Kentish Gazette 5 October 1787.

To the Ladies and Gentlemen of Canterbury and its Environs.

Mr. Lavoine having met with very considerable Encouruement as a Teacher of the French (his native) Language, presume now more generally to offer his service, and hopes the Public will embrace so favourable an Opportunity of learning a Language, which is not only ornamental to his Gentleman, but is ever sound very convenient for the Man of Business.

He also begs Leave tn address himself to any Gentleman or Lady, who (together with the French) may have an Inclination to learn the Latin Tongue, in which he has likewise some Pupils under his Tuition, and assures them, that his utmost Abilities will be exerted to give the fame Satisfaction which he has already had the Happiness of doing.

Terms:- For teaching French only, One Guinea per Quarter; for French and Latin, Half-a-Guinea per Month, and no entrance Money.

N. B. Mr. Lavoine may be spoken with, or directed to, at Mr. Quested's, opposite the "Eight Bells," King Street, Canterbury.

Kentish Gazette, 25 August 1820.

DIED.

Aug. 24, at an advanced age, Mr. Henry Smith, Landlord of the "Eight Bells," King Street, Canterbury.

Kentish Gazette, 3 September 1850.

Richard Dray, the landlord of the "Eight Bells" public house in King Street, was cited to appear before our city magistrates yesterday week, on an information for allowing disorderly conduct in his house. Mr. DeLasaux appeared for the defendant.

By the evidence adduced, it appeared grossly improper conduct was indulged in at the house. Mr. DeLasaux submitted, that though there had been great impropriety, it had not been shown that the defendant had knowingly encouraged it, for he was not at home at the time.

The Clerk referred to the act, which set forth that conviction could be brought home to an individual, whether he or his servants tolerated the improper conduct, as he was responsible for the acts of those employed under him.

The bench convicted the defendant and the penalty of 40s. and costs.

Kentish Gazette, 10 September 1850.

On the annual licensing day (Thursday last) our city magistrates suspended the following licenses:-

"Military Tavern," King Street;

"Eight Bells," King Street;

"Duke of York," Riding Gate;

"Kentish Arms," Jewry Lane;

"Eagle," Whitehorse Lane;

"Golden Cross," Northgate;

"Queen's Head," Northgate;

"City of London," Tower Street;

"Duke's Head," Wincheap;

"True Briton," Northgate;

"Royal George," Northgate;

"Queen's Arms," Northgate; and

"Three Grenadiers," Military Road.

Kentish Gazette, 24 September 1850.

At the adjourned petty sessions for licensing public houses on Thursday, those licences which have been suspended excepting for for the "Eight Bells," King Street,

"Queen's Head," and

"Queen's Arms," Northgate, we're granted; as also were a few of the cases of parties who were not in attendance on the regular licensing day.

Kentish Gazette, 21 September 1852.

Thursday. Licensing.

This being the adjourned licensing day, those parties, whose licences had been suspended, again attended, and after receiving animadversion for their irregularity of conduct, had their licences granted, but with a decided caution that if again complaints were made against them they would not have their licences in future.

These parties were:- John Stairs, of the "Eight Bells," King Street;

John Noble, "Kentish Arms;"

George Kilner, "City of London;"

John Jordan, "White Heart;"

John Gillis, "Bricklayers' Arms;"

Elizabeth Forbes, "Oddfellows Arms;"

John Murphy, "Carpenter's Arms;"

Richard Wellard, "George and Dragon," Westgate;

Joseph Pentecost, "Royal George;"

and George Crow, "Rose and Crown."

Applications for New Licences.

Thomas Rodgers, of the "Sir Robert Peel" beer shop;

David Tuthwell, "True Britain;"

and Edward Gordon, "Pine Apple,"

applied for spirit licences, but which were refused.

Kentish Gazette 15 May 1855.

CANTERBURY TOWN COUNCIL. MEETING OF THE PAVEMENT COMMISSIONERS.

On Wednesday, the usual monthly meeting of this body, was held, Mr. Williamson in the chair.

The minutes of the last meeting were read.

One of the orders was, that a projecting sign-board, at the "Eight Bells," in King-street, should be removed: and the Chairman stated, that Messrs. Flint and Kingsford, brewers, the proprietors of the house, objected to its removal, as it had existed in its present position for the past thirty years, and could not in any way be deemed a nuisance or public annoyance. It now, therefore, became a question with that Court, whether the previous order should be persevered in, by compelling its removal. Several Commissioners spoke on the subject "pro and con"; and it was observed, that, if the order were enforced, the sign of "Sir John Falstaff, in Westgate Without, must also be removed.

After some half-hour spent over the matter, it was resolved, by 6 to 5, that the sign of the "Eight Bells" should remain.

Kentish Gazette 19 August 1856.

CANTERBURY POLICE COURT. THURSDAY.

A DISORDERLY PUBLICAN.

Alexander Todd, landlord of the "Eight Bells," in King-street, who has been so often before the bench on matters of dispute with his wife, was brought up for an assault on police-constable Ealse arising out of the same affair. Ealse deposed that at about half-past twelve o'clock that morning, hearing the cries of "Murder," he went towards the house—the neighbours being all up at their windows through the great disturbance that had been created,—and there saw defendant's wife, who begged him to come in, and was at the time bleeding much from a cut in the head. She gave her husband in charge, alleging that her life was in danger. He (Ealse) told the defendant that he must go with him, which he said he would not do, and struck him a severe blow on the head. Defendant charged three of the lodgers to assist him, but cowardly like, blew the candles out and ran away, which left him in darkness. Some Carabineers arriving at the time he summoned two of them to his aid, both of whom defendant bit in the hand, ran into the bar and armed himself with a shoemaker's hammer with which he threatened to split open deponent's head. He then collared him and with assistance took him to the station-house. In the scuffle defendant gave him a severe kick on the leg which had incapacitated him for continuing on duty, the pain being very great. In reply to the bench the constable stated that defendant had been drinking, but was not intoxicated.

Defendant stated his wife to have been the original disturber by breaking his windows with stones, and afterwards calling out "murder," which she was in the habit of doing; and he was not aware that he had kicked the constable.

The bench had two courses open—either to fine him £5, or prosecute him at the sessions. The Mayor told him that this was the worse conducted house in the city. For the two years that he had kept it, continually disturbances had prevailed between him and his wife, and he might rely on it he would not have the license renewed. The case brought before them in the present instance was of a most aggravated nature, which they should mark with the heaviest penalty of £5, and 6s. costs.

The money was immediately paid, and thus it may be said the disturber who had committed so much violence as to injure four persons, escaped almost without punishment; while the soldiers had to endure their smart uncomplainingly from the fear of punishment themselves for being out, and the policeman got no compensation for the serious injuries he sustained, and which but for the praiseworthy aid of the soldiers, might have proved still more serious, as it was evidently the intention of the brute to use the hammer with which he armed himself. As regards the wife—however unjustifiable such an assault as that which she received might be,—she appears to provoke much of this nature; and has but very recently emerged from prison for similar conduct herself.

From the Kentish Gazette, 18 August 1857.

CANTERBURY POLICE COURT.

Thursday. (Before the Major, Alderman Plummer, and Edward Wootton, Esq.)

James Todd was charged with an assault upon Superintendent Walker, at the "Eight Bells" public house, and obstructing him in the execution of his duty. Henry Waller, landlord of the house was also in attendance.

Superintendent Walker:- About half-past nine o’clock last night I went to the "Eight Bells," in King Street, in the execution of my duty, to see if a person I was in search of was there. When I got into the tap-room James Todd was sitting at a table. He immediately got up and put his hands upon me. I wished to look round the room (in which there were several persons at the time) and told him to keep his hands away. He then began to swear and used very bad language, telling me I had no business there, and squaring up at me in a fighting attitude. Some women rushed in between us but he pushed them off and laid hold of my arm to put me out; they however got round him again and kept him away. When he threatened to put me out Waller came up and said I had no business to search his house. If I wanted to do so I must bring a city policeman with me. I told him the man Todd was drunk, and he was responsible for his conduct. He replied that any man might get drunk in his house, and I might sit down and get drunk too.

The witness was frequently interrupted by the defendant Todd, who persisted in making comments on the evidence, and also expressed his admiration of the painting of the Judgment of Solomon, behind the Mayor’s seat.

In reply to the bench the prisoner made a rambling statement that he had been harvesting, had some beer but was not drunk. He might have offered to fight the Superintendent but did it out of no ill-feeling. It was all a joke.

Superintendent Walker said, that without wishing to prejudice the case, he would say that a man who had commuted a burglary at Harbledown had taken the stolen property to this house, which was then in the hands of another landlord. The house had always borne a bad character.

The bench told Mr. Waller, that the county police have the same jurisdiction as the city police, and that if he offered obstructions to the officers he would be liable to lose his license. Todd was fined 5s. and costs — together 11s., or seven days imprisonment, and in default of payment was locked up.

South Eastern Gazette, 24 January, 1860.

Dispute between two Relieving Officers as to the Chargeability of a Pauper.

At the Wednesday’s sitting of the city justices, Mr. F. Duly, relieving officer to the Canterbury Incorporation, stated that on Monday a young woman named Caroline Fist, a prostitute, applied to him for relief, stating that she was much diseased and was unable to work. He questioned her as to her place of abode, and she stated that she had been living at the "Golden Cross," in the ville of St. Gregory, and that the previous night she slept at the "Steam Packet," in North-lane, in the parish of Westgate without. Both these parishes are in the Blean Union, and therefore ought to be relieved by the relieving officer of that union. He (Mr. Duly) should certainly refuse to relieve the pauper, because in several other instances of a similar nature parties had applied to the relieving officer of the Blean Union, and in consequence of his refusal the Canterbury incorporation had been put to the expense of keeping the paupers. The young woman said she applied to Mr. Mount, the relieving officer for the Blean Union, for relief, but he refused to grant her any, and referred her to the relieving officer of Canterbury. She also stated, in answer to the Mayor, that she had lived at the "Eight Bells," in King-street, as a prostitute, for ten months. The relieving officer for the Bleau district said he refused to grant the applicant relief, because he did not consider there had been any residence set up. The Bench, however, were of a different opinion, and the relieving officer of the Blean Union undertook to attend to the case. The Mayor then expressed, his surprise that the young woman should have been allowed to remain ten months at the "Eight Bells" public-house, for the purpose which she had stated; he therefore directed that the landlord of the house should be sent for. On his (the landlord’s) arrival, the Mayor said that circumstances had been brought before the bench which seriously reflected upon the manner in which he conducted his house. It seemed that the landlord had been in the habit of harbouring prostitutes in his house. He could assure him (the landlord) that if better arrangements were not made by him, his house would assuredly be indicted. Henry Waller, the landlord of the "Eight Bells," said he was not aware that girls lodged at his house as prostitutes. The clerk to the justices informed the bench that Waller’s house was one among a number of others that were annually reported by the superintendent for harbouring prostitutes. The Mayor cautioned Waller as to the way he conducted his house in future, and the matter then dropped.

South Eastern Gazette, 31 July, 1860.

Assault.

At the city petty sessions yesterday, a man named Thomas Miller appeared to make a complaint against Henry Waller, landlord of the "Eight Bells," King-street, for having violently assaulted him on the previous Saturday. He stated that about six o’clock he was dealing with a man for some ducks, when Waller, whom he had never seen before, went up to him, and tore his shirt. He (complainant) told him he knew nothing of him, when he again rushed upon him, and tore his clothes. Complainant, knowing that he had £80 in his pocket, struck Waller. The latter then threw him down, kicked him in the face and head and hands. Inspector Dodd here stated that he saw the affair, and they were both fighting in the street. The complainant said he wished to press the charges and Waller was ordered to attend on Thursday.

South Eastern Gazette, 7 August, 1860.

CITY PETTY SESSIONS.

Thursday. (Before E. Wootton, Esq., in the chair, Capt. Love, W. Mount, P. Martin, and T. Philpott, Esqrs.)

A Gross Assault.

Henry Waller, landlord of the "Eight Bells" public-house, King-street, was charged with having assaulted Thomas Miller, a groom, on the previous Saturday evening. Mr. W. W. Eaden appeared for complainant, and Mr. Towne was defendant.

Complainant deposed:— On Saturday evening, at about six o clock, I was outside the cattle market, when defendant, who was on the opposite side of the road, came across, and with both hands seized me by my shirt. I had not previously spoken to him. I stepped back a short distance, and told defendant that if he had anything to say to me, I would hear him, and requested him not to touch me again. Defendant immediately followed me up, and with more force than before tore my shirt open again. With his finger and thumb he fastened hold of my breast, and said "What is this? Why don’t you wear a shirt I then struck him in the face to keep him away from me. I was pulled down by the hair of my head, and with the assistance of others was kept in such a position as to be unable to protect myself. Defendant again struck me, pulled my hair, and afterwards bit my thumb and wounded it severely. I was then released, but the defendant struck me again and knocked me down. I was perfectly sober at the time, and had over £60 in my possession.

Cross-examined:— I was dealing with a man for some ducks. The defendant was not near me at that time. In the scuffle I might have thrown the defendant over a barrow, but I will not swear that I did. The scuffle lasted several minutes.

Thomas Geering, in the employ of Mr. Annaball, horse dealer, who was with the complainant at the time, corroborated the above statement.

Wm. Henry Gilman, baker, of No. 9, Upper Bridge-street, deposed that he saw Waller come out of the "Flying Horse." He went up to Miller and pulled the front of his shirt open. He did so a second time, and held up his fist to him. Miller then struck Waller. The latter then knocked Miller over witness’s bread barrow, and while on the ground he struck him fearfully in the face and pulled his hair. They scuffled together for some time.

George Dowse was also near Miller at the time in question, and heard Waller say to him, "You have not got enough money for a pint of beer, much more to buy ducks’ with." This witness also gave a corroborative description of the assault.

Mr. Towne then addressed the court at very great length, but the substance of his remarks was, that the first blow was struck by the complainant, after which a fight between the parties ensued. What was done in that fight it was impossible for anyone to tell, and he therefore contended that there was no case for the Bench to consider.

He called James Faulkener, who deposed that he saw the defendant and complainant struggling in the road. The complainant afterwards went into the "Flying Horse," and said he would fight the defendant again for any money.

A little boy, the son of the last witness, spoke to seeing Miller knock Waller down over some faggots.

Mr. Eaden then rose to address the court in reply, but Mr. Towne objected, and thought Mr. Eaden ought to read the law of evidence.

Mr. Mount, one of the justices, remarked that Mr. Eaden had better not address the court.

Mr. Towne also objected to the observation of the magistrate, because it was not in the discretion of the Bench whether or not Mr. Eaden replied. There was an Act of Parliament which strictly prohibited any reply of the kind being made.

The Bench consulted together for a short time, and ordered the defendant to pay a fine of 30s. and 11s. costs, or in default to be imprisoned for one month.

The money was paid.