From Kentish Gazette 3 June 1834.

T. ADMANS, CROWN AND ANCHOR, KING STREET, CANTERBURY,

Respectfully thanks his Friends and the Public for the support he has received during his short residence in the above house, and solicits the honor of their company at his OPENING DINNER, on WEDNESDAY NEXT, JUNE 4th. Tickets for Dinner and Desert, 3s 6d.

Dinner on Table at Four o'clock precisely.

From the Kentish Gazette, 31 January 1837.

DEATHS.

In Kings Street, Canterbury, the wife of Mr. Thomas Admans, "Crown and Anchor Tavern," aged 24.

From the Kentish Gazette, 16 January 1838.

To be Let, with Immediate Possession.

That well established public house, known by the name of the "Crown and Anchor," situated in King Street, Canterbury.

Apply to Mr. Henry Bird, auctioneer, 56, Burgate Street.

Farmers' Gazette, Saturday 22 May 1847.

HIGHWAY ROBBERY IN CANTERBURY.

On Thursday last, a man and woman, giving their names George Bates and Sarah Johnson alias Steele, were had before the city magistrates on a charge of highway robbery, committed under the following circumstances:-

James Hearn, a small farmer at Harbledown, had occasion to come into the city on Tuesday evening, and on his return home, at about half-past nine o'clock, was accosted by the female prisoner, at the corner of Water Lane, who asked him for the loan of his umbrella, which he refused, but offered her shelter under it, if she were going his way. This offer she gladly accepted, and in the course of her talk - she was very chatty - said she lived as servant close by, and was going for some roasted potatoes, she having at the time a plate and cloth. Previous to parting company, he felt her take his purse, but before he got hold of her, the male prisoner used a violent expression, and ran against him, knocking him down. The female took a turn round Westgate Grove, her companion running the same way. The prosecutor raised the cry of "stop thief," on which the male prisoner returned and knocked him down again, but he could not say whether by striking of simply running against him. In the meantime the female got clear off. Prosecutor gave chase to the other down the Whithall Road, but lost him. The purse of which he was robbed contained two lightish sovereigns, and some six or seven shillings in silver. He positively identified the two prisoners as the parties who had robbed and assaulted him.

Inspector Spratt, on receiving information of the robbery repaired to the "Crown and Anchor" public house in King Street, immediately on his entering which the male prisoner went out the back was, and decamped across the church yard, passing through a house (to the occupants of whom said a man was in pursuit to murder him) into Mill Lane, where he was caught by Spratt. His hat, which he had dropped in the church yard, was afterwards picked up and owed by him. The female, who was also in the public house, was left in charge of police Constable Gifford.

Two witnesses were called, Maurice Saunders and Frederick Nash, the former of whom had seen the male prisoner, shortly previous to the robbery, with a female in Westgate, and the latter spoke to his having seen the female prisoner emerge from Westgate Grove on hearing the cry of "Stop Thief." Mary Ann Hubble, of the "Crown and Anchor" public house, deposed to the two prisoners passing as man and wife, having lodged at her house some time, and that shortly before the appearance of Spratt, the latter paid her score, for which she tendered a sovereign, identified by the prosecutor as of the same reign and like those he had lost.

Police Constable Dodd produced a purse found on the female prisoner, containing twenty two duplicate various articles she had pledged.

Some of the evidence was rendered unnecessary, by the admission of the male prisoner, who stated that he was at the place mentioned by the prosecutor, who, in fact, knocked him down by running against him, but that he knew nothing of the robbery. Also as to his decamping from the public house, which he did from the apprehension that the police were after him on the charge wrongly raised by the prosecutor. The female prisoner denied ever having seen the prosecutor.

The Bench deciding o committing the prisoners for trial, the Clerk observed that highway robbery, preceded or followed by violence, was a capital offence, which could be tried only at the Assizes; but the Magistrates taking a more lenient view, and assuming that the prosecutor might have been knocked down not by blows with the fist, but rather by the male prisoner running against him, committed the two prisoner for trial at the city sessions, for highway robbery not accompanied with violence.

It was only on Saturday night last that a countryman was robbed in a similar way of a silver watch, in St. George's Lane; and after the disposal of the above mentioned case, another female, giving her name as Elizabeth Day, was brought up on suspicion of intending to commit felony, as she had a drunken countryman in "tow" the previous night, who was saved, doubtless, from loss by the interfering of the police. She was well known in the police annals, and an order was made, after a suitable caution, for her being sent out of the town.

Kentish Gazette, 9 November 1847.

DEATH.

Hubble:- Oct. 27, in King-street, Canterbury, Mrs Hubble, wife of Mr. Hubble, landlord of the "Crown and Anchor."

Kentish Gazette, 3 June 1851.

PUBLIC HOUSE IN CANTERBURY.

TO LET, With immediate Possession, or at the Quarter.

The "CROWN and ANCHOR," situate in King-street, now doing a strong trade. Coming in about £70. The present proprietor leaving in consequence of ill-health.

Apply at Messrs and Co’s Original Brewery, or on the Premise.

Kentish Gazette, 2 December 1851.

CANTERBURY POLICE COURT. THURSDAY.

Evading The Excise Laws.

(Before the Mayor, and Alderman Plummer, and Messrs. Mount and Dorman.)

Samuel Algar, proprietor of the "Crown and Anchor" dancing booth, appeared to answer four informations charging him with having retailed spirituous liquors during the last Canterbury Fair, he not having a license, whereby he had incurred the penalty of £50 in each case. The information referring to the 13th October, was then gone into.

Mr. Sadys appeared for the crown, and Mr. Brandt, counsel, was specially retained for the defendant, instructed by Messrs. Cox and Son.

Mr. Sandys proceeded at some length to state the case. He observed that it was pretty generally known that defendant had been in the habit, for many years, of attending Canterbury Fair, with a dancing booth, selling spirits, beer, and so forth, with the permission of the magistrates. In consequence of the demoralisation urging from that booth, the magistrates, a year or two ago, prohibited its continuance in the cattle market. Notwithstanding that prohibition and in defiance of the direction of the magistrates—in defiance of the revenue laws, and in fact, in defiance of all authority, Mr. Algar choosed to say that he would bring his booth to Canterbury, and carry on his usual trade. At the last fair Mr. Algar was of course not permitted to erect it in the cattle market, but he selected for its erection the bowling green of the "Eagle Tavern," kept by a licensed victualler in Ivy lane, having his (defendant name at the entrance, and on each side of the booth. Therefore there could not be the shadow of a doubt that he was carrying on business there on his own account. He should prove this, and that defendant, his wife, and servants, sold spirits there, without any license to do so. And he should do this, on the evidence not of a common informer, whose character was of a doubtful nature, but ot one of the public officers of the city. The informations were laid under the statute of 6 Geo. 4, c. 81. section 26, which he read to the Court, prohibiting the sale of spirits or beer by any person not duly licensed, and setting forth that for every violation of such the party was liable to a penalty of £50.

He then called Maurice Saunders, who said:— I am removing officer of the city of Canterbury. On the 13th October I went to the "Eagles" public house, and saw a booth on the green at the rear.

There was a covered passage from the street entrance to the entrance to the booth. Over the street entrance was the name of Algar, the same in the entrance of the booth—at the bottom of the passage. It was about 7 in the evening that I went, with Inspector Spratt. I was a special constable at the time. Being officers, we were admitted without payment. Some were also admitted free and others paid—both ladies and gentlemen. I had 1s. worth of brandy and water at the bar in the booth. Mrs. Algar mixed it, and the waiter gave it to me. I paid the waiter the shilling and he handed it to Mrs. Algar.

Mr. Brandt:— We admit that spirits were sold there and that Mr. Algar had a license so to do.

Mr. Sandys:— Then that proves my case.

Mr. Brands then proceeded to address the Bench on the part of the defendant.

He said that his client requested him to inform the Bench that it was out of no hostile feeling towards them that he had been brought down, or to occupy their time unnecessarily by raising any technical objection. If he had erred, it was threw ignorance, and if the Magistrate should consider him guilty, he threw himself entirely upon their merciful consideration. But he was prepared to show that his client had not committed any offence - and if he had it was totally through ignorance. He would first ask their attention to the system of licensing in general. The Bench were doubtless aware that an excise licence for the sale of spirits was never granted until the party applying for it had first obtained of the Magistrates an ale licence. The object of the Legislation in this procedure was one of public policy. The first question asked by the Magistrates in granting an ale licence was, what was the character of the party applying; and secondly, if that were favourable, whether the premises upon which it was intended to carry it on, were favourably situated. If satisfied on both these, they generally granted the licence. There were instances in which the character of the applicant might be unexceptionable, but the situation very objectionable - for instance, there might be many licensed houses in the same neighbourhood. Although the Magistrates had the power of granting licences, that were bound to look after the public morals, and had the liberty to refuse licences if they pleased. He mention this, to show that the system of granting licences was one of mere public policy; and asked whether, in this incident, it had been infringed. In the absence of evidence to the contrary they might assume that Mr. Friend's house (where the booth was erected) was well conducted. The premises attached to the house were licensed, so that the place in which the booth stood was licensed. Where then was the harm? The only fault in the eye of his learned friend was, that these premises will let to Mr. Algar. But had he infringed any rules of public policy? They heard nothing of there being any tumultuous assemblage, or of his booth having been badly conducted. Nay - so far from its being productive of anything of that kind, the magistrates themselves had in former years actually permitted the booth to be erected in the fair. Now supposing he had this year erected his booth out of the jurisdiction of the city magistrates, there would doubtless have been plenty of people flocking to it, and yet the situation might have been very objectionable. Instead of that, he had chosen a place within the jurisdiction of the magistrates, and actually licensed by them, and proved by that licence to be unobjectionable. But he should be able to show that Mr. Algar was entirely the agent of Mr. Friend that some of the spirits consumed was sent from London to Mr. Friend - that previously to the fair Mr. Friend consulted with Mr. Algar offering the use of the bowling green for the booth. Mr. Friend thinking that by having it there many customers will be drawn to his house, and that Mr. Algar might be able to realize some remuneration out of the surplus profits. He would also show that Mr. Friend had a bar in the garden as well as Mr. Algar - that Mr. Friend occasionally served the spirits behind Mr. Algar's bar; and that the name on the booth did not mean to signify that Mr. Algar sold spirits their, but that it was his booth for dancing - that there was Mr. Algar's booth for the dancing, and there Mr. Friend's bar for refreshments. He submitted that if the bench coincided with him in his view, they could not convict the defendant. It was a well-known rule in law that penal statutes were to be construed liberally; so that if the bench had any doubt, they should give the defendant the benefit of it. But if the bench should feel themselves bound to convict, the defendant would have to alter his course. And how would he do that? Why, by placing Mr. Friend all the time behind the bar, instead of a portion of the time and putting Mr. Friend's name outside the booth. That would be the only difference. They could not prevent Mr. Friend letting his ground for such a purpose, unless, indeed, they deprived him of his licence. The defendant had never before been before any magistrates, and he (Mr. B) hoped they would not by their decision say that such amusement as his client offered, should be withheld from the people at such a time as their annual fair.

He called William Friend, who deposed:— I am a licensed victualler, and keep the "Eagle" public-house, in Ivy-lane. Mr. Algar's booth was erected on my premises on the last fair, I had about three gallons of gin from London and some brandy and rum from Canterbury, for the purposes of the booth. Here are the permits for the brandy and rum. I wrote to Mr. Algar about the booth being erected on my premises, and he came down to Canterbury. He asked if I was duly licensed, I replied that I was. He then enquired my terms; I asked £20. He said he must not carry on the business at my house the same as he had been in the habit of doing in the fair. I understood by that he could not sell under my license. I told him if he would give me £20 of the profits, he should have the rest of the proceeds for the use of his booth. The spirits sold were mine. I served in the booth during the fair, but I can't say whether I did on the 13th or not.

Mr. Sandys objected that the evidence of the witness's serving the liquor, did not apply to the particular day to which the inquiry referred.

Mr. Brandt contended that it was one whole transaction, and that if he gave evidence of the witness serving in the booth during the fair, it applied equally to the whole enquiry.

The Bench decided otherwise. The inquiry was respecting the 13th Oct. and the evidence must refer to that day.

Witness.— On the 13th I was in and out of Algar's booth, superintending, but I cannot say whether I served that day. My daughter was serving there one whole day. I had a little booth adjoining, and a bar there at which I served—it was connected with Algar’s by a passage. Algar’s booth was well conducted. I have since had a settlement with Mr. Algar. I received £18 as a part of the profits arising from the sale of beer and spirits in the booth; and considered the defendant was to have the entrance money, and the surplus profits, for the expense of bringing the booth to my premises.

Cross-examined by Mr. Sandys.- Mr. Algar was my agent. I don't know that I could have called him my servant, but he served in the booth for my profit and benefit. It was a joint speculation between us. I do not consider myself bound to pay for the gin; it was sent by Mr. Algar.

Mr. Sandys replied, and denied that the defendant erred through ignorance, as was evidenced in the manner in which the preliminary arrangements were conducted intended that the agency was a mere piece of trickery. He submitted that the business was carried on by the defendant for his own profit, and therefore he (Mr. Sandy's) was entitled to the judgment of the bench.

The court was then cleared, and after a short period had elapsed the public were again admitted, when the Mayor inquired if the Excise authorities intended to press the other three informations, and was answered in the affirmative.

It was then agreed that a conviction should be entered on all the informations, Mr. Brandt objecting to plead guilty, as it would preclude him from appealing.

The Mayor then gave the decision of the bench. They felt compelled to convict the defendant in each case in the penalty of £50, which they would mitigate to £12 10s. The lowest penalty allowed; the defendant thus being ordered to pay £50. His counsel announced his intention of appealing against the decision.

South Eastern Gazette, 25 October 1853.

CANTERBURY QUARTER SESSIONS.

These sessions were hold on Thursday last, before John Deedes, Esq., Recorder.

Mr. W. Friend, of the "Eagle Tavern," whose licence was refused on account of his allowing the "Crown and Anchor" booth on his bowling-green, appealed against the decision. Mr. Barrow was for the appellant, and Messrs. Horn and Denman for the respondents. Mr. Horn having objected to the jurisdiction of the court, the Recorder decided in favour of the objection, but refused to allow costs to the respondents.

South Eastern Gazette, 31 January, 1860.

Selling Beer at Illegal Hours.

On Thursday last, William Batchelor, landlord of the "Crown and Anchor" public-house, King-street, appeared before the city justices in answer to a summons charging him with having had his house open for the sale ef beer at improper hours, on the previous Sunday. Inspector Spratt stated that he saw the door of the defendant’s house open at a quarter before eleven o’clock on Sunday morning. On going in, he saw a little girl with a can of beer in her hand, and in a back room he saw three men with beer before them.

Defendant said that the parties in the room were lodgers.

Fined £1, costs 11s.

South Eastern Gazette, 7 February, 1860.

Damaging a Door.

Michael M’Goldrich, a private in the 82nd Regt., was convicted also of kicking and damaging the door of the "Crown" public-house, in King-street, shortly after twelve o’clock on Saturday night last. A sergeant said the defendant bore a very good character, and had been allowed a pass for the night. Several of the justices spoke of the impropriety of allowing passes for the night. Many of the citizens had complained of being annoyed during the night by the hallooing and hooting of drunken soldiers.

Fined 8s. 9d. The sergeant paid the money.

Canterbury Journal, Kentish Times and Farmers' Gazette, Saturday 24 September 1864.

Diseased meat.

Yesterday (Friday) afternoon a special sitting of the magistrates was held for the purpose of examining the carcass of a bullock which had been seized by the Inspector of Nuisances as unfit for human food. The magistrates present were W. Plummer, Esq., and Alderman Cooper.

Mr. Cowell, veterinary surgeon, disposed that he was sent for by the Inspector of Nuisances to examine a carcass of a bullock which was hanging in the "Crown and Anchor" yard. He proceeded there, and saw a carcass hung up and a number of persons dressing it. Examine the meat, and found that it was diseased. He inquired for the lungs, and found they were in the dung heap. He had them taken out, and he cut one lung and saw that it was in a very diseased state. One lobe was covered with tumours, and he had no doubt the animal died, and was not slaughtered. He should say that the meat was unfit for human food.

The Bench viewed the carcass which had been brought to the hall in a truck for their inspection, and Mr. Cowell pointed out the seat of the disease to them.

On their return to court, Alderman Cooper inquired whether the dark colour of the lungs might not have been caused by the animal's being suffocated on its passage to Canterbury.

Mr. Cowell replied that he believed not. One lung did not appear to be diseased, but still it was very much discoloured.

Mr. Plummer said the meat appeared to him to be very good, and the Bench decided not to condemn it.

The proceedings were several times interrupted by Mr. W. Steer, who seem to imagine that the superintendent had informed the Bench that the meat was his, and the proceedings were so delayed in consequence of his observations at the Bench were ultimately compelled to order him to leave the Court.