saturday night, shortly after ten, whilst the officer was talking to some other constables near to the Town Hall, Hayhow passed, and made use of an insulting and threatening observation towards Spicer.

Mr. Hayhow said he did not see Spicer on the occasion referred to, and was at home at the time stated. He admitted, however, that he left the Assembly Rooms at twenty minutes to ten, and afterwards went to the "Park Tavern" for a glass of ale. He saw some policemen standing near the Town Hall, and one of them wished him good night, to which he replied, "Good night, sir."

Sergt. Spicer said he was quite sure that Mr. Hayhow was the person who made the remark. He had no desire to have the man punished, but he wished to put a stop to the annoyance.

The Magistrates cautioned the latter, and then dismissed him.

From the Dover Mercury, Thursday 27 May, 2010. From Now and Then.

CAFE TABLES IN THE SHADOW OF TUDOR FORT

A NOW and Then feature earlier this year reminded Mercury readers about a popular cafe near the remains of Sandown Castle, at the extreme northern end of Deal.

Dora Riley, from Ethelbert Road, brought in her own photo from the 1960s when she ran the Sandown Cafe with her husband James for a couple of years.

Mercury reader Laurence Pitcher has now found an old view of part of the cafe next to the remains of the Tudor fort, showing two men sitting at tables outside and a child and adult sitting on a wall eating ice creams. A corner of the cafe with its distinctive tiled roof can just be seen on the right, surrounded by a crazy paving area. The building has long gone, probably due to floods in the area.

The detached property with its tall chimneys and side turrets, beyond the parked car in Sandown Road, is still part of the street scene.

In the background of the old picture is the Sandown Castle pub, which stood in its own grounds. It was empty before finally being demolished and the land was later used for a housing development.

Sandown Castle was built as a trio of defences in Deal, all rose-shaped coastal artillery forts constructed during the reign of Henry VIII against the threat of invasion from Spain.

In all its glory it had cannon on the bastions and was originally about 500 yards from the seafront.

By the end of the Napoleonic Wars the incoming sea often flooded the castle until it became uninhabitable. In 1863 it was offered for sale and the Admiralty decided it should not be totally demolished as its could be a bulwark against the advancing waves. (It was in this year that the pub changed name from the "Good Intent." Paul Skelton.)

The sea eventually won the battle and little now remains of Sandown Castle, although in the 1960s the rose shape could still be recognised among the pile of stones.

From the Dover Mercury, 28 July, 2016.

Photo by Linda Ford.