Sort file:- Canterbury, January, 2023.

Page Updated:- Monday, 09 January, 2023.


Earliest 1834

Crown and Anchor

Latest 1882+

(Name to)

20 King Street



Earliest reference I have to date is 1834 when T Admans advertised the house as opening on 4th June.

The Historic Canterbury web site mentions another public house at the same address from between 1889 and the 1900s when a Mrs. Esther Skinner was resident and the name of "Farriers Arms" has been given. So I am going to assume that this pub changed name some time between 1882 and 1889.

Further research shows that it was Daniel Farrancer who changed the name in 1882 as he has been identified as licensee of both in that year.


From Kentish Gazette 03 June 1834.


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.


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.


Canterbury Journal, Kentish Times and Farmers' Gazette, Saturday 11 December 1841.

Insolvent Debtor.

To be heard at the City of Canterbury in the county of the same City, on the seventh day of March, 1842, at the hour of 10 in the forenoon precisely.

Thomas Admans formerly of the "Crown and Anchor" public house, King Street, Canterbury, Kent, licensed victualler; next of the "Dolphin" Public House, St. Radigund's Street, Canterbury, aforesaid licensed victualler, before said of King Street; and late of North Lane, Canterbury, aforesaid, out of business and employment.

James Nichols.

No. 8, Cook's Court, Lincoln's Inn London.

For the Society for Relief of Debtors.


Farmers' Gazette, Saturday 22 May 1847.


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.


Dover Chronicles 6 November 1847.


Oct. 27, in King Street, Canterbury, Mrs. Hubble, wife of Mr. Hubble, landlord of the "Crown and Anchor" age 71 years.


Kentish Gazette, 9 November 1847.


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


Kentish Gazette, 3 June 1851.


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.


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.


From the Kentish Chronicle. 30 July 1859. Price 1d.


(Present the Mayor. Aldermen, Masters and Plummer, and W. Brock and D. Matthews, Esqrs.)

Charles Beerling and Thomas Bonagary, two privates in the 17th Lancers, were charged with having broken into the “Crown and Anchor,” King-street, early on Wednesday morning.

Sarah Batchelder, the landlady, said:— On Wednesday morning about one o'clock, I want to bed, and rose again about half-past five. On going down stairs, I saw a half-pint pot in the passage. I then discovered a pair of tongs laying close by, and the bar window had been farced open. An empty gin-bottle was on the ground, and which contained half-a pint of gin when I went to bed. I also discovered that a bottle of rum had been taken away. The window of the back room was not fastened, and I therefore believe an entrance was made by some person by pushing the sash up. I only missed the spirits, but a policeman has since shown me a pair of spoons, which I identified as my property, and they are worth 6d. I have known the prisoner Beerling for some time, as he is in the habit of frequenting my house.

Sarah Ann Leadner said:— I reside at the “Three Grenadiers,” Military-road. The two prisoners were there on Wednesday afternoon. I was present, and Bonagary threw the two spoons produced into my lap. I asked him where he got them from, and be said he found them in the street. I was afterwards informed that the prisoners were taken into custody, and I gave the spoons to Mr. Brew, the landlord of the house, and he handed them to police constable Holloway.

P.C. Alderton deposed?:— I was on duty in King-street on Tuesday night. At about four o'clock on Wednesday morning I saw the two prisoners in King-street, I asked them if it was not time they were in barracks? They said they had a pass till five. I left them for a short time, and soon afterwards I saw them again near the “Eight Bells” with a bottle. A man was letting down a piece of webbing from a window at the “Eight Bells,” and the prisoners were about to tie the bottle to it. They then saw me and ran off with the bottle.

Thomas Wilde, a labourer, residing in New Ruttington-lane, said:— I got up at half-past four on Wednesday morning to go to work. When I opened the door the prisoner Beerling and another soldier came into my house. Beerling said to me, “Take a drink of this, dad, it is some small beer.” He handed me a bottle and I tasted of its contents. I found it was some sort of spirits, and I would not drink any.

F.C. Holloway said:— I apprehended the prisoners on Wednesday afternoon. I found them concealed in a cellar at the “Three Grenadiers.” I then went to the “Crown and Anchor,” I found the bar window had been forced open.

The Court was then cleared, and on re-opening the Mayor said the Bench were of opinion that a case of burglary was not sufficiently clear against the accused. They would therefore be convicted for stealing the spoons, and sentenced to two months imprisonment with hard labour.


From the Kentish Chronicle, 28 January, 1860.


(Before W. Mount, Esq., and Captain Love.)

William Batchellor, of the "Crown and Anchor," was charged by Inspector Spratt with having his house open at an unlawful hour.

He said:— On Sunday morning about a quarter before eleven I was walking in King street; I saw the front door open; I entered; there was a girl with a can of beer; she left with it. I went into the back room; there were three men sitting with beer before them. I told the landlord that I should report him.

Fined 1, and 11s. costs.


From the Kentish Chronicle, 11 February, 1860.

Michael M'Goldrick, a private in the 22nd regiment was charged with breaking open the door at the "Crown" public-house, King-street, kept by William Batcheldor. Mr. Batcheldor said that a little after twelve o'clock, on Saturday night, just after he had closed his house, the defendant came kicking to the door and wanted to be admitted. He went to let a young man out by the back door, leaving his sister in the bar. When he came back he found the defendant had got into the house, having broken open the door. He got him out, but he afterwards began kicking the door again, and damaged one of the panels. Complainant went for the police, and the defendant was given into custody.

The sergeant of the company to which defendant belonged was in attendance and said the man had a good character in the regiment. He had a pass to stop out of the barracks till seven o’clock the next morning.

The Bench ordered the defendant to pay the amount of the damage done to the door 2s. 9d., and 6s. expenses, or in default to be imprisoned 14 days. The sergeant paid the money.


From the Kentish Chronicle, 16 March, 1861.


At the St. Augustine's Petty Sessions on Saturday (before W, Delmar, Esq., Captain Slarke, W. Plummer, Esq., and Wynn Ellis, Esq.), a very prepossessing young woman, named Helen Fenlier, a native of Germany, was charged with stealing a flannel petticoat, the property of Amelia Hart, at Seasalter, on the 24th December last. Mr. Delasaux appeared on behalf of the defendant, who pleaded that she admitted having the petticoat, but denied any intention of stealing it. It appeared that in December last, and for some time previously, the defendant resided in the some house with the prosecutrix, and they were on terms of such great friendship as to lend each other clothes for the purpose of going out disguised—unsquerading. They had attended the “Crown and Anchor,” Canterbury, together. The defendant left in consequence of some disagreement. The petticoat was afterwards missed, and when inquiries were made she denied having it. Information was given to the police, and on a search being instituted, the petticoat was found in the defendant's box.

Mr. Delasaux briefly addressed the bench on behalf of the defendant, and the case was dismissed.


From the Kentish Chronicle and General Advertiser, 1 March, 1862. Price 1 1/2d.


Four card sharpers, named John Day, John Norris, George Davies, and John Jackson, were brought up in custody, on a charge of gambling, on a public highway, in the parish of Harbledown, on Sunday afternoon.

James Bing deposed that, about three o'clock on Sunday afternoon he saw the prisoners on the Whitehall road. The prisoner Day offered to play Davies a game, at the same time producing three cards, Norris then came up and played with them. Day asked witness if he would play, telling him if he laid down 4s. and named where the Queen was put he would win 4s. Witness refused at first, but afterwards agreed to play, and the result was that he lost 2 4s. 6d. The prisoner Day then told witness that if he had no more gold they dealt in notes.

Corroborative evidence was given by two witnesses, named Edwin Ellis and William Free, the former of whom gave information to the police. The prisoners were afterwards apprehended at the “Crown and Anchor” public house in Canterbury. On Davies were found the cards and three bad sovereigns, and on Norris 1 1s. 10d. One of the other prisoners had a valuable watch.

The bench sentenced the whole of the whole of the prisoners to three months’ imprisonment with hard labour. The watch was ordered to be sold and the proceeds together with the money found upon the prisoners to be expended on their maintenance.


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.


Maidstone Journal and Kentish Advertiser, Monday 11 September 1865.

Application for New Licences.

Mr. John Haggar, landlord of the "Crown and Anchor," beer shop, King Street, likewise applied for a spirit licence, which was refused.


Canterbury Journal, Kentish Times and Farmers' Gazette 15 September 1866.

At the City Petty Sessions on Thursday, it being the annual licensing day, the following applications for new licenses were refused:-

J. Haggar, "Crown and Anchor Inn," King Street,

There are now 168 licensed houses in Canterbury besides beer shops and refreshment houses."


From the Whitstable Times and Herne Bay Herald. 14 September 1867. Price 1d.


Applications from holders of the undermentioned houses were refused.

"Crown and Anchor," King-street.


From the Whitstable Times and Herne Bay Herald. 12 October 1867. Price 1d.


Thursday. (Before W Plummer, Esq., Chairman ; and J. G. Drury, Esqs.)


John Haggar, landlord of the "Crown and Anchor," King-street, was summoned by the Board of Inland revenue, for having a dog on his premises on the 26th of August without a license.

James Davis, an excise officer, said that he went to the "Crown and Anchor" public-house in King-street on Monday, the 26th of August. There was a dog in the house, which he was satisfied was over six months old. He enquired for Mr. Haggar, but was informed by his wife that he was not at home. Witness asked Mrs. Haggar to produce the license paper for the dog; and she said she had the license, but it was locked up in a desk with some other licenses, and that her husband had the key. Witness went there again on the following day (Tuesday, the 27th), and was again told that Mr. Haggar was not at home.

He asked Mrs. Haggar to show him the license for the dog, and she said they had no license, and that the dog belonged to a lodger. Witness then reminded defendant's wife of her former statement, viz., that they had the license in a desk. She then produced an assessed tax paper, showing that defendant had been assessed for the dog, which was then on the premises.

Joseph Brown, supervisor of taxes for Canterbury, said that he accompanied the previous witness to defendant's house in King-street, on the 26th August; and saw the dog there. Mr. Davis asked defendant's wife whether they had a license for the dog; and she replied that they had, and that it was in a box, the key of which her husband had with him.

The defendant did not appear, but his wife was in attendance, and stated that directly after the two officers had been to their house she went to the Inland Revenue office, and got a license for the dog which, however, did not belong to them at all, but was left there by a lodger.

The Chairman enquired what the costs would amount to? and Mr. Shea, who conducted the case on behalf of the Board of Inland Revenue, said the Board did not accept any costs; they merely wanted a penalty. If the Magistrates wished to recommend defendant to the Board for a further mitigation of the penalty he should be very happy to communicate any such wish to them.

The Chairman, although he considered it rather sharp practice on the part of the Inland Revenue authorities to summon the defendant, said it was clear that defendant had not got a license on the 26th of August, and he would be fined 25s. with a recommendation that the amount should be still farther reduced.


Canterbury Journal, Kentish Times and Farmers' Gazette, Saturday 16 September 1871.

Annual Licensing Meeting.

The Superintendent of Police reported to the Magistrates the following houses where prostitutes were kept, viz., the "Roebuck," "True Briton," "Lord Clyde," "Princess Royal," "Crown and Anchor," "Brewers' Delight," "Clarence Inn," and "Kentish Arms," and on the applicants applying they were each cautioned in severe terms by the Mayor, and on their promising to behave better in future the licences were renewed. The business was transacted rapidly. The adjourned sessions are fixed for the 21st instant.



ADMANS Thomas 1834-37+ Next pub licensee had

ADMAMS Joseph 1838+ Stapletons Guide

POOLEY Mrs Amy 1838 (Only grocery dealer) Historic Canterbury web site

ADAMS Joseph 1840+ Pigot's Directory 1840

HUBBLE John 1847+ Bagshaw's Directory 1847

BATCHELDER William 1858-61+ (age 47 in 1861Census) Melville's 1858

PREECE W 1862+ Post Office Directory 1862

HAGGAR John 1865-Sept/79+ (age 40 in 1871Census) Canterbury JournalWhitstable TimesPost Office Directory 1874(Greens Canterbury Directory 1868 Havelock Street)

Last pub licensee had SADDLETON Joseph Sept/1879-81+ Census

FARRANCER Daniel 1882+ Next pub licensee had Post Office Directory 1882


Stapletons GuideStapleton's Guide 1838

Pigot's Directory 1840From the Pigot's Directory 1840

Bagshaw's Directory 1847From Bagshaw Directory 1847

Melville's 1858From Melville's Directory 1858

Post Office Directory 1862From the Post Office Directory 1862

Canterbury JournalCanterbury Journal, Kentish Times and Farmers' Gazette

Post Office Directory 1874From the Post Office Directory 1874

Greens Canterbury Directory 1868Greens Canterbury Directory 1868


Post Office Directory 1882From the Post Office Directory 1882

Historic Canterbury web siteHistoric Canterbury web site

Whitstable TimesWhitstable Times and Herne Bay Herald


If anyone should have any further information, or indeed any pictures or photographs of the above licensed premises, please email:-