From the East Kent Mercury, 28th December 2000

The "Crown Inn" was one of several hostelries which once stood on the sea side of Beach Street, until demolished for the extensions to the new north promenade created in the 1920s (photo via F. A. Collyer.) Further information states that the pub was situated at the southern end of Pilots Parade.

The picture above shows on the left is the "Crown Inn." The information that went with the picture says that it was in the vicinity of Brewer Street and Farrier Street and that the houses shown in the centre have now been demolished.

From the East Kent Mercury 150th Anniversary reprint June 2015. June 1865.

MONTHLY MEETING OF THE PAVEMENT COMMISSIONERS.

Mr. Sharp of the "Crown Inn," applied to the Board respecting his pavement rate for the 6th of July last, as he did not take possession of the house until the 28th of July.

The Clerk explained that the pavement rate is paid for in advance , and that Mr. Sharp would be allowed three weeks' abatement.

Mr. Sharp said that although he had possession of the house, the fixtures, &c., having to be replaced, he could not commence business until the end of the summer.

Alderman Reynolds proposed that, under the circumstances, the rate would be excused.

Carried.

From the Deal, Walmer & Sandwich Mercury, 24 February, 1872.

ABUSING A LANDLORD

Stephen Pritchard and George Goldsack appeared to a summons which had been issued against them by Mr. W. H. R. Clayton, the landlord of the "Crown Inn," Beach Street, for having on the 20th inst. used very abusive and threatening language towards him, and refusing to leave his house when requested to do so. From this and other conduct the complainant feared he should be tempted to commit a breach of the peace, and he therefore prayed that the defendants might be called upon to show cause why they should not be bound over to keep the peace.

The defendants pleaded not guilty.

Mr. Till, of the firm of Messrs. Minter and Till, of Folkestone, appeared for Mr. Clayton, and in stating the cause to the Magistrates said that for some time Mr. Clayton had been annoyed by one of the defendants, and on Tuesday last the two went into his house about one in the daytime, and after having called for something to drink they commenced to talk the foulest possible language between each other and to each other, but against Mr. Clayton. So foul was the language the defendants used that Mr. Clayton ordered his barmaid to leave the bar, and she did so. He then asked the defendants in the quietest manner to leave his house - that was, he done his duty, - and told them that if they used such language they must go outside for he could not allow it in his house. In doing that Mr. Clayson was only doing what the law put upon him, and he only carried out the duty he was called upon to carry out, viz. to prevent obscene language. The defendants, however, refused to leave and Pritchard repeatedly used words which when the Bench came to hear them he (Mr. Till) thought they would consider where calculated to incite a breach of the peace. Pritchard did not stop here for he not only threatened to hurt Mr. Clayton, but he challenged him to go to the Esplanade to fight. Mr. Clayton, like a sensible man, refused to do anything of the kind, and the defendants remained there for some time during which the complainant endured every possible amount of blackguardism which the two defendants could heap upon him. Eventually the police were sent for by Mr. Clayton, and after P.C. Spicer arrived there the defendant Goldsack said the first time he caught Mr. Clayton in the streets he would break his face, and the constable eventually induced the men to leave. These were the circumstances of the case and he (Mr. Till) conceived that if he proved these facts the Magistrates would consider that complainant was fully entitled to that protection which he now sought from the Bench, for doing that which if he had not done the Bench, according to their duty, would have punished him for not doing.

The learned gentleman then called, Mr. Clayton who deposed: I am the landlord of the "Crown Inn," Beach Street, Deal, and have been so for the last 15 months' - worst luck. I remember the defendants coming into my house on Tuesday last at about one o'clock in the afternoon. They came to the front of the bar and had something to drink, and I asked them to move to the other side as the brewer was coming in and they were rather in the way where they stood. They moved away. I knew Pritchard before because he had been into my house on a previous occasion and insulted the people in the parlour, and I knew him again. My attention was drawn to him as he was talking to Goldsack. He was insinuating something to him about me and the barmaid. He said, "You had better go and mind your wife, and not go with the barmaid." Goldsack did not say anything to me at the time, but both of them were using indecent language to each other. I cannot say the exact words they used they are so indecent. I asked them quietly to stop that talking. I did not at any time use any bad language to them. When I asked them to leave off talking Pritchard said "You ____ monkey, I will smash your head in" and held his fist up to me and challenged me to go out on the Esplanade to fight. I said I would not go out and make a blackguard of myself. The defendant continued to make use of bad and threatening language and I sent for the police, and Sergt. Spicer came. I pointed the defendant out to Spicer and asked him to remove them for their abusive language and I also told him they had been threatening me. After this Goldsack said "The first time I catch you in the street I will smash your face," and I called the constable's attention to the observation. They still refused to leave the house, but after a time the constable persuaded them to go. I go in fear that they cause me to commit a breach of the peace, and I therefore ask that they may be called upon to find sureties.

By the Court: The men had had a glass or two before they came in, but they were not drunk.

Cross-examined by Pritchard: I can't tell the exact time you came into my house, but it might have been about 11. I did not say that I would knock your _____ head off for using bad language. I did after you had threatened me. When I charge you with using foul language you did not say, "I beg your pardon, I am not in the habit of doing so. I am a father of a family myself." I was only in the bar two minutes before I heard your bad language. You were sitting on an empty cask in front of the bar, in the lobby or passage. I will swear that you did not say what you have stated. I accuses you of using bad language. I distinctly swear to that. You have been in my house once before and then you created a disturbance in the parlour.

By Goldsack: I never saw you in my house before. You are summonsed for threatening to smash my face in.

William James said: I am a servant in the employ of Mr. Clayton at the "Crown Inn," Deal, and was there on Tuesday last. I saw two men named Prichard and Goldsack in front of the bar somewhere between twelve and one. I did not see them come in. I heard them make use of very abusive language to Mr. Clayton and also filthy language. (The witness here mentioned one of the beastly remarks.) That language was made use of in the hearing of the barmaid, and Mr. Clayton sent her out of the bar in consequence. Pritchard called Mr. Clayton a " ______ monkey" and Goldsack said he would like to smash his nose in. Pritchard also said to Mr. Clayton "if you only come outside I would give you a hammering." My Clayton said he would not leave the bar, but wished them to leave the house. They would not do so but kept on calling him names. I went and fetched the police, and after Spicer got there Goldsack threatened to punch, or smash, Mr. Claytons' head in when he caught him out, or words to that effect. I believe that Spicer heard that. I never heard Pritchard make an apology or deny that he had made use of bad language - I will swear he did not do so while I was there, and I was only absent the short time while I went for the police and a minute or two when I went down in the cellar, where every word could be heard.

Cross-examined by Pritchard: I did not hear Mr. Clayton threaten to knock your head off. I did not hear Clayton make use of any threat. I saw him jump over the counter, and heard him ask the barmaid to retire, because of the bad language used.

Caroline Piggott, the barmaid, was next sworn, and corroborated the evidence of the complainant and the last witness. The defendants, she said, made use of very filthy language indeed, and Mr. Clayton ordered her to leave the bar in consequence.

P.S. Spicer deposed: I was called to go to the "Crown Inn" on Tuesday last by the witness James. When I got to the house I found about twenty boys round the door, I drove them away before I went in. When I got in I saw defendants and two other men standing in front of the bar. Mr. Clayton requested me to remove these men, and said Pritchard had been using abusive language, and Pritchard complained of the landlord having challenged him out to fight. Mr. Clayton called my attention to something that Goldsack said, and said he said he would punch his (Mr. Clayton's) head, or words to that effect, but I did not hear Goldsack make the remark, as I was in the passage at the time. Goldsack denied having used the words, and said he had not insulted anyone. At last I persuaded the defendants to leave, and I told Mr. Clayson that the mildest way, if they had insulted him, was to take out a summons, and I said the same to Pritchard.

Cross-examined by Pritchard: I could not say that either of you were the worse for drink.

By the Court: All the people were very much excited.

In defence, Pritchard said that while he was standing at the bar complainant came in like a madman and jumped over the bar-counter. He then charged him with using bad language, but he (Pritchard) told him he never did such a thing, and that he never allowed it even in his own tap-room, as he had daughters of his own. The first time Clayton said was that he would knock his nose off, and he (defendant) said, "Let us go out and see about that. I am not going to have that done quietly, and you must do it fair and honest." Goldsack never spoke a word either one way or the other, and he is quite innocent of everything.

The Court was then cleared, and the Magistrates deliberated in private for some little time. On the re-admission of the public, the Mayor said the Magistrates had given this case their careful attention, and they were of opinion that there was disorderly conduct to a certain extent on the part of both Pritchard and Goldsack. They were at one time requested to leave and they should have done so then, without necessitating the police being sent for. The magistrates had decided that Pritchard should find one surety of £5, and he bound himself in the same sum to keep the peace towards Mr. Clayton and all her Majesty's subjects for three months, and that Goldsack should enter into his own recognizance's for the same amount and for the same period. The defendants should also have to pay the costs.

From the Deal, Walmer, and Sandwich Mercury, 20 March, 1875. 1d.

EXTENSION

Mr. E. Elridge, landlord of the "Crown Inn," Beach Street, applied for permission to keep his house open until twelve o'clock on Wednesday next, on the occasion of a harmonic meeting. Permission was granted.

From the East Kent Mercury, Thursday 1 December, 2010.

ONCE UPON A TIME A CROWN COULD BE FOUND ON THE BEACH

NOW AND THEN: The former Crown Inn, (top), was bought by Deal council in 1912 and later demolished for road widening Picture: Terry Scall PD1787553.

PEBBLES, benches and seagulls now occupy the stretch of Beach Street in Deal where the "Crown" once stood.

The old picture was probably taken about 1900 in the times when buildings occupied both sides of the road.

An old map reveals that the public house stood between junctions with Farrier Street and Coppen Street, now called Coppin Street, with the back of the building virtually on the seashore.

Deal Borough Council bought many properties on the seaward side of the seafront for road widening.

The only one remaining now is The Royal Hotel.

According to The Old Pubs of Deal and Walmer (with Kingsdown and Mongeham), the Crown was mentioned in documents dating back to 1680. Esua Griffiths was the "victualler" in 1727 and in 1746 the landlord was John Wyborn.

Other landlords in various journals wrote about what was happening in the area during their time in the pub, including bad storms, the numbers of ships anchored on The Downs and seagoers who came to drink and maybe stay in the Crown.

One wrote in December 1838 that the pub was packed with customers and the beach was full of coal.

The old picture shows the pub with outbuildings on the seaside and a variety of posters on the wall, at a time when George Beer and Co, Canterbury Ales and Beers, was in charge.

Its life as a pub ended in 1909 and the following year it was put up for auction - the advertisement appeared in this newspaper.

Goods for sale included French bedsteads, mahogany and walnut marble-top washstands, corking machines, dining room furniture, Brussels and tapestry carpets, a ping-pong table, meat safes and even floor-cloths.

The pub temporarily became the Liberal Men's Reading Rooms before eventually bought by Deal council in 1912 and demolished.