From the Kentish Gazette or Canterbury Chronicle, Wednesday, 3 May, to Saturday 6 May, 1769. Price 2½d.

LEFT AT THE “FLOWER DE LUCE”

In the High Street, Canterbury, about Two Years ago, by a person unknown.

A large Iron Crank, with other materials thereunto belonging. Any person, describing the same, on paying the Charges and Advertisement, may have it again, by applying to Bernard Eagleson as above.

N.B. If not owned, it will be Sold by Auction, on Monday next, between Ten and Eleven o'clock in the Forenoon, as the said “Flower de Luce.”

Kentish Gazette, Tuesday 23 January 1770.

STOLEN.

From Mr. JAMES EYRE, out of a Carriage at the "Bull Inn" Yard, Sittingbourn, Five Cotton Counterpanes, Twenty-eight Yards of Crimson Check, one Flanders and two common Bed-ticks, and two Pair of small Blankets, and likewise the Door of the Carriage missing.

Whoever will give Information of the Person or Persons who stole the above Goods, to Mr. Johnson, at the "Globe," Chatham; Mr. Eagleson, at the "Flour de Luce," Canterbury; or at the "Bull" at Sittingbourn, so that the above Mr. Eyre may have them again, shall receive One Guinea Reward.

Kentish Gazette 15 February 1803. Canterbury

Friday last Walter Stevens, John Weekes, and Ann Stevens, were fully committed, for stealing a trunk from the "Fleur de Luce Inn," in this city.

Kentish Gazette, 18 November, 1804.

DEATH.

Friday died, Mrs. Browne, of the "Fleur de Lis Inn" in this city.

Kent Gazette Reports 26 April 1805.

"FLEUR-DE-LIS INN," HIGH-STREET, CANTERBURY. (LATE BROWNE)

WILLIAM FRIEND begs leave to inform his Friends and the Public in general, that he has taken the above INN, and assure; them his endeavours to accommodate in every department of his business, for the convenience and comfort of his customers, shall be such as to entitle him to their favours, which will be most gratefully acknowledged.

N. B. Wines and spirituous liquors of the best quality; good stabling, hay, corn, &c.

An Ordinary every Saturday at one o’clock.

A COOK wanted.

Kentish Gazette, 28 October, 1806.

DEATH.

Friday, Mr. Friend, landlord of the "Fleur de Lis Inn," in this City.

Kentish Gazette, 20 February, 1821.

MARRIED.

Feb. 15, at St. Mary Bredin church, Canterbury, Mr. Holmes, landlord of the "Fleur-de-Lis," public-house, to Miss Elizabeth Weekes, of Canterbury.

From the Kentish Gazette, 14 January 1834. Price 7d.

KENT AND CANTERBURY CATTLE SHOW.

THE Committee are requested to meet at the “Fleur-de-Lis Inn,” Canterbury.

On SATURDAY the 18th day of January instant, at Eleven o'Clock precisely, to appoint Stewards, &c. and arrange Premiums for the next Show Day.

D. DENNE.

Honorary Secretary.

Herne, Jan. 11th 1834.

From the Kentish Gazette, 21 November 1837.

LOST.

ON THURSDAY EVENING, the 9th of November, 1837, between Harbledown and Canterbury.

A DRIVING BOX, containing a variety of Papers, of no value but to the owner. Any person bringing the box, with its contents, to the "Fleur-de-Lis," Canterbury, shall receive One Pound Reward.

Kentish Gazette, 14 May 1844.

KENT AND CANTERBURY CATTLE SHOW, and Society for Rewarding Laborers and Servants in East Kent.

A MEETING of the COMMITTEE of this Society will he holden at the "Fleur de Lis Inn," CANTERBURY, on SATURDAY, the 18th day of MAY instant, at Eleven o'clock precisely, when the attendance of any Subscriber will be esteemed a favour.

JOHN CHARLES ABBOTT, Hon, Sec. Canterbury, May 13, 1844.

From the Kentish Gazette, 14 April 1846.

CANTERBURY QUARTER SESSION.

On Thursday last the Quarter Session for the City of Canterbury was held at the Guildhall, before J. Deedes, Esq., recorder. The mayor and other magistrates were also in the bench.

The following were sworn the graud jury:— Messrs. Chas. Mason (foreman), G. Ash, H. West, G. Castleden, H. Bird, R. Foord, Wm. Paine, G. Smith, F. Bellingham, R. Lee, Chas. Hudson, J. Brooks, E. Keeler, Thos. Pratt, Wm. Collard, G. Harrison, T. Moore, G. Claris, T. Mose, W. Green.

CALENDAR OF THE PRISONERS.

Thomas Reynolds, Richard Hunt, and Cornelius Sans, who were at large on their recognisances, were arranged on a charge of taking from the person of Joseph Hogg nine bank notes, each value £5.

Mr. Lushington appeared for the prosecution; and Messrs. Espinasse and Rose for the defence of Sans, and Messrs. Horn and Russell for Hunt and Reynolds.

The case occupied upwards of six hours, during which the hall was much thronged. The prosecutor swore, that on the 3d of March last he had left Harbledown for Canterbury, with money in his possession to the amount of £226 in cash and a bank receipt of £100; that he deposited £100 in the Canterbury old bank; and that he went to the "Mermaid Inn," where he lost about £5 at cards. At a late hour in the evening he went to Clark’s billiard room, where he met the accused and others. He here played, and lost money to the amount of about £45; and in the morning the four parties adjourned to the "Fleur de Lis," where, having breakfasted, they sat down to cards, and the prosecutor lost the remainder of his money with the exception of £25. He obtained loans from Reynolds upon one of his bank receipts to the amount of £70, and going to the bank, received his money for the other, at the same time requesting that if he had parted from was presented, it should not be paid. He returned again to the party, and resuming play, lost £55 more. The remainder of the £100 he he placed in his great coat side pocket, and Reynolds, who had previously to his doing so left the room shortly afterwards returned, and charged him with having stopped the payment of the note upon which he had advanced him money. He said that on this announcement the two others rose, and he was surrounded by them, and Reynolds pushed him about. Immediately afterwards he missed his money, and on asking the defendants for it, they disclaimed, all knowledge of it. He looked round the room for the notes, but could not find them. He called for the waiter, but was prevented from going to the door. At length he rung the bell, and the door, which had been previously fastened, was unlocked, and the waiter entered. He desired him to fetch a policeman, and turned out his pocket to show he had been robbed.

The prosecutor was cross examined at considerable length, and into the habits of his previous life, from which it appeared that he had carried on business at various towns in Kent as a linen-draper, for a short period at each; that he had failed in some of these speculations. His mother had advanced him money to embark in business; but he would not tell where she lived, or where his father resided. He said he had not told the accused parties that his father had been mayor of Lynn, in Norfolk, nor that he had himself lost £2000 on coming of age. Mr. Musselbrook, of Harbledown, had advanced him money to purchase stock for some of his establishments. It was his own business whether he was paying his addresses to Musselbrook's daughter. He had never played at cards at any other place than Canterbury, and then it was sometimes for money and sometimes for I.O.U's. One of the I.O.U's he had given he had not paid. Others had refused to pay him on theirs. The money he had thus lost was advanced to him to open business. The examination then turned to the circumstance of the indictment. He could not say who ordered the cards, but he did not. He did not hear Reynolds desire the waiter to fetch a policeman before he had spoken himself. He (prosecutor) first demanded the presence of the police. After he said he had been robbed, Reynolds told the waiter to fetch Clements (the superintendent). The waiter did not bring one, and he went himself to find one. He did not go in the direction of the station-house, but the opposite way, having heard that a policeman had passed. This affair took place on Tuesday, and he informed the police of it on Thursday, having in the meantime gone to London. He lost about £45 at billiards to Sans, who, on his telling him he had lost all of his own money, forgave him £10, which he had lost in addition to this sum. He had not proposed to compromise the matter, but had two offers made him to do so for £100. £200 of the money he had on this occasion was Mr. Musselbrook’s. He had never stated to the contrary.

The prosecutor underwent another severe cross-examination from Mr. Horne, respecting some I.O.U.'s lost in gambling transactions. When the waiter went into the room, Reynolds did say, "This young man says he has been robbed by us. We have not robbed him."

On re-examination, he said—Sans had wished to compromise the matter.

John Goulden, waiter at the "Fleur de Lis" called:— He went into the room when the bell rang, and Mr. Reynold's said the prosecutor had charged them with robbing him, and he must fetch a policeman. Prosecutor then told him to go for one. The door was not fastened, nor had he heard any noise. Had been into the room six or seven times during the play. Saw bank notes on the table, and heard no dispute. Did not go for a policeman.

Mr. Espinasse, in addressing the Jury for Sans, observed that very little or no ground existed for believing the prosecutor's statement. The charge altogether was one of the greatest improbability. Not the slightest proof of theft had been proved against any of them. Although he had been pushed about he had not ventured to say that his pocket had been touched. The learned counsel then alluded to the unsatisfactory nature of the evidence given by the prosecutor on the other points touching his credibility, and concluded by expressing his confidence that all the persons would be acquitted, for against them the charge had in no way whatever been substantiated.

Mr. Horne followed for the other two, reviewing the circumstances of the case, and said if persons were to be convicted upon such testimony as they had heard that day, no man would be safe. He felt that the defendants were innocent, and that they would certainly obtain a full acquittal.

Witnesses to character having been heard, the learned Recorder, in summing up, carefully recapitulated the evidence, remarking on the improbability of many of the prosecutors statements, the fact of the prosecutor's disowning his parentage, and many other circumstances equally tainted with suspicion—his making an assignment in one case to parties he knew not the name of—the manner of his general dealing for many months, in obtaining goods that he did not give a satisfactory account of, and disposing of them by opening shops at various places. The learned Recorder continued, that there did not appear any evidence or any charge on the part of prosecutor that there was any unfair play—they had a right to consider what was won was fairly won; and it appeared most unlikely that a person should borrow money and draw £100 of the bank whilst he had in his possession £25, as sworn by the prosecutor. The jury had to consider these points, and to weigh the very excellent character which the parties had received in contradistinction to the prosecutor Hogg, who did not appear before them certainly in the most favourable light.

The jury instantly acquitted the prisoners.

Kentish Gazette, 16 March 1847.

HERNE, HUNT.

THE Friends of the above Hunt, have invited Edward Collard, Esq. as Master of the Hounds, to dine with them at the "Fleur de Lis," CANTERBURY, on THURSDAY, the 25th day of MARCH instant. Those gentlemen that are favourable, and wishing to attend, are requested to take Tickets on or before Tuesday, the 23d Instant, at the "Fleur de Lis" Hotel.

Dinner on Table punctually at Four o'clock.

From the Kentish Gazette, 1 February 1848.

SIMMONDS.

January 29th, at the "Fleur de Lis," Canterbury, universally respected and regretted, Mr. Toke Jams Simmonds, aged 67. He was a most tender and affectionate husband, a kind parent, and true-hearted friend. His many many admirable qualities, honorable feeling, and strict probity, endeared him to a very numerous circle of friends and acquaintance, by whom he will long be remembered with esteem and regret. His end was peace.

The deceased had held the situation of Lieutenant of Sandgate Castle for many years.

From the Kentish Gazette, 25 April 1848.

FLEUR DE LIS & COMMERCIAL HOTEL, CANTERBURY.

JANE SIMMONDS returns thanks for the favours conferred on her late husband, and begs to inform the Commercial Gentlemen and her friends in general, that she intends to CARRY ON THE BUSINESS, and trusts by the strictest attention to merit their future support and patronage.

April 17,1848.

Southeastern Gazette, 16 August 1853.

County Court.

This court was hold in the Guildhall, before Charles Harwood, Esq., on Friday last.

Simmonds v. Bushell.

This was a case involving a principle of some importance to the trading community. It was an action for the recovery of £50 lent by the plaintiff, the landlord of the "Fleur-de-lis Inn," in this city, to the defendant, a corn-factor, also living in Canterbury. Although a considerable time was occupied in hearing the case, the facts themselves were very simple, and may be briefly stated.

In July, 1850, the defendant was at a rent dinner at the plaintiffs house, on which occasion he borrowed the £50 in question, and gave him a cheque for the amount on the London and County Bank at Sandwich. Such was the defendant’s statement, but the plaintiff denied ever having had any cheque. Shortly after the transaction, the defendant called upon the plaintiff, and requested him to receive the £50 of a Mr. Pollock, who then held £600 belonging to him. Plaintiff did not object, as he said it was immaterial to him from whom he had the money. About two years afterwards, the defendant became an insolvent, but considering that the £50 had been paid to the plaintiff, as defendant had allowed it in the account with Mr. Pollock, the name of the plaintiff was not inserted in the schedule upon which he had passed the court at Sandwich. No application was made for payment until the present year, Mr. Pollock having in the interim left the county. It was proved that the cheque (if there was one) would have been honoured at that time by the Sandwich bank, where the defendant did business; and it was also elicited from the plaintiff that the reason he had not pressed or applied to the defendant earlier for payment, was because he did not wish to injure him in his business. After carefully reviewing the case, his Honour gave judgment for the plaintiff, to be paid in monthly instalments of £5. Mr. Sandy's was for the defendant and Mr. Delasaux for plaintiff.

Faversham Gazette, 5 January 1856.

COUNTY PETTY SESSIONS.

[Present: Rev. J. Poore, D.D., Edward Jarman, Esq., Major Munn, F. C. Hyde, Esq., and E. H. K. Hugesson.

W. Toke Simmons, the landlord of the "Fleur-de-Lis" inn. at Canterbury, was summoned for riding on the footpath at Boughton-hill. The defendant did not appear, and the offence being proved, he was fined £2 and costs.

South Eastern Gazette. Tuesday 8 January 1856.

Mr. Toke Simmonds, landlord of the "Fleur de Lis," at Canterbury, was summoned for riding on the footpath at Boughton Hill. The defendant did not appear, and the offence being proved he was fined £2 and costs.

Faversham Gazette, 29 November, 1856.

DEATH.

Nov. 26, at Canterbury, Mr. Toke Simmonds, of the "Fleur-de-Lis Inn."

South Eastern Gazette, 28 August, 1860.

Charge of Felony, and Apology.

On Thursday last Geo. Ginnett (a rider at the circus now travelling this district, and brother to the proprietor) was charged with stealing a pair of bracelets from the wife of a commercial traveller staying at the "Fleur-de-Lis Inn," High-street. It appeared that the owner of the bracelets had been to the cathedral and to other parts of the city, and while looking into the window of one of the shops, she missed her bracelets. Seeing the accused (who is about 17 or 18 years of age) standing by her side, she inquired if he had seen them? He replied in the negative. The female (whose name did not transfer) then passed down the street, and meeting her husband, communicated her loss, and her suspicion that Ginnett had taken them. He was therefore given into the custody of Inspector Dodd, and searched, but the missing bracelets were nowhere to be found. The bench discharged the accused, the Mayor observing that he left the court without the slightest stain upon his character. Afterwards Mr. Ginnett went to the "Fleur-de-Lis" and demanded an apology from the parties. This was readily given, and regret expressed that the young man should have been suspected of such an offence.