From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday 1 August, 1863.

CHARGE OF FELONY

Jane Campbell, the girl committed upon the previous day upon two charges of felony, was brought up from the prison and charged with stealing a dress and other articles, the property of Ann Pickering.

The prosecutrix, who was a prostitute, said she lived at the "Maxton Arms," West Street, Deal. The prisoner has been lodging at the same house for a few days. Last Friday night she missed from her bedroom a dress, a skirt of a dress, and several other articles of wearing apparel and pieces of jewellery, which she mentioned in detail. The prosecutrix identified a dress and other articles produced by police-sergeant Smith as her property. She last saw them on Friday night. The prisoner slept in the same room as her, but left the house on Friday night. She missed the things about three quarters or an hour after the prisoner had left. She valued the stolen property at 16s.

Police-constable Smith said in consequence of information received he went to the "Crown" public-house, St. James's Street, on Saturday night, and as a result the landlady, Mrs. Fox, delivered to him a bundle left there the previous day by the prisoner, and which contained the whole of the articles now produced, with the exception of a brooch. He subsequently went to the "Great Gun," public-house, Adrian Street, where a witness named Ovenden handed him a brooch and a collar, saying that they had been given to her by the prisoner. The landlady's daughter, a child of about five or six years of age, also gave him a pair of ear-rings, produced, which she said she had received from the prisoner. While in custody at the station-house upon three other charges, the prisoner said the article were her property, and the dress she had bought and paid for. He had not been able to recover the whole of the articles stolen.

Elizabeth Fox, the landlady of the "Crown," said the prisoner came into the bar of her house between three and four o'clock on Saturday afternoon, and handing her a bundle asked her to take care of it for a short time, at the same time saying she wished to some one would put a top to the dress for her. A person in the bar offered to do so, and the prisoner then gave her the dress produced, which she took away, but brought it back again about five with the top on. It was then handed to the prisoner, who shortly afterwards left the house. On the constable calling upon witness in reference to the robbery, she searched for the bundle, and found it in one of the top bedrooms. She did not open the bundle, but handed it immediately to the police-officer. She did not see the prisoner go upstairs.

Elizabeth Ovenden, living at the "Great Gun," Adrian Street, said the prisoner came into that house about ten o'clock on Saturday morning, and asked witness if she could stop there. She told her she did not know, and the prisoner then asked her to let her go upstairs to wash. She allowed her to do so, and carried up a bundle belonging to her. After washing herself the prisoner went into the tap-room and stopped there until about two o'clock, when she went out, taking with her a skirt of a dress. While in the tap-room the prisoner opened her bundle, and witness saw in it several articles now produced, with the exception of the dress. The prisoner gave her the brooch and collar produced.

The prisoner: No, I lent it you because you were going out.

Examination continued: Witness afterwards delivered the brooch and collar to the policeman.

The defendant in reply to the charge, said two collars found among articles produced were her own property. All of the things did not belong to her, but she did not steal the dress.

The prisoner was committed for trial upon this charge also. The prisoner, it was stated, was convicted at this Court about two years ago.

From the Dover Express and East Kent Intelligencer, 22 October, 1864.

THE CROWN INN

Permission was granted to John Higgins to sell at the "Crown Inn," St James's Street, until next transfer day.

From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday 17 February, 1866.

WILFUL DAMAGE

William Drew, an artilleryman of the 18th Brigade, charged with wilfully breaking glass at the "Crown Tavern," St. James's Street, was fined the amount of the damage and the costs, which he paid.

From the Dover Express and East Kent Intelligencer, 14 September, 1866.

BOROUGH BENCH

A fine of 22s. 6d. including costs was inflicted on the landlady of the "Crown Inn," St. James's Street, for infringement of licenses.

The Magistrates determined to recommend the Excise authorities not to grant a license to a refreshment house in Northampton Street, in respect to which application had been made by Mr. Wiedman.

From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 10 April, 1868.

ASSAULT.

Mary Ann Webb was charged with assaulting Emma Ward. The parties lived at the "Crown," in St. James's Street, and the quarrel was about a soldier. "Of course," the complainant said, she had something to drink, when the row took place; but she appeared to have been badly treated. The statements of the two women were very conflicting, and the case was immediately adjourned till Monday, for the presence of witnesses.

REMANDED CASE

In the case of Mary Ann Webb, an unfortunate, summoned for an assault on another of the frail sisterhood named Emma Wood, a witness was produced.

The case was before the Magistrates on Friday, when it transpired that the circumstances out of which the assault was alleged to have arisen had  reference to a soldier about whom the woman quarrelled. Words led to blows on the part of the defendant, and the complainant received a black eye and some contusions on the upper part of her person. The statement of the parties when the matter was first before the Magistrates were very conflicting, and it was found impossible to reconcile them. The complainant stated that she was deliberately struck by the defendant, whereas the defendant represented that the complainant was so much inebriated that she fell from a chair and so inflicted the injuries upon herself.

Mrs. Elizabeth Barton, the landlady of the "Crown," St. James's Street, where the women lived, was now called. She proved that Emma was decidedly drunk. She came in rather late one night, and begun quarrelling with Mary Ann Webb about a soldier. Both girls were excited, but she could not say whether Webb was the assailant. Emma was the worse for liquor when she returned home, but she demanded to be supplied with a pint of beer before going to bed, and witness gave it her.

The Magistrates dismissed the case, and censured Mrs. Barton for supplying beer to the complainant when she was already drunk.

From the Dover Express and East Kent Intelligencer, 11 September, 1868.

THE ANNUAL LICENSING DAY

THE CROWN

A person whose name did not transpire attended before the Bench to make a complaint as to the manner in which the "Crown Inn," St. James's Street, was conducted, but he was not in attendance before the license was renewed, and he was therefore informed by the Mayor that the Magistrates could not now entertain his complaint, but that the police should have instructions to keep a watch upon the premises.

From the Dover Express and East Kent Intelligencer, 16 September, 1870. Price 1d.

THE ANNUAL LICENSING DAY

The Borough Magistrates held their annual licensing meeting on Monday last at the Sessions House. The Magistrates on the bench were E. F. Astley (in the Chair), J. F. Crookes, T. E. Back, C. Stein, J. G. Churchward, J. G. Smith, and W. R. Mowll Esqs. Most of the licenses were renewed pro forma. The exceptional cases were the following.

THE CROWN. ST. JAMES'S STREET

In the case of the “Crown,” a memorial had been received by the Magistrates, praying that the license might not be renewed on the ground that the house was frequented by common prostitutes and that women of this class resided on the premises.

The petition was signed by several persons living near the “Crown,” and its prayer was supported by two of them, Mr. W. C. Keys and Mr. A. Datlen. Both were sworn; and Mr. Keys, in reply to the questions of the Magistrates, said that his house was separated from the “Crown” by a narrow passage, but that he was notwithstanding much annoyed by the proceedings carried on there. He had seen prostitutes passing in and out of the house at all hours of the day and night. From his observations he was able to say that a couple of prostitutes lived upon the premises; and the house was conducted in a very disorderly manner.

Mr. Datlen said he resided next door to the “Crown,” which was conducted in a very disorderly manner. There was a good deal of noise, especially at night; in fact, the house was “like a bee-hive.” Disorderly women frequented the house, and some resided there. He had found it necessary to complain two years ago.

The applicant denied that the house was kept in a disorderly way. As to women living in the house, he said he supposed he was allowed to keep servants; and he protested that the women who had been seen by Mr. Datlen, and mistaken for prostitutes, were his domestics. He challenged the Police to say whether the house was conducted in a disorderly way; and he hoped the Magistrates would not withhold his license because of the ill-feeling of a couple of his neighbours.

The Chairman said that it was not only the complaint of a couple of neighbours, but the petition of several persons, some of whom were known to the Magistrates, with which the Bench had to deal. Two persons, however, had come forward to substantiate on oath the allegations contained in the petition, and the Magistrates determined to withhold the license.