1 London Road
Dover
|
Information taken from John Bavington-Jones' book "A Perambulation of
the Town, Port and Fortress of Dover", 1906. (Reprint in The South Kent
Gazette, March 4th, 1981.)
Once the site of a tollgate and a gatehouse this is the
London Road - Bridge Street junction with High Street and Tower Hamlets
Road, as it appeared about 1900. On the left at the corner of
Bridge Street is the old Falcon Hotel while on the right, on the High
Street corner is Coomber's fruit shop. On the fascia of this is a sign
announcing that the site had been acquired for the construction of OId
Buckland and Charlton branch of the National Provincial Bank - once the
National Westminster Bank. The sign gives the clue to the date of the
picture because the bank opened for business about 1901.
Another sign on the extreme right of the picture, is an advertisement
for the Dover Engineering Works Company (previously Thomas and Sons) - "Engineen
and Iron Founders, Dour Works, Bridge Street." In Bridge Street itself
is a line of terraced homes all of which have now disappeared, the site
having been taken over by the foundry.
|
Above photo from the John Gilham collection, circa 1920. |
The "Falcon" can just be seen in the centre top of this picture, dated
October 1936, after a pathway from Priory Hill was closed after the side
fell away. Many tons of chalk and earth excavated from the Regent being
dumped there. |
|
Picture above shows the Falcon just before being demolished in 1970. |
The first licensee on parade at the opening was Tucker in 1864. It
occupied the corner with Bridge Street following the removal of the toll
gate.
From the Dover Express and East Kent Intelligencer,
30 March, 1866.
WILFUL DAMAGE
Charles Foster, a flying dustman, was brought up for wilfully
breaking a pane of glass at the "Falcon Inn," Charlton. George Bush on
his oath said - I keep the "Falcon Inn" at Charlton. Last night at about
half-past eleven o'clock, the prisoner in company with another man
entered my house and asked for some beer. Seeing that he was intoxicated
I refused to serve him, when he became very abusive to my wife, and
sister and myself. As he refused to leave the house when I asked him, I
pushed him out, using no more than necessary violence. About three
minutes afterwards he threw a large stone through my window. Mr. Coram,
in reply to the Magistrates, said the prisoner had been previously
convicted for a similar offence. The Magistrates fined the prisoner 5s.
6s. costs, and 4s. the value of the window; in default, 14 days'
imprisonment. The prisoner said he had no money - he must "skid" it out.
|
From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday 12 November, 1869. Price 1d.
SUDDEN DEATH OF A CHILD
Last evening the Borough Coroner, W. H. Payn, Esq., held a second
inquest, at the “Falcon Inn,” London Road, Charlton, on the body of a
female child named Catherine Celia Luland, the daughter of Mrs. Charles
Luland, a Bath-chair proprietor, which had dies whilst the mother was
nursing it, early the same morning.
Mr. R. W. Pepper was chosen foreman of the Jury; and the body having
been viewed, the following evidence was given:-
Charles Luland said he was a Bath-chair proprietor, residing in
Charlton, Dover. The deceased was his youngest child and was five months
old. The child had always been delicate. Deceased was fed upon the usual
diet of children of its age, and had seemed to thrive very well. He was
at work yesterday morning when intelligence was brought to him that the
child had been taken ill. He at once sent for Mr. Walter. And then went
home. Mr. Walter immediately attended; but on witness getting home he
saw that the child was quite lifeless. Witness had five other children
and they were all delicate.
Mr. John Walter said he was a surgeon residing and practising in Dover.
On the same morning, at twenty minutes past eight, a boy came to his
residence to request him to see the infant of the last witness who lived
in Colebran Street. He found the child in the mother's arms. He examined
the body, and it seemed to have recently died. The mother told witness
that the last sign of life she had perceived in it was about half-past
six o'clock. She also said the child had suffered from a cough, and from
that circumstance, added to the appearance of the child, he should say
that it had died from consumption. There was nothing suspicious about
the appearance of the child.
The Jury returned a verdict of “Death from Natural Causes.”
|
From the Dover Express, 5 July, 1872.
ASSAULTING A LANDLORD.
John O'Brien and William Harrison, two privates in the 1st Battalion
Rifles brigade, were charged with assaulting Mr. George Birch, the
landlord of the "Falcon Inn," Charlton, by striking him on the head with
a stick, and dislocating one of his thumbs; and they were also charged
with assaulting Mr. John Clark in a similar manner, at the "Falcon Inn,"
on the previous Saturday evening.
Mr. Fox prosecuted. He said the complainant, Mr. Birch, kept the an Inn
at Charlton - the "Falcon" - and the two prisoners were privates in the
1st Battalion Rifle brigade, stationed at the garrison. It would seem
that on the previous Saturday evening, at about nine o'clock, the two
defendants, in company with three other men of the same regiment, went
to complainants house. He supplied them with what they called for, and
during that time they were there they blocked up the passage, much to
the annoyance of Mr. Birch and his customers. Mr. Birch therefore
requested them to leave the passage and retire to the bar. This seemed
to offend them, and they therefore left the house, and returned shortly
afterwards armed with sticks. The complainant, who was standing at the
door on their return, objected to their entering his house again; but
they persisted in so doing, thrusting Mr. Birch aside and pushing him in
front of them. After a word or two, they commenced belabouring the
complainant with their sticks, causing a great wound in his head, from
which he lost a great deal of blood, and dislocating one of his thumbs.
This, he need not say, constituted a very serious assault, and he did
not hesitate to ask the Bench, if these facts were proved, to impose
such a sentence on the defendants as would show them that they could not
be allowed to commit such assaults. The defendants would be further
charged with assaulting Messrs. Sewell, Brandford, Stevens, and Clark,
at the same public house and at the same time. Now although the two
defendants might not have struck all those parties, they were quite as
much to blame as those that did, and were legally liable to be punished
as abettors. He thought it due to Mr. Birch to state that he had kept
the "Falcon" for almost eight years, and during that period there had
not been a single police case arising out of any circumstance taking
place in the house. He felt it necessary to allude to this fact, because
serious consequences might ensue at the next Licensing Day, it should be
supposed that this was a disturbance which the landlord could have
prevented. He thought, too that this fact was good evidence of the
complainant having conducted his house in an orderly manner during the
eight years he had been its tenant. He might remark that it had recently
been the custom of the military authorities to pay their men weekly, and
since that custom had prevailed the men had gone out on Saturday
evenings with more money than usual in their pockets, and committed
elsewhere similar assaults and depredation to the one with which the
defendants at the bar were now charged.
The defendant O'Brien, at the conclusion of Mr. Fox's address, asked if
the Magistrates would grant a remand, as they desired to employ a
solicitor.
Mr. Fox said he had all his witnesses in Court,. and perhaps, before
granting this application, the bench might like to hear part of the
evidence.
Mr. Rees thought this would be the better course, and Mr. Fox called the
complainant, George Birch, who deposed:- I am the landlord of the
"falcon Inn," Charlton, and have held the license for almost eight
years. During that time I have not had a single disturbance before that
of Saturday night. At about nine o'clock on that evening, five privates
of the 1st battalion Rifle brigade, came in and asked for some ale. I
supplied them with it in the bar. They afterwards left the bar, and came
into the passage near the front door, where they stood talking to a
female. I requested them in a civil way to leave the passage telling
them that their standing there together blocked it up. The two
defendants are two of the men that came into my house on Saturday
evening. Two or three of the men had sticks. They remained in the house
for about a quarter of an hour after I had spoken to them, when they
left. They returned, however, at about half past nine. I was standing at
the door, and I told them that it was of no use their coming in, as I
should not draw them any more drink. They pushed me away from the door
and came into the house. After a few words had spoken the taller of the
two defendants (O’Brien) struck me on the head with a stick. I do not
know what sort of stick it was. I believe it had a knob at the end. I
lost a great deal of blood from that wound. I was not struck again with
a stick. One of my thumbs, however, got dislocated in the "scrimmage,"
which lasted for about five minutes. I had not my hat on at the time.
When I saw that the men were determined to come in, I asked Mr. Stevens,
who was passing at the time, to go for a piquet; but none came, and the
soldiers escaped out of the house and ran away. Messrs. Sewell,
Bradford, Clark and Stevens came into the bar while the assault was
taking place. I know that Mr. Clark and Mr. Stevens were struck,
although I did not see who struck them. I could see very little that
took place owing to the effects of the wound. I went to the barracks
yesterday, where I saw almost the whole of the men in the battalion. I
saw some of the five men who had assaulted me on the previous night. I
think I saw more than the two defendants, but I could not positively
swear to their identity. I am quite certain, however, that the two
defendants were among the five.
The Magistrates then remanded the case until the following day.
|
From the Dover Express, 5 July, 1872.
REMANDED CHARGE OF ASSAULT.
[Before R. Rees and C. Stein, Esqs.]
John O'Brien and William Harrison, two privates in the 1st Battalion
Rifle Brigade, who had been remanded from the previous day, charged with
assaulting Mr. George Birch, landlord of the "Falcon Inn," Charlton, and
Mr John Clark, also a resident of Charlton, were again brought up in the
custody of police-sergeant Johnstone.
Mr. Fox prosecuted; and Mr. Worsfold Mowll defended.
The Court having been cleared of witnesses, Mr. Fox called Edwin Duke,
who deposed:- I am a member of the Royal College of Surgeons, and am
practising as a surgeon in Dover. I know Mr. Birch, one of the
complainants in this case. I saw him early on Sunday morning. There was
a little blood issuing from a wound about an inch above the right
temple, which had previously been strapped up. I examined it fully
yesterday morning; and I found it a good sized wound of an inch and a
half in length, which seemed even then to be attended with slight
haemorrhage. A blow from a stick might have produced a wound of that
nature. I also examined Mr. Birch’s thumb, and found it had been
injured.
Mr. Birch's evidence of the previous day was then read over, in order
that Mr. Mowll might cross examine him upon it. He replied to Mr. Mowll's question as follows: I am the landlord of the "Falcon Inn,"
Charlton, where I carry on a good business. Respectable people in the
neighbourhood visit my house.
Mr, Mowll:- Do you always make soldiers welcome?
Witness:- Always.
Mr. Mowll:- Always glad to see them?
Witness:- Yes, sir.
Mr. Mowll:- And do you make any distinction between soldiers and
civilians:-
Witness:- None whatever.
Witness continuing:- I cannot say the exact number of persons I had in
my house last Saturday evening. There may have been between thirty and
forty, counting everyone in the house. Of course the greater part of
them were men.
Mr Mowll:- Were these men all able to take care of themselves?
Witness: What do you mean, sir?
Mr. Mowll:- Were they able to look after themselves then?
Witness:- Well, I don’t know.
Witness, continuing: It was about nine o'clock when the two prisoners
and some more riflemen came into my house. They all came in the bar at
first. One of them afterwards left the bar and walked into the passage.
I remember speaking to him. I asked him to go into the bar, as he was
blocking up the passage. There were several other people standing there.
Mr. Mowll:- Why did you not tell these other people as well as the
unfortunate soldier, who was blocking up the passage so much, that they
were also to go into the bar?
Witness:- I did not tell anyone in particular.
Mr. Mowll:- But didn't you address yourself particularly to the soldier?
Witness:- I addressed myself to all that were standing in the passage.
There were two or three more riflemen standing there.
Mr. Mowll:- Way I thought you said that there were only one there?
Witness:- No, sir. Some came in before I spoke and others came while I
was speaking. As nearly as I can recollect I asked the people in the
passage to go into the bar, and drink their beer there.
Witness continuing:- The soldiers went out altogether. I did not follow
them to the door. I do not remember which of the men first came up to
the door on the second occasion. They all came up together, I think. One
of them tried to strike me over another man's shoulder. I told them I
should not draw them any more beer. I did not mean to draw them any on
account of their blocking up my passage and as I thought they had had
enough and would be late in barracks. It was then about half past nine;
and they had previously said they were not on "pass." I did not mean to
let them come back on account of what they had before said in the house.
Mr. Mowll:- Now we are coming to it. Do you mean to ask the Magistrates
to believe that you took offence at what they had said?
Witness:- I do.
Mr. Mowll:- An you sure the only words you said were, "Please got into
the bar?"
Witness:- Certainly not.
Mr. Mowll:- Do you make any distinction between soldiers and civilians
when the latter are present.
Witness:- Of courts not. I am glad to see anyone that likes to come to
my house.
Witness continuing:- I did not hear the soldiers say anything outside,
as I was not at the door. I went to the door, though, not long after
they had gone. About five or ten minutes elapsed before they returned.
It was only by accident that I was standing at the door when the men
came back again. I was standing in the centre of tha doorway when they
came up. I did not push any of them, until I was pushed by them. I could
not see whether any one else was in the passage at the time, as my back
was turned. It was not immediately after I had told them that I could
not draw them any more beer that I was struck. One of them tried to hit
me, and then they all forced their way in.
Mr. Mowll:- But I want to know whether, before any blow was struck, you
did not push one of the men?
Witness:- I did not.
Mr Mowll:- Are you prepared to swear that?
Witness:- Yes. But do you mean when the man were standing at the door?
Mr. Mowll:- Yes. When they came back the second time.
Witness:- Oh very likely, I did then.
Witness proceeding:- I did not strike any of the men before I received
a blow. I only prevented a man from getting through into the back of my
premises. I almost certainly did not push the man back into the street
again. The glass did not go round more freely than usual at my house on
the
evening in question.
Mr. Mowll:- I suppose every one had had a little.
Witness:- No.
Mr. Mowll:- But I suppose that on Saturday night the glass goes round
more freely than usual
doesn't it. (Laughter.)
Witness:- Not particularly more than usual.
Mr. Mowll:- But I suppose you were nice and comfortable? (Laughter.)
Witness:- We had been comfortable for a long time.
Witness proceeding, I went to the Heights on Sunday morning. The men were
all assembled for church parade. Superintendent Sanders, Mr Sewell, Mr.
Bradford. Mr. Stevens, Sergeant Johnstone and a constable in private
clothes accompanied me. I immediately picked out O'Brien and Harrrison
as the two men who had been to my house on the previous evening. I had
not applied for a warrant; but the two men were walked down to the
station-house.
Mr. Mowll: How were they walked down?
Witness:- What do you mean?
Mr. Mowll:- Oh, you know what I mean very well, Mr. Birch. The "darbies"
were clapped on them, weren't they? (Laughter.)
Well, yes, I think they were.
Re-examined by Mr Fox:- I had nothing to do with handcuffing the men.
That was left to the discretion of the police. I have no doubt about the
identity of the two defendants. I have not had a single complaint
against my house during the whole of the eight years I have tenanted it.
I am always pleased to see at my house any people who behave themselves.
William Branford deposed:- I reside at Charlton. I was in the
smoking-room at the "Falcon Inn," Charlton, on Saturday evening last, at
about half-past nine. The smoking-room is upstairs; but on hearing noise
below I came down to see what was the matter. I saw Mr. Birch
endeavouring to persuade three or four soldiers to leave his house. They
were all standing in the passage, and did not leave. I saw the defendant
O’Brien strike Mr. Birch on the head with a stick. I am quite sure it
was O'Brien. I did not see any one strike him. A scuffle ensued; and
three or four sticks were used. Harrison took part in the affray. He was
present with the other men when the blow was struck. I saw Mr. Birch's
wound, the effect of the blow O'Brien had given him, bleeding very much.
I did not see then that his thumb was injured.
Cross-examined by Mr. Mowll:- I was not down stairs when the soldiers
first came in.
Mr. Mowll:- Did you hear any one cry out below before coming down from
the smoking-room?
Witness:- I heard scuffling below.
Mr Mowll:- Did you see the complainant push any of the soldiers?
Witness:- No.
Mr. Mowll:- Do you mean to say O'Brien struck complainant without
anything having been done in the way of pushing?
Mr Birch was asking them to leave the house, and, thinking that he saw a
piquet outside, he called out for help. Three or four of the men then
struck him immediately. Mrs. Birch came out, and was very much
frightened when she saw her husband's wound. I took care of her, and at
the same time, prevented any of the soldiers from going into the bar
parlour.
Mr. Mowll:- Did yon see anything else beside the striking? There was a
great deal of pushing from one side of the passage to the other, wasn't
there?
Witness:- Yes.
Mr. Mowll:- Who besides Mr. Birch and the soldiers joined in the
scuffle?
Witness:- Mr. John Clark joined in it, and also Mr. Coulthard.
Mr. Mowll:- Any one else?
Witness:- A man named Stevens, I believe.
Mr. Mowll:- Who else?
Witness:- No one, that I am aware.
Witness proceeding:- The soldiers finally went out of the house of their
own accord. I did not see any of them thrown into the road. I saw no
other blows stuck except those between the complainant and the soldiers.
I do not know how the defendant Harrison got the blow in his eye.
Mr. Thomas Sewell was then examined by Mr. Fox as follows:- I reside at
Buckland. I was at the "Falcon Inn" last Saturday evening. I went there
about a quarter past nine. I saw several people standing in front of the
bar as I went in. I did not stay below; but went upstairs to the smoking
room. I afterwards heard a disturbance going on below. On coming down to
see what was the matter, I saw Mr. Birch standing in the passage. I
heard him request some soldiers who were standing there to leave his
house. Defendants were among the men. The soldiers refused to leave. One
of them tried to get O’Brien to go away. He took him up and carried him
as far as the door; but he got away and struck Mr. Birch a severe blow
with his stick. Mr. Birch was speaking very coolly at the time. I did
not know then that there was anything the matter with his thumb. After
O’Brien struck Mr. Birch, a general onclie ensued. I went to the Heights
with the complainant on Sunday morning; and I immediately picked out
O'Brien as the man whom I had seen strike Mr. Birch on the previous
evening. Both Harrison and O'Brien took part in the assault.
Cross-examined by Mr. Mowll:- I was not down stairs when the soldiers
came in the second time. They were standing in the bar I believe when I
went up into the smoking room I think it would have born very un-English
like if I had not tried to protect Mr. Birch after O’Brien had struck
him the blow. I assisted to get the men out of the house.
Mr. Mowll:- Did you hit any one?
Witness:- Yes, I did, when I saw Mr. Birch had such a wound.
Witness continuing:- I generally go into the smoking-room at the "Falcon"
every Saturday night. I do not know whether the glass went round there
freely, or not, on Saturday evening last. (Laughter.) I did not see any
pushing before O’Brien struck the blow.
Mr. Mowll:- The soldiers don't
use the smoking-room, do they?
Witness:- I don't know if they would be allowed there.
Mr. Mowll:- Tell me, Mr. Sewell, is there any distinction made between
the gentlemen who use the smoking-room and those who use the bar?
Witness:- Well, sir, the landlord uses his own discretion as to that.
Mr Mowll:- So, then, "the upper ten" remain in the sanctum up-stairs,
while the "commoners" are kept below, is that it? (Loud laughter.)
Witness:- I don't know who you mean by the "upper ten." (Renewed
laughter.)
Witness proceeding:- The "Falcon" is not what I should ordinarily call a
soldiers' house. I have frequently seen soldiers there in front of the
bar. On the evenings of fetes, &c., there are generally a great many. I
have never seen as many soldiers there as civilians. I have never seen
the "cold shoulder" given them. (Laughter.)
Re-examined by Mr. Fox:- As far as my experience goes, I have never seen
any difference made there between soldiers and civilians.
Mr. John Clark deposed:- I was standing outside the "Falcon" on Saturday
evening when this disturbance commenced. I went in. I did not interfere
while words went on; but I did when I saw the defendant O'Brien strike
the complainant, Mr. Birch. I was struck by the defendant Harrison. I
did not see any one else struck. Mr. Stevens was there. I struck the
defendant Harrison after he had struck me. He struck me on the head with
a stick. Harrison did not strike me until after the defendant O'Brien
had struck Mr. Birch. All five of the riflemen, I believe, had sticks.
Cross-examined by Mr. Mowll:- The blow Harrison gave me did not cut my
head open. I assisted to throw Harrison into the street. Mr. Stevens
helped me. Harrison fell on his back. When I saw him on the following
morning at the Heights I asked him how his back was. Although I struck
Harrison pretty hard, I do out know where I struck him. The defendant
O’Brian striking Mr. Birch was the commencement of the affray.
This evidence terminated the case for the complainant.
Mr. Mowll then addressed the Bench for the defendants. He said he had
the honour to appear that morning on behalf of the two young men charged
with committing the assault, having been instructed by their superiors,
who thought that this case ought to be defended. Both of the defendants
had been in her Majesty's service for several years, and had hitherto
borne an irreproachable character in their regiment. Their officer, who
would be examined presently, would tell the Magistrates that, during
several years’ service, neither of them had had a single black mark
against him, nor had his name appeared in the defaulters' book. Their
worships were well aware of the strict discipline observed in the army
in the present day; and he thought that these facts, whatever they might
think of this assault and the circumstances connected with it, would
lend to assure them that the men were not prone to disorderly conduct.
He was quite aware, on the other hand, that the complainants position
was a very difficult and highly responsible one; and he had undoubtedly
received a severe blow.
He felt he laboured under a great disadvantage, inasmuch as his friend,
Mr. Fox, had come before them on the previous day and had made to some
extent an ex parte statement. Consequently, the Bench, he was afraid,
must be prejudiced against the defendants. However, he should ask them
to dismiss from their minds altogether anything they had heard on the
previous occasion. Now, the two defendants, on Saturday evening, had
gone for a walk with some comrades as far as the turnpike gate leading
to River, before tattoo time. They had come back to the "Falcon Inn," at
Charlton, where they decided to have a glass of beer. According to his
instructions, and according to the evidence which had been brought
before the Bench, four of the men went into the bar, which was on the
right hand side of the door, leaving one of their comrades in the
passage. Whilst this man remained in the passage there were several
other people there - civilians, not soldiers, — and Mr. Birch came up to
this man and made use of these words, "Go into the bar, or else outside,
for this is not a place for the likes of you." The man replied, "Very
well, sir, I will go outside." He thereupon acted upon his word; and his
comrades hearing Mr. Birch's remarks, felt— and he was quite sure the
Bench would consider it very natural that they should so feel - that
they had been insulted; that a line of distinction had been drawn by the
landlord between themselves and civilians, as he showed the remainder of
the people, who were all civilians, to remain in the passage. Some words
passed between them, and the landlord ultimately told them that they had
better go. The men then went out; and do doubt it would have been a
great deal better for all parties if they had not returned. When
outside, however, one of the men, addressing his comrades, said he
considered he had been insulted. The landlord had refused to draw them
any more beer; and he proposed that they should return and insist on
their right to be served. On returning to the house, the landlord was
found standing in the centre of the doorway. Not because the men were
intoxicated, but because he had a sort of fatherly feeling for
them—being afraid they would be late in barracks (laughter)—he told them
that he would not serve them with any more beer. Now that was
undoubtedly wrong, according to law; because, unless they were afflicted
with some contagious disease, or were intoxicated at the time, they had
a right to be served. The soldiers wm only exercising their right when
they asked to be served with beer; and here was the pinch of the whole
case. The landlord stood at the door with his arms folded and refused
them admission. The men persisted in demanding a legal right, and it was
in getting into the house that the alleged assault took place. The
landlord said to O'Brien, "You won’t come in," and the man retorted, "I
shall." Now the complainant, under cross-examination in the witness-box,
had said that he was not prepared to swear that he did not push O'Brien;
and he would call three witnesses to prove that he did push him, as he
fell back into the arms of one of his comrades. When O’Brien recovered
himself, the whole five rushed into the house. His contention was, in
the first place, that the landlord had no business to refuse the men
admission to his house, or to push O'Brien. He would ask the Magistrates
also to look at the surrounding circumstances. Mr. Sewell had been
greatly offended in the witness-box at a certain question he (Mr. Mowll)
had put to him as to the glass having gone round pretty freely that
evening at the "Falcon," though Mr. Sewell had not been prepared to
swear that it had not. (Laughter.) The civilians no doubt, were doing
their best to enjoy themselves; and the soldiers had had just sufficient
to make them ripe for a row. The riflemen thought they had been insulted
by the landlord, and it was only natural that they should endeavour to
assert their rights. They returned to the house for the purpose of doing
this, not with the intention of quarrelling, but simply to ask for what
they had a right to demand-a glass of beer. The complainant not only
refused them this, but pushed them rudely away from the door. It seemed
that the prisoner Harrison was absolutely thrown out into the street by
some of Mr. Birch's energetic friends, and Mr. Clark, who had had a hand
in this business, evidently seemed to think he had done the poor man
some injury, for the next morning, when at the Heights, he addressed to
him some such words as these, "Well, old fellow, how's your back?" (A
laugh.) He desired to say a word also as to the manner of the arrest. It
seemed to him outrageous, that, at half-past ten on Sunday morning, when
all the men were assembled for church parade, the complainant should go
the Heights, and that, upon his ex parte statement, the men should be
handcuffed, taken down the Grand Shaft, and marched up to Snargate
Street into the police-station, just as all respectable people were
going to Divine Service. In spite of his re-examination, his friend, Mr.
Fox, knew as well as he did that the proceeding was illegal. When the
men were under Government control and in their proper places, without a
warrant or any attendants being heard beyond those of the complainant
and his friends, it was monstrous for them to be handcuffed and marched
through the streets like felons. Mr. Sewell had told them, and very
rightly too, that he entered pluckily into the fray, and used his fists
right and left in defence of Mr. Birch. He had further told them that he
thought he should not have been acting like an Englishman if he had not
done no. He used his fists so freely that he did know whom he had struck
and whom he had not. (Laughter.) Of course the riflemen also acted like
Englishmen and followed suit with the civilians in the use of their
fists. Eventually the riflemen made their escape, the cry of "piquet"
being raised. He ventured to think that, after their worships had heard
the evidence he should call, they would say that no very serious assault
had been committed. Mr. Birch had been undoubtedly wrong in refusing the
men admittance; and he had done another unjustifiable act in pushing
them away from the door. Under the whole of the circumstances he
considered himself entitled to ask fur a dismissal at their worships
hands.
He called Charles Poore who deposed:- I am a private in the 1st
Battalion Rifle Brigade. I was in company with the defendants O'Brien
and Harrison on Saturday night. There were five of us altogether. We
were outside the "Falcon" at about nine o'clock; and we all went in. We
went into the bar at first; but one of the men ultimately went into the
passage. That man's name was Baggot. I heard the landlord tell him that
he must either go inside or outside, as that place was not for the likes
of him. I was standing in the bar when I heard this. I saw the Landlord
go up to Baggot. He addressed himself exclusively to him and not to the
remainder of the people. Baggot went outside for a few minutes after the
landlord had spoken to him; but afterwards came back into the bar to us.
We then finished up our beer and went out. Before leaving, Harrison
thanked the landlord for the complimentary way in which he had spoken,
and added that he thought that our money was as good as the civilians.
Mr. Birch said you had better go; as I don't want any "bone-picking"
here. When we got outside and were some little distance from the house,
one of the men proposed that we should go back again and have some more
beer, as we had plenty of time before tattoo. When we returned Mr Birch
was standing in the middle of the doorway. O'Brien was the first at the
door. Mr Birch pushed him away with both hands, and he fell into my
arms. If I had not been behind him be would nave fallen on to the kerb.
Before pushing O'Brien Mr. Birch said, "You will not come into my house
again this evening." He did not give any reason for so doing. After
pushing O'Brien, Mr. Birch stepped back, and we all rushed in. Mr Birch
called out for assistance. I took O'Brien up in my arms and endeavoured
to get him away. I carried him as far as the door; but he got away from
me there. A cry of "picquet" was raised after the fight. The passage was
completely filled, a number of civilians having come down from a room
above. I am quite sure that, before anything took place, the landlord
pushed O’Brien. That was the commencement of the affray.
Cross-examined by Mr. Fox:- The fight took place between half-past nine
and ten o'clock. It might have been about seven when I came out of
barracks that evening. We all five came out together. W went up to the
"Three Cups" public-house at Buckland, where we had some beer. We had
been into one other public-houses before going there; so that the
"Falcon Inn" made the third. We had half-a-gallon of beer at the
"Falcon" - at least that is all that I saw. Some of them might have
called for more. We had no reason for returning to the "Falcon" a second
time, except that we had plenty of time, and that the beer was good
there. (A laugh.) I cannot complain of the treatment I have received at
the hands of Mr. Birch. I have known him for a long time; and he has
always behaved in a proper manner to all of us before. I am not certain
who it was proposed going back to the "Falcon" a second time. I did not
see Mr. Birch struck on the head; but I saw O'Brien wrestling with him,
and I tried to part them. I saw a good many blows exchanged that
evening. I saw O'Brien strike Mr. Birch with his fists; but not with his
stick. I did not lose sight of O’Brien for a moment after we came back
the second time.
Re-examined by Mr. Mowll:- Mr Birch had pushed before O'Brien struck him
at all. We were all passed into barracks by the Shaft Guard and the
orderly sergeant, as sober.
Mr. Mowll then called Walter Laire, who said:- I have been chosen for a
corporalship in my regiment for good character and efficiency. I am at
present on probation. I have been in the army four years and four
months; and during that time I have not had a single entry of any
importance in the defaulters book against me. The entries have only been
for absence, and never for drunkenness. I was in company with the
defendants on Saturday evening last. I remember going into the "Falcon"
to get some beer. Baggot was standing in the passage there; when I heard
the landlord say to him, "It's either inside or outside; your custom is
not wanted here, nor that of the likes of you." Baggot went outside; but
came into the bar again to us. Before leaving Harrison said to the
landlord, "Isn’t my custom as good as other people's and my money as
good?" The landlord followed us as far as the door. When we got down the
road a few yards, I proposed that we should go back, as we had plenty of
time. The landlord met us at the door. Harrison called for a pot of
beer, but the landlord replied, "I shan’t serve you." Before saying that
the landlord had pushed O’Brien out on to the pavement. O’Brien and
Harrison were the first to rush into the house, and we followed. I did
not mix myself up in the fight. Some one held me back near the door.
Cross-examined by Mr. Fox:- We had been to three public-houses before
going to the "Falcon," vis., the "Flying Horse," "Phoenix," and the
"Three Cups."
I cannot swear whether we all five had sticks with us. I had not. I was
not struck at all, neither did I strike any one. The landlord has always
treated me well when I have been to his house on previous occasions. I
have only seen men of my company at Mr. Birch’s public-house. I believe
we came out of barracks that evening at about seven o'clock.
Mr. Mowll said he could call other witnesses to corroborate the
statements of these two men; but he did not think it necessary.
He then called Anthony Cope, who deposed:- I am lieutenant in the Rifle
Brigade, and am in the same company an the two prisoners. They both bear
good characters in the regiment. I never know them to be concerned in
any row before this; neither have they been before the Magistrates for
assault at any time.
This being the case for the defence, the Bench, after a short
consultation, said they thought the case was a very simple one. The
landlord was charged, under heavy responsibilities, with the orderly
keeping of his house, and it happened to be a house well known to have
been conducted and kept in a respectable manner. When, in the exercise
of his judgment, the landlord refused the men any more beer, they could
not be justified in taking the law into their own hands. In their
opinion a most unjustifiable attack had been made; and such proceedings
could not be tolerated. They committed each of the defendants to prison
for three weeks, with hard labour.
|
From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday 14 January, 1876.
MYSTERIOUS DEATH AT DOVER
On Friday morning Police-sergeant Johnstone found the body of William
Tams, carrier, in a wet ditch near the Brookfield Cottages, Buckland. He
was quite dead. An inquest on the body of deceased was was held on
Saturday evening, at the “Falcon Inn,” before the Borough Coroner, W. H.
Payn, Esq., Mr. W. Mowll, solicitor, attended on behalf of the widow to
watch the case, and Mr. Philip Stiff and Mr. Farmar were also present
during the enquiry.
The first witness examined was Mary Tams, widow of the deceased, who
deposed that his health had not been very good. He frequently complained
of headache. She last saw him alive on Thursday evening at about six
o'clock, when he had tea as usual. He left the house to go to Buckland
to make enquiries after a coat which he had lost. She saw nothing more
of him until he was brought home dead, at half-past one the next
morning. Did not observe any marks of violence on him. In the afternoon
he had a watch with him and some loose silver. Did not know what had
become of his watch or the money. Was certain he would not have given
his watch away. Never heard him utter anything which would indicate that
he contemplated self-destruction.
In answer to question by Mr. Mowll, the witness said that deceased's
silk watch-guard was round his neck when he was brought home, but it was
broken and had the appearance as if the watch had been violently
snatched from him. When he left home he was in seeming good health and
spirits.
George Pryor, a gardener, deposed that he saw deceased on Thursday, at
about twelve o'clock, when he passed his garden on his way to Buckland.
He was quite sober, and there was nothing remarkable in his appearance.
He said he thought that a man who worked for Mr. Finnis had picked his
coat up. He saw him coming back, when he remarked that he had found out
where the man lived, and he had been to his house, but he was not at
home and would not be until seven and eight that evening. He did not
mention the name of the man.
Sarah Foster, daughter of the deceased, said that he was a steady man
and never said anything which would indicate that he contemplated
suicide.
Henry Terry, a carrier, in deceased's employ, deposed: I last saw
deceased a little before six on Thursday. When I returned from work he
told me he felt rather queer. He had only carted one load of bricks from
Mr. Finnis's brickyard, at Buckland, to the Priory. I did not see him
after this all day until the evening. There was nothing particular in
his manner. He seemed in a hurry to get us out to go home to tea. He
asked me whether the moon was up. It must have been about six o'clock. I
showed him the moon, and he remarked that it looked bright, and he hoped
the days would soon draw out longer. He said he would go to Buckland
after tea to look for his coat, and would not mind giving someone 2s. or
2s 6d. if they could find it. He had been told where he thought he could
get it. He said, “You go to tea, and I'll go to mine. Good night.”
Police-sergeant James Johnstone said: On Friday morning, about a quarter
to one, in consequence of information I received, accompanied by
Police-constables Pilcher and Stevens, I went in search of deceased. We
commenced at Charlton Church, and searched the river up to the furthest
most end of Mr. Robinson's meadow, at Cherry Tree Lane. We then went
along the back-way of Buckland to the end of Mr. Prior's garden. We went
down a little footway there that leads to Model Cottages, at the back of
the “Bull” public-house, and at the end of Mr. Pryor's garden, where
there is a wet ditch, and about six or eight yards from Mr. Pryor's
fencing we found the body of deceased in the water face downwards.
Pilcher and Stevens took the body out, and I told them to turn it on the
back. I saw it was Mr. Toms, and told Pilcher to take charge of the body
while I went with Police-constable Stevens to get a doctor and tell the
relatives. On the London Road I met Police-constable Edmunds, and sent
him for Mr. Long. Stevens and I went to the friends. I saw the wife and
daughter of deceased, and they wished the body to be removed to his own
home. Deceased's son-in-law procured a barrow and removed the body home.
I sent Mr. Long and accompanied him to where the body was lying. He
examined the body, and pronounced it dead. I observed some blood smeared
on the deceased's temple and some bruises on the right cheek. The body
was searched in my presence. We found a book containing various
memorandums, a pair of spectacles, a pipe and tobacco pouch, and a silk
watch guard, which was round the neck. There was no money or watch. The
depth of the water where deceased was found was about 18 inches.
Yesterday I made a house to house enquiry to see if any person had found
the coat. The river has been dragged to find his watch, but it could not
be found. There were no signs of the deceased having struggled.
Mr. Arthur Long, surgeon, said: between one and two on Friday morning, I
was called to see the body of a man found drowned in a ditch by the
Model Cottages. I saw the body lying on its back. Life was extinct. I
next accompanied it to Tower Hamlets, and there made a careful
examination of the body. On the right temple and cheek there were slight
blood stains and a mark as if grazed. These marks I believe were done
during life. I could find no other marks of injury on the body whatever.
These injuries, in my opinion, were not sufficient to cause death. There
are no marks to account for murder. The probably cause of death was
drowning.
The Coroner then briefly summed up, and the Jury returned a verdict of
“Found Drowned.”
|
From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday 16 March, 1877.
SHOCKING SUICIDE IN DOVER
On Wednesday last an inquest was held at the “Falcon Inn,” Dover, before
the Borough Coroner (William Henry Payn, Esq.), on the body of the wife
of Jamed Fielder, who had got out of bed rather suddenly in the night,
and, addressing her husband with the words “I am going, Jim; good bye,”
immediately cut her throat with a razor. The following was the evidence
taken before the Jury:-
James Fielder said: I am a mariner, living at 10, De Burgh Street,
Charlton. The deceased, Anne Fielder, was my wife. Her age was
twenty-nine years. Her health previous to this occasion had been bad.
She had been attended by Dr. Clement Walter, for what he termed
rheumatic gout in the left leg. Last night I went to bed with her about
nine o'clock. We had our supper, which consisted of bread and cheese and
a pint of beer between us. About one o'clock I heard her say, “I am
going, Jim; good bye.” She was then out of bed. I immediately got out
and procured a light. I saw my wife sitting on the floor in her
night-dress. I saw that her throat was cut. I was asleep when she called
out to me. I did not see her do the act as it was quite dark. While I
was procuring the light I heard a trickling sound, which I supposed to
be her vomiting as though she were taken sick. I never heard a single
word uttered by her except those words I have stated. We had no quarrel,
but were both on friendly terms and have been ever since we were
married. I never struck her at any time. We have had a family of five
children. The youngest is two years old. My razor was lying in a bag
which was hanging up near the wash-stand, and was quite easy for her to
take. She has appeared rather depressed the last few months. I had been
disqualified on board the cutter to which I belong. Finding my wife in
the position I did, I called my daughter, whose age is twelve years,
and, warning her not to be frightened, I told her her mother was dying.
I took her to the side of her mother, who was still living. I asked my
wife to tell the child who did the deed. She was unable to speak, but
nodded her head two or three times, and motioned her hand across her
throat. I told my daughter to remain in the room until I called a
Policeman. I left the house and returned with a Policeman. We arrived
before my wife died, and on the Policeman going up to where she was
lying, I asked her who had done it and she motioned as before. She died
in about twenty minutes after that.
Police-constable William Bailey, said: This morning I was on duty in
High Street, Charlton, when Mr. Fielder came running down the High
Street to me and told me that his wife had cut her throat with a razor.
I went at once with him to his house. When I got there I saw deceased
lying on the floor in the bedroom beside the bed. I saw that her throat
was cut, but she was still alive. I asked her who had cut her throat,
and she tried to move her hand towards her throat. I heard her say “I,”
and she made a motion with her two hands towards her throat. I looked
around and saw a razor on the wash-stand open. I ran downstairs and blew
my whistle for assistance, and having obtained assistance I sent for a
doctor, and Dr. Osborn attended in about a quarter of an hour. He
pronounced her dead when he arrived. The husband was there all the time.
Police-sergeant Charles Hemmings said: I was on duty in High Street
yesterday morning, about half-past one. I heard cries of “murder” from
the direction of De Burgh Street. I went towards the street, and there
saw a female in her night-dress running and shouting, “Do not let him
touch me,” She took hold of my arm, and I said, “Let who touch you?” She
replied, “My husband; he has sharpened his knife, he swears he will cut
my throat.” I asked her husband's name, and where he lived, she said,
“Fielder, 10, De Burgh Street.” I took her to the house, and told her
she would catch cold in her night-dress. She refused to go in, and I
made a search everywhere round the house, and amongst the timber, but
could not find anyone. At last she contended to go in and put clothes
on, if I would conduct her to Tower Hamlets to a friend of hers. When
she came down she said her husband had been fighting and rowing at Mr.
Mackie's opposite, and I sent her by a constable to Tower Hamlets. I met
her husband coming up High Street Charlton, by himself. I called him by
his name, and asked him what was the matter between him and his wife. He
said, Nothing, that I am aware of; why do you ask?” I said, “because she
was running about in her night-dress, saying that you had sworn to cut
the throat.” He said, “Where is she? I have not been home since
half-past seven.” I told him I had sent her to Tower Hamlets to a
friend's house and a constable with her. I then sent a constable with
him to Tower Hamlets. I have since ascertained that the time of his
leaving home and between seven and eight, and did not return until I met
him which was about two o'clock. I also ascertained that her statement
about the rowing at Mr. Mackie's was not correct. I took charge of the
keys of the room and the razor. The deceased seemed very mild in her
manner.
Mr Ashby Greenhow Osborn, surgeon, residing and practising at Dover,
said: this morning I was called at two o'clock to 10, De Burgh Street,
by a Policeman. I attended immediately and found the deceased lying in a
bedroom, between the wall and the bedstead, in her night-dress, with a
large wound in her throat, and a quantity of blood on the floor. The
body was warm and had not been long dead. The wound in her throat
appeared to have been done twice, which had divided her right jugular
vein, and the cartilage at the top of the windpipe. Death had resulted
from loss of blood, and the blood getting into the windpipe. The razor
produced might have inflicted such a wound. I know nothing of the state
of her mind, only what has been produced in evidence. I saw no evidence
of a struggle having taken place.
The Jury returned a verdict that “The deceased committed suicide while
in a state of temporary insanity.”
|
From the Dover Express and East Kent Intelligencer,
8 June, 1877. Price 1d.
ABSENTEES
Alic Cars, Richard Wilson, and William Mears, were charged with
deserting from the Royal Marines at Walmer.
Police-constable Nash said he met the three men about half-past nine
that morning in London Road, near the "Falcon" and asked them if they
were on pass. At first they said "No" and afterwards contradicted
themselves. Failing to produce passes, the constable took them into
custody.
The prisoners were sent back to their headquarters at Walmer.
|
From the Dover Express and East Kent Intelligencer, 11 February, 1881. Price 1d.
DEATH BY BURNING
An inquest was held on Wednesday evening at the “Falcon” public-house,
Charlton, on the body of child named Acord, who had died on the previous
day.
Mr. J. R. Adams was chosen foreman, and the Jury having viewed the body
of the child, the following evidence was taken:-
Isabella Acors, wife of Edward Acors, residing at 58, Peter Street,
said: The deceased, Harold Ernest Acors was my second child, his age
being one year and eight months. On the first of the month, before
breakfast, the deceased was sitting on the floor in the room with his
brother, who is about three years old. I left the room for about five
minutes when I heard the deceased cry. I ran downstairs and found him
sitting in the same place, but with him pinafore burning. I immediately
put the flames out, and took the deceased to the Dover Hospital. I found
a piece of newspaper, all burnt, lying close to the child. There was no
guard on the fire. I believe my other little boy must have got the paper
and set light to it. The House Surgeon attended the child until its
death.
A verdict that the child died from the effects of the burns were
returned.
|
From the Canterbury Journal, Kentish Times and Farmers' Gazette, 12 July 1884.
FATAL FALL DOWNSTAIRS.
An inquest was held at the "Falcon Hotel" on Thursday, on the body of
Emily Charlotte Hipgrave, 35, years of age. The deceased lived at 105,
High-street, with her mother. On Wednesday, shortly after mid-day, she
was found in her night-dress at the bottom of the stairs, dead, her
mother, it appears, not coming down before that time owing to her being
unwell. It is supposed that the unfortunate woman was going downstairs
during the night, when she fell, having previously complained of
giddiness. She was examined by Dr. Duke, who found a lamented wound over
the left ear and a fracture over the left temple.
The jury returned a verdict to the effect that death was caused by
falling downstairs.
|
From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday 22 May, 1885. Price 1d.
A large meeting of the Licensed Victuallers Association was held on
Monday last at the “Falcon Hotel.” Councillor G. Birch presided.
Resolutions were passed, protested against the Provision inserted in the
chancellors of Exchequer's Budget for raising the duties on Beer and
Spirits; and also that a copy of the Resolutions be sent to the members
for the Borough and County.
|
From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday 24 July, 1885.
Mr. Councillor Birch, of the “Falcon Hotel,” gave a pic-nic to 130
juveniles and other friends on Wednesday last in a field belonging to
Mr. Leney, at Crabble. The party were conveyed in omnibuses to and from
the meadow, and on their return spent a musical evening at the “Falcon.”
|
From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday 26 March, 1886.
SUDDEN DEATH AT TOWER HAMLETS
An inquest was held by Sydenham Payn, Esq., (Borough Coroner), at the
“Falcon Hotel,” on the body of John Attwood, who met with his death
suddenly on Monday morning. The deceased was found dead in bed on Monday
morning. He had previously enjoyed good health; but on Sunday morning he
complained of having a slight headache. The following gentlemen were on
the Jury:- Mr. A. Ayers (foreman), Messrs. A. Bayley, G. Penn, G.
Illenden, E. Harris, J. Halke, T. Sneller, W. Richards, E. Pilcher, J.
Young, W. Earl, G. Gillman, H. Foreward, and H. Blackman.
Adfter the Jury had viewed the body, the following evidence was taken:-
Mary Matilda Beer, wife of James Beer, a sailor, said: The body the Jury
have viewed is that of me father, he lived with me, and was a labourer.
He worked at Coombe Farm. He was 68 years of age last birthday. I last
saw him alive about half-past nine on Sunday night. He went to bed then
along with my little boy. About six o'clock on the following morning I
called my little boy. He tried to wake the deceased but could not. I
then went up stairs and touched the deceased. I found that he was cold
and dead. I at once sent for my brother, and he went for the doctor. The
doctor came at once. Deceased was always in good health. He complained
on Sunday morning that he had a slight headache, and took two pills.
Mr. Ashby Osborn, surgeon, residing and practising at Dover, said: I was
sent for about half-past six o'clock yesterday morning to see the
deceased. I went immediately and found him in bed lying upon his back.
His left leg was bent. Death had taken place some hours. I examined the
body and found no marks of violence. I am of opinion that the deceased
died, while asleep, from the failure of the heart's action. This
complaint runs in families.
The Coroner stated that he had held an inquest on the death of
deceased's brother some time ago, who died from the failure of the
heart's action.
The Jury returned a verdict to the effect that the deceased died from
natural causes.
|
From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 3 January, 1890. Price 5d.
KILLED ON BOXING NIGHT
A woman named Sarak Ballard, about 78 years of age lodging at 16, Tower
Street, Tower Hamlets, had on Boxing day been with some relatives in the
same street, Alfred and Emily Marsh. They saw her home about 6.30 that
evening, and as she was rather infirm, they went with her to her room
upstairs. She said she did not know whether the people she lodged with
would come home that night, and if they did not she would go down and
lock the door. No more was seen of her till the next morning, when about
nine o'clock Emily Marsh went to the house and found the door unlocked,
and the poor old woman lying dead in the passage at the foot of the
stairs. It is believed that in coming down to lock the door she fell. An
inquest was held at the “Falcon Hotel,” on Saturday afternoon, before
Sydenham Payn, Esq., Coroner, when the medical man, Mr. Arthur Long said
there was a severe cut over the left eye. He supposed that death must
have taken place about nine or ten o'clock in the evening. A verdict of
accidental death was returned.
|
From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 16 January, 1891. Price 1d.
LICENSED VICTUALLERS' ASSOCIATION
The annual meeting of the Dover Licensed Victuallers' Association took
place on Wednesday, the 7th inst., at the “Falcon Hotel,” Mr. Alderman
George Birch in the chair, the vice-chair being occupied by Mr. James
Ward, of the “Priory Hotel.” There was a large attendance of members and
honorary subscribers, among them being Messrs. Sandford, Elms, Pryer,
Conradi, Bowles, Ralph, Harmer, Blake, Shave, Kohlhammer, Gartner,
Jackson, Miller, Fitsgobbon, Frazer, Wells, Dane, White, Hoskins,
Friend, Batterbee, Beecham, and others. The Secretary (Mr. Hatton
Brown), read the account of receipts and expenditure for the past year
and the following report:-
Your Committee have the pleasure of presenting to the members and
friends, their thirtieth annual report and balance sheet. Your committee
again thank the honorary subscribers for their support during the year.
Your committee congratulate the members upon the manner their businesses
have been conducted during the year, no cause for prosecution having
been found, so that no law expenses have been incurred by defending. In
one case – that of defrauding an innkeeper – it was considered necessary
to prosecute, which resulted in a conviction; and in the two cases of
damage done to property, compensation was allowed. Any member who may
require protection or assistance in according with the objects of the
Association can, by applying to the Secretary convene a special meeting
to take the case into consideration when such action as will be thought
advisable will be adopted. Your Committee with the wish of the Executive
Council considered it advisable to send in April a delegate to a meeting
in London for the purpose of consulting on the proposed legislation for
the trade, and to take such action as might be thought necessary,
particularly in the case of Sharp v. Wakeful. Also in June two delegates
were deputed to attend a mass meeting in St. Jame's Hall, consisting of
wholesale and retail trade to assist in amalgamating the National League
with the London Protection Society, to be called the Licensed
Victuallers' Defence League of England and Wales, to form a general
council to appoint a chairman, a secretary, a parliamentary agent, and
to agree to a capitation grant of 1s. 6d. per member from all affiliated
societies, and also for the election of five auditors from the
provincial associations. Your committee joined in obtaining signatures
and presenting a monster petition to the House of Commons in the favour
of the Local Taxation Bill, which was moderate in conception and
equitable in character, as we consider we have a right to compensation
if our property is disturbed without any fault on the part of the
license-holder. Your committee use their influence both in local and
national matters concerning the trade to obtain justice, and they trust
that all those who are anxious for its welfare will support
organisations and are formed not to countenance any which may wilfully
violate the law, but for the protection of its members from frivolous
vexations or malicious prosecutions.
After several members gentlemen were voted in as members, the Chairman
and the rest of the officers were re-elected for the ensuing year. A
vote of thanks was passed to the auditors, Messrs. Pryer and Grigg, and
the usual donations were granted to the Trade Defence League and trade
new papers. The Chairman thanked the Committee, Treasurer, and Secretary
for their assistance during the past year, and their healths were drunk
and responded to by Mr. H. Brown. The healths of the honourable
subscribers were proposed and responded to by Mr. S. R. Elms, sen., and
by Mr. G. Sandford.
In returning thanks for the hearty manner the healths of the Chairman
and continued success to the Association had been received, Mr. Birch
said that he was glad to find the members as enthusiastic as ever, and
the funds of the society in a very good condition, for although every
care possible might be used, the licensing Laws were so severe and
difficult to understand, and so many enemies were trying to make them
worse, that the society might at any time be required to exhaust its
last penny in obtaining justice and fair play to the trade. He heard
about the Chancellor of the Exchequer had promised to take off the
sixpence a gallon on spirits, but he considered the money that had been
received should be refunded. He had been a member of the society a
number of years, and he thought all who wished well for themselves and
their fellow tradesmen should also join.
After agreeing to meet again on the 4th of February, the members
separated.
|
From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday 31
March, 1893.
SPECIAL SESSIONS
A special sessions of the Licensing Magistrates was held to grant as
license for music, singing, and dancing to Mr. Birch of the "Falcon."
|
From the Deal, Walmer, and Sandwich Mercury,
3 November, 1900. 1d.
DEATH AT A FUNERAL
An inquest on Mr. George Gilham, the old gentleman who died suddenly
at St. James' Cemetery on Tuesday afternoon, whilst attending the
funeral obsequies of Sir R. Dickeson, was held at the "Falcon Hotel,"
before Mr. Sydenham Payn, on Friday evening.
Mr. J. Simmons was chosen foreman of the jury.
William George Prescott, schoolmaster, of Guildford, identified the
body, which was lying at the residence, 56, London Road, as that of
George Gilham, whose age was 73 years. He was a retired prison warden.
About two years ago he had a severe stroke, and he had had a milder one
since, and this left had left a trembling, and his left eye was slightly
affected. He left home alone on Tuesday about one o'clock, to attend the
funeral of Sir Richard Dickeson, who had been a good friend to the
deceased, and the latter had felt his death very keenly. Deceased ate a
hearty dinner before starting. Witness believed his father and sister
died very suddenly.
James William Parker, mariner, of 76, Wyndham Road, stated that
whilst waiting in St. James' Cemetery on Thursday afternoon, he saw the
deceased while walking down on the grass, and he came and sat down on a
tomb beside witness. Witness asked the deceased the age of Sir Richard,
and directly he had answered, his head dropped forward on his chest, and
he began groaning. deceased lifted his head, and started, and then fell
back. Witness called a constable, who loosened his clothing at the neck,
but deceased only groaned twice after that, and turned purple.
Police-Sergt. Danson stated he was called to deceased about 2.30, and
he went to him and bathed his forehead. Deceased was only just alive,
and after drawing two or three breaths, he died. Dr. Bird was summoned,
and the body was removed to the home of the deceased.
Dr. W. E. F. Bird stated that he examined the body at the cemetery,
and found life was extinct. Death was due to apoplexy, no doubt caused
by excitement.
The jury returned a verdict in accordance with the medical testimony.
|
From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 16 October, 1903. Price 1d.
AN OLD MAN'S STRANGE DEATH
DANGER OF SLEEPING ON THE LEFT SIDE
An inquest was held on Friday afternoon last at the “Falcon Hotel,”
London Road, by the Borough Coroner (Sydenham Payn, Esq.), on the body
of an elderly man, named George Staveley, living at Alexander Terrace,
Chapel Hill, who had been in the employ of Messrs. Coulthard and Wilson
as a bootmaker for more than twenty years, and who died suddenly in bed
whilst sleeping on his left side, to which the doctor attributed the
cause of death.
The following were the Jury: Messrs. E. C. Simpson (foreman), W. Coles,
E. Fry, W. Newing, G. Ravenhill, H. Hayward, A. R. Terry, T. Stone, J.
Day, W. Wright, C. Simms, A. Wright, A. Ward, H. Meadows, R. H. Hadlow.
The evidence was as follows:-
Henry Staveley identified the body as that of his father, George
Staveley, whose age, he thought, was 70, he was a shoemaker employed by
Messrs. Coulthard and Wilson. Witness's father had always had good
health. Witness was staying at his father's house about 9.30 on
Wednesday evening and the deceased was in the back room. Witness had
been with him, and had left him in the back room. About half past ten
the housekeeper called witness. When he went to see what was the matter
he found his father in bed and apparently dead.
Elizabeth Ann Dean, housekeeper for Mr. Staveley, said that about half
past seven the deceased came home and he seemed as usual. She had never
heard him complain of his health except as to his leg, for which he had
a lotion. He ate a hearty supper, and he went to bed about ten minutes
to ten. He slept on his left side. About a quarter past ten she heard
him scream awfully, and she called for help, and also went for a doctor.
Witness thought he died about twenty five minutes past ten.
Dr. Maurice Koettlitz said he was called soon after ten on Wednesday
night. Witness found the deceased in his bedroom, and he was dead when
he arrived. Death had taken place quite recently. There were no marks of
violence. He had never seen the deceased before. His opinion was that
the deceased having had a good supper and turning over on his left side,
it stopped the heart's action, and the screaming was due to the stomach
being full and perhaps a little wind in it.
A verdict in accordance with the doctor's evidence was returned.
|
From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 27 May, 1904. Price 1d.
TRAGIC DEATH AT CHARLTON
An inquest was held at the “Falcon Hotel” yesterday afternoon by the
Borough Coroner, Mr. Sydenham Payn, on Arthur William Adams, who died
suddenly under somewhat tragic circumstances on Tuesday evening. He was
chastising one of his children when he suddenly fell down dead. Mr. G.
Wallis was the foreman of the Jury.
Mrs. Adams said: The deceased was my husband, and his name was Arthur
William Adams. He was outside foreman carpenter to Mr. Bromley. He was
41 years of age, and lived at 35, Granville Street. Lately he had been
working at Langdon Farm, walking to the top of Chalky Lane, and then
driving to the farm. On Whit Monday and Tuesday he was at home, and did
not go to work. He seemed quite well but for a pain in the back under
the shoulder blade. For a long time he complained of his chest, and
could not eat frequently. On Tuesday he, however, had a hearty dinner.
After tea he sat downstairs. The four children went to bed about 20
minutes to seven. Afterwards they began to quarrel. He had called out to
them to be quiet, but they would not do so, and he went up. I also went
up. He took a cane with him and tapped one of the children, who said to
him, “Who are you hitting of?” This boy was 12 years of age. His father
said, “Do not speak to me like that, Jack.” He then sat down on the edge
of the bed and swayed to and fro, and then fell. I caught him and laid
him down on the floor. He appeared to die at once. I screamed for
assistance, and a neighbour came. He has not been treated by a medical
man, but had suffered a good deal from shortness of breath. He said he
had a great difficulty in getting up the hill to Chalky Lane.
Mrs. S. Terry, 34, Granville Street, said that on Tuesday night about
ten minutes to seven she was called. She went to the children's bedroom
at the top of the house. Mr. Adams was lying on the floor, and was quite
dead.
Dr. Koettlitz said that he was called after seven o'clock. He went at
once, and found the body lying in the upper room where the children
slept. Death had quite recently taken place and appeared quite natural.
From the evidence he should imagine that the deceased suffered from
chronic disease of the heart, which was accompanied by indigestion, and
this with the excitement of correcting his children reacted on the weak
heart and caused fatal syncope. The walking up the steep hill and the
hard work he did no doubt accelerated the disease.
The Jury returned a verdict of death from natural causes, in accordance
with the doctor's evidence.
|
From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 2
December, 1904. Price 1d.
DOVER BREWSTER BUSINESS
Alteration in the bar were allowed at the "falcon Inn," London Road
|
From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 13 January, 1905. Price 1d.
SMALL FIRE
A message of a fire was received by the Police on Saturday, about 12.55,
from Mr. P. Wraith, of the Falcon Hotel,” that a fire had broken out.
The reel was dispatched, and on arriving it was found that the chimney
was on fire. This was extinguished by throwing salt and water on the
fire. Miss Hicks, the barmaid informed the Police that some shavings had
been thrown into the fireplace by a carpenter, and this was probably the
cause of the conflagration.
|
Dover Express 28th May 1909.
SCENE IN HIGH STREET YESTERDAY.
TRAMS BLOCKED BY A DRUNKEN MAN.
At the Dover Police Court this morning, before T. A. Terson and F. G.
Wright Esqrs. Henry Ratcliff was charged with being drunk and disorderly
and using obscene language in High Street.
PC Leeming said: Shortly after eight o’clock last evening I was at
Bridge Street point. The prisoner came down the London Road and went
into the "Falcon." He was under the influence of drink. I followed him
in and requested the landlady not to serve him. She said she would not.
After some trouble I got him out. He then went up Tower Hamlets but came
down again shortly afterwards and again went into the "Falcon." He
commenced to create a disturbance there. He said that he had left a
shilling on the counter to pay for drink the previous time and had not
had it. The landlady and I requested him to leave and we only got him
out after great trouble. He then would not go away and used bad
language. He had to be thrown and handcuffed and I had the assistance of
PC Fleet of the Metropolitan Police as well as two Dover constables off
duty. He delayed the tram for some minutes and had to be carried to the
Police Station.
Mary Jane Miles, landlady of the Falcon, said my husband was out when
the defendant came in, soon after 8. He was drunk and was followed in by
the constable. The policeman got him out. I never saw him leave
anything. He had no time to take anything out of his pocket and I never
saw him do so. He came back in a quarter of an hour. I refused to serve
him and he said he had left a shilling there and came back for it. The
people there told him he had not done so I called on the constable to
remove him. He was awfully tiresome.
The Chief Constable stated that the man when searched had no money on
him but this morning found 1/- 7d halfpenny.
The man persisted in the story. He promised to leave drink alone.
The Chairman said that the man was a great nuisance and that it was time
he gave up drink. He would go to Canterbury for one month.
|
From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 7 February, 1913. Price 1d.
LICENSED VICTUALLER'S PROTECTION SOCIETY
The annual general meeting of the Dover and District Licenses
Victualler's Society was held at the “Falcon Hotel,” London Road, on
Thursday afternoon. The chair was taken by Mr. T. M. Miles, supported by
Mr. Panter (Vice-president), Mr. Dibley (Secretary), and a large number
of members.
The following new members were elected:- W. H. Lynx and Mr. Gilbert
Deverson.
The Secretary read the annual report, in which he stated that the
balance showed a slight increase, amounting to £35 9s., as compared with
£34 12s. 6d. in the previous year. He expressed regret at the death of
two of their former members, Mr. Vass of the “King William,” and Mr.
Howard, formerly of the “New Commercial Inn.”
On the proposition of Mr. T. Miles, Mr. Panter was unanimously elected
chairman. A hearty vote of thanks was passed to the outgoing chairman
for his excellent services.
Mr. Miles briefly responded, assuring them of his continued interest in
the Society.
Mr. Panter briefly returned thanks for the election, and proposed the
election of Mr. J. Lewis as vice-chairman. – Mr. Clarett seconded, and
the motion was carried unanimously.
Mr. M. T. Miles said that the former Treasurer, Mr. J. Ward, had left
the trade, and they therefore had to elect a new treasurer. They were
all very sorry to lose Mr. Ward. He proposed Mr. J. F. Caspell as their
new treasurer. – On being seconded by Mr. Groombridge, the motion was
carried.
On the proposition of Mr. Panter, Mr. Dubrey was re-elected secretary.
The following gentlemen were elected on the committee, on the
proposition of Mr. Miles, seconded by Mr. Lewis:- Messrs. C. G. Clarett,
Waterhouse, Groombridge, Summers, Stanley, Kemp, J. Corless, Norris, H.
Maslin, W. G. White, W. Whiting, G. A. Hinks, and J. B. Baker.
Mr. Miles said that he was sorry to inform them that Mr. Summers was
seriously ill. – It was decided to send a letter of sympathy to his
wife.
On the proposition of Mr. Miles, seconded by Mr. Clarett, it was
unanimously decided to hold an annual dinner during the ensuing year. A
sub-committee consisting of the officers of the Society and Messrs.
Clarett and Kemp were appointed to make the necessary arrangements with
regard to the date and place.
At the conclusion of the meeting, an illuminated address, which was
presented to the Chairman of the Society in the year 1879, in
appreciation of their kindness to the children of the Licensed
Victualler's School on the occasion of their visit to Dover, and which
has been retained by each successive chairman, was handed over to Mr.
Panter.
|
From the Dover Express and East Kent News. 21 January, 1921.
LICENSING BUSINESS
The "Falcon" was granted an extension for the annual supper of the
Tunbridge Wells Equitable Friendly Society on Wednesday evening.
|
At the other extreme, Nadin, 1964-69, saw the property sold to the town
for £11,000.
Bridge Street was widened at this point early in 1970 and the necessary
removal of the hotel took place to make that possible.
From the Dover Express and East Kent News. 17 March 1939.
There was a serious accident outside the "Falcon," London Road, on
Saturday night. Mrs. Gamble, of 8, Bridge Street, being knocked down by
a motor car driven by Mr. L Pearce, of 69, Folkestone Road. Mrs. Gamble
was taken to the Hospital with a fractured left leg, abrasions to the
right leg and suffering from shock.
|
Dover Express 9th August 1946.
Town, Port & Garrison.
The engagement has now been announced between Phyllis, eldest daughter
of Mr. & Mrs. Beer, "Falcon Hotel," Dover, and Bill, son of Mrs. Knott
and the late Mr. Graham of Heathfield Avenue, Dover.
|
LICENSEE LIST
TUCKER S C 1864+
BIRCH George 1865-1891 (age 51 in 1891)
BIRCH Edwin Mead 1892-99
(Also hired out tents and marquees for parties)
NEWING William Henry 1901-Oct/04
WRAITH Mrs Phyllis E Oct/1904-07 end
MILES Tom Mansell 1906-13+ (age 58 in 1911)
MILES Mrs Mary Jane 1907-20 end
HALL Edwin Thomas senior 1920-Mar/22
WARDELL George W Mar-Aug/1922
(Of
Sheffield)
BECKETT Edward Albert Aug/1922-24 end
CLARK Herbert 1924-31 end
ASKIE Frederick John 1931-Dec/32
MARTIN Wilfred (Secretary to Messrs. George Beer & Rigden.) Dec/1932+
McDINE J 1933
TURNER Harold Leslie 1933-June/38
BEER Edward John Frank June/1938-June/49
(Former
lorry driver)
CAIRNS James F R June/1949-53 end
MOUNT Edward Latimer 1953-54 end
PARKER Frank 1954-56 end
GREEN Thomas 1956
BROWN Kenneth M 1959-60 end
SALMON Arthur T 1960
NADIN Walter 1964-69 end
Herbert Clark also ran the "Trocadero"
between 1919 and 1934.
From the Post Office Directory 1874
From the Post Office Directory 1882
From the Post Office Directory 1891
From Pikes Dover Blue Book 1895
From the Kelly's Directory 1899
From the Post Office Directory 1901
From the Post Office Directory 1903
From the Kelly's Directory 1903
From the Post Office Directory 1913
From the Post Office Directory 1922
From Pikes Dover Blue Book 1923
From Pikes Dover Blue Book 1924
From the Post Office Directory 1930
From Pikes Dover Blue Book 1932-33
From the Post Office Directory 1938
From Pikes Dover Blue Book 1938-39
From the Dover Express
Census
|