From the Dover Express and East Kent Intelligencer, 1 January, 1859.

WILFUL DAMAGE

William Smith and Frederick Holness, shoemakers, were charged with wilfully breaking five panes of glass at the "Fleur-de-lis" public house, Council-house Street, and assaulting the police. Holness, it appeared, was under recognizance's to keep the peace.

George Ransley, landlord of the "Fleur-di-lis," said the prisoners came to his house about half past one o'clock on Christmas morning. They were drunk. They wished to be served with some rum and water, but seeing they had already had sufficient, he refused to serve them, and ordered them out. They refused to go, but he pushed one (Smith) out himself and a friend of his wife who was in the house at the time pushed out the other, after which witness shut the door and bolted it. The prisoners attempted to force the door by kicking against it, but finding they could not succeed they smashed five squares of glass in the sash next the door, and also broke the frame of a zinc blind, which ran across the window. The amount of the damage thus occasioned was 10s.

Charles Goodban, ticket porter, said he was near the "Fleur-di-lis" about half-past one on the morning of the 25th, when he heard a scuffling in the passage, and saw two men put out and the door shut. The men began hammering away at the door; but finding they could make no impression, Holness with his fist smashed one of the windows. The other man ran away, but Holness called him back, and Smith thereupon used both his hands in the demolition of the glass. Witness then went for a policeman.

The prisoners, in defence, said they had no recollection of the matter.

The Magistrates fined each of them 10s. and the costs, 6s.; and in default ordered them to be committed for 14 days. The assault upon the police was then proceeded with.

Police-constable Faith said that he was called into Council-house Street early on Saturday morning. When he got to the "Fleur-di-lis" the landlord gave Holness and Smith into his custody, for breaking his windows; but before he could apprehend them he received a violent blow from Smith. During the time he was endeavouring to put handcuffs on the same prisoner he received from him several kicks and blows. The prisoner was also very violent all the way to the station-house, and it was with great difficulty he was got there, even with the help of Mr. Baker, who lives in the same street, and who volunteered his assistance.

Smith, on being called on for his defence, said that the police treated him with unnecessary violence, and wished Mr. Baker to be called to prove that he went quietly to the station-house.

George Baker, on being sworn, said that after he came to Faith's assistance the prisoner went along pretty quietly; but before that he had been very violent, and had "required a good deal of persuasion" to go to the station-house.

By the prisoner - I did not see the policeman strike you.

By the Magistrates' Clerk - The prisoner attempted to strike Faith in the station-house.

Police-constable Barton said that he was in Council-house Street about half-past one o'clock on the morning of the 25th. He heard the sound of breaking glass and came up to the "Fleur-di-lis" in time to take Holness into custody. On handcuffing his he received from him three severe kicks in the stomach, which so disabled him that he was compelled to leave the witness Baker to finish putting the handcuffs on him. The prisoner then proceeded pretty quietly till he got near the "George Inn," at the bottom of Snargate Street, when he resisted with great violence, striking, biting, and kicking him. Mr. T. B. Rutley came to his assistance, however, and after a great deal of difficulty prisoner was conveyed to the station-house. Witness was not in uniform, but was on duty, and prisoner knew him perfectly well, as he spoke to him on the subject of his bond and frequently called him by name.

Smith was fined £1 with costs, 10s., and in default was committed to prison for three weeks, with hard labour, the last named period to commence at the expiration of the sentence already passed.

Holness was fined the same amount, in default of paying which he was sentenced to one month's imprisonment, with hard labour, in addition to the punishment previously recorded against him.

Both the prisoners went to prison.

The witness Goodban said that he considered great credit was due to the police, who had acted in this case with much forbearance under circumstances of considerable provocation.

From the Dover Express. July 1859.

On Sunday last a fire broke out in the cellar of the Fleur de Lis, a public house in Council House Street Dover. The supposed origin of which is not a little singular. It appears that the floor of the pantry, which is immediately over the cellar there is a small hole caused by a knot in the floorboard having some time been forced out. It is supposed that a fragment of burning tobacco or the end of a fuse or something of the sort, accidentally dropped through this little aperture and fell into a hamper containing straw or some ignitable materials that very soon set in a blaze. The accident was fortunately discovered before it had occasioned any serious damage and by the energetic and praiseworthy assertions of Mr. G. Baker of the Clarence Inn and Police Constable Fyfe, both of who live near the spot the fire was promptly suppressed. The alarm had been given at the station of the South-Eastern Railway and the powerful and effective engine belonging to the company was got out with great alacrity by the employees. Under the direction of Mr. Way the Station Superintendent but before it could be brought into requisition, the fire was effectively subdued in the manner described. The greatest credit is due both to the police constables and Mr. Baker for the ready assistance they lent in extinguishing the flames. As in all probability considering the close neighbourhood in which the Fleur de Lis is situated, the conflagration would have been attended with the most disastrous effect had it once obtained ascending over the lower floors of the building.

Information kindly supplied by Joyce Banks.

From the Dover Express and East Kent Intelligencer, 3 January, 1863.

SUMMONSES AGAINST PUBLICAN

John Joseph Bell, landlord of the "Fleur de Lis Inn," Council House Street, charged with refusing the police admission to the house between two and three o'clock on Christmas morning, was dismissed on paying the costs, 7s. 6d.

From the Dover Express and East Kent Intelligencer, 9 January, 1864.

INFRINGEMENT OF LICENSE

Joseph Bell, the landlord of the "Fleur de Lis Inn," Council House Street, summoned on he information of Sergeant Gedds, charged with infringing his license by having his house open, for the sale of liquors at 10.20 a.m. on Sunday last. Mr. Lewis for defendant. - Fined £1, including costs.

From the Dover Express and East Kent Intelligencer, 9 March, 1866.

DRUNKENNESS

Joseph Bell, a youth, the son of the landlord of the "Fleur de Lis Inn," Council House Street, was charged with obstructing the thoroughfare in front of his father's house, in a state of drunkenness; but it appeared that there were some mitigating circumstances in the case, and as this was the defendant's first appearance, he was cautioned and dismissed.

From the Dover Express and East Kent Intelligencer, 1 February, 1867.

FATAL ACCIDENT AT DOVER

On Tuesday afternoon an inquest was held by the borough coroner, W. H. Payn, Esq., at the "Fleur de Lis Inn," on the body of Thomas Overton , a stonemason in the employ of Messrs. Lee and Son, the contractors for the Admiralty Pier Works, who was killed while engaged in his works on Tuesday, the 10th inst. It appeared from the evidence, which we subjoin at length, that on the day in question the deceased was employed in setting the stones of the parapet running along the western side of the pier. The contrivance used for the purpose was a "jack", upon the foot of which a plank rested and supported one end of the stone, which was then gradually lowered into its place, the deceased standing on a trestle about six feet from the ground for the purpose of seeing that it deposited properly into the place designed for it. As the jack was being moved, the plank slipped out of its position and released the stone, startling the deceased, and causing him to fall off the trestle on to the roadway below. By this means his sustained a fracture to the ribs and an injury to the head; and although the deceased was able, with assistance, to walk home, where his injuries were properly attended to, his illness took an unfavourable turn towards the close of last week, and death ensued on Monday morning last.

Mr. T. Middleton was appointed the foreman of the jury, who afterwards proceeded to view the body, which was lying at the house of the deceased man, in Middle Row.

Sarah Overton: I am a daughter of the deceased. He was a stonemason by trade, and was employed upon the Admiralty Pier. He was sixty years of age. I last saw him alive on Saturday evening. He died yesterday morning. I was told that he had sustained an accident while at work whereby his ribs were fractured and his head concussed.

The Coroner: Did he say by whose fault?

Witness: No.

The Coroner: Did he complain to you of anybody?

Witness: He did not complain to me, but I believe he complained to my mother, and told her the accident had occurred through neglect or carelessness.

The Coroner: Of course you know nothing of the circumstances?

Witness: No, I do not.

By the Jury: I believe my father told my mother that the gear was not good enough, or not properly fastened. He had previously said that some accident would take place as the result of the defect, whatever it was.

The Sergeant of Police said the widow of the unfortunate man seemed so deeply affected at the loss she had sustained that she had abstained from calling her as a witness, but, that there were in attendance men who were working with deceased at the time of the accident occurred, and they could give all the necessary information.

Samual Office: I am a labourer, living at Buckland and am employed upon the Admiralty Pier Works. I witnessed the accident by which the deceased Thomas Overton lost his life. It occurred on Thursday the 10th January. The deceased was employed in "setting" stones on the top of the parapet wall. He was standing on a high trestle, which was placed below the level of the parapet. He fell from the trestle, but I cannot say what caused him to fall. I was engaged in lowering the "jack." He was standing on the trestle, watching the stone as it descended, to see that it fitted into its proper place. His head was level with the base of the stone as it moved into its position. I was standing below, with my hands upon the "jack" ready to raise or lower, as the deceased might tell me. He waited a short time, and then he told me to lower again. I made a turn or two in obedience to his order, when the plank which rested on the foot of the "jack" and supported the block of stone at one end, slipped from its place, and suddenly released the stone. The jerk, as I think, occasioned the deceased to fall from the platform on which he was standing down into the roadway. There was a layer of cement for the stone to descend upon, and as it came down suddenly it must have sent a quantity of this into his face, and this might have caused him to start back. His face was found to be covered with cement after he was picked up. The platform on which the deceased was standing was six feet above the roadway. A doctor was fetched, and the deceased was led home. A fly was sent for, but the deceased preferred to be led home. It was not then known what hurts he had received.

The Coroner: Was the stone in this case lowered in the usual manner?

Witness: Yes, that is the plan I have always seen followed. We had put in two or three stones before, in the same way, just previous to the accident.

The Coroner: Have you any idea of the reason of the plank slipping?

Witness: I have not. It was placed in the same position as usual, and an examination of the jack after the occurrence did not reveal any defect. There was a little piece splintered off the end of the plank.

By the Jury: The jack was a flat jack. The plank was used to make the jack longer. It was not a clumsy contrivance or make shift. No jack would reach the height at which these stones were required to be set, and this is the place we always adopt in setting at that height. There are no other means of doing it.

Dr. Gill was in attendance, and as he particularly requested that hsi evidence might be taken at once, the coroner acceded to his desire. He said he was called to attend the deceased on the 10th January. He found him at his house in Middle Row. Some of his ribs were broken, and he had also sustained injury to his head. He went on very favourably for some days; but about Thursday last he began gradually to sink, and he died on the previous day. His death witness believed to have been caused by the injuries he had received, the result (in addition to the injuries in the ribs) being a shock to the system generally from which he could not rally.

The Coroner: Did he complain of anybody?

Witness: No.

James Crosby, a "ganger" of labourers employed on the Pier Works, saw the deceased fall from the trestle. Witness was standing at the top of the parapet, and therefore could not see the position in which the deceased was standing as the stone descended into its place, but he knew that the stone suddenly descended on being released, through the plank slipping away from the jack, and at that instant the deceased fell. Witness could not say what made the deceased fall from the trestle, but he believed it was in consequence of the cement being spattered into his face, which caused him involuntarily to start back, and as he was standing on the edge of the platform he fell backwards before he could recover himself.

The Coroner said the foreman of the stonemasons was in attendance, if the Jury desired to have him examined; but after a short discussion it was considered unnecessary to call any further evidence. The Jury had no doubt the occurrence was purely accidental, and they had no reason to suppose there was any defect in the gear.

A verdict of "Accidental death" was then unanimously returned.

From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 13 March, 1868.

INQUEST BY THE BOROUGH CORONER.

On Monday last an inquest was held before W. H. Payn, Esq. at the "Fleur de Lis Inn," touching the death of Thomas Gillman, a fisherman, who was taken from a boat the day previous and died immediately afterwards. The following evidence was adduced:-

John Tremeen siad: I am a mariner, living in Paradise Street, Dover. I have known deceased, Thomas Gillman, many years. He was a fisherman, residing in Blenheim Square. He sailed with me in a smack called Blue-eyed Maid, belonging to Dover, John Harvey, master, and on Sunday last, at half-past two o'clock, we returned to Dover Harbour from a fishing excursion. The deceased appeared at the time quite well, with the exception of a little cough. The captain gave him orders to make a rope fast to the buoy in the harbour. I saw him get into the boat, and he went about two boats' lengths from the vessel when he called out "Pull me back again; I have broken a blood-vessel." The captain then told me to get into a boat, and he came with me to the deceased. The captain then said we had better get him home as quickly as possible. I assisted in taking him home, and also in taking his things off and getting him up stairs. The captain went for a doctor, but I believe the man was dead before the doctor came. The deceased walked home with my assistance, and also aided by the captain. Lately the deceased had not appeared well. He complained of a cough and a pain in his side. On the occasion in question he had not exerted himself violently in the boat. He was a married man and aged 39 years.

Mr. T. W. Colbeck, surgeon, deposed: On Sunday morning, about ten minutes to three o'clock, I was called to see the deceased, Thomas Gillman. I found him in a room in Middle Row, lying on his back upon the floor. He was quite dead and I should think he had been dead a few minutes only. Blood was running from his nose and mouth. From the examination and enquiries I then made, and from the evidence I have now heard, I have no reason to doubt that his death was caused by a rupture of a blood vessel, occasioned probably from a disease of the lungs; the immediate cause of death was most likely the exertion of rowing and handling a heavy rope. I saw no marks of violence about him. The jury after a short consultation, returned the following verdict.

"That the deceased, Thomas Gillman, died from the rupture of a blood-vessel, produced from natural causes."

From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday 13 February, 1885.

STEALING FERNS

James Dawson was charged with stealing a pot of ferns from the “Fleur de Lis,” Council House Street.

William Tite of the “Fleur de Lis,” Council House Street, said: The pot of ferns produced were standing on my bar counter. The prisoner came in, and after he was gone I missed the ferns. I went towards the pier to see if I could see the man, and whilst I was there he came into the “Cinque Ports Arms” and offered them for sale for 4d. I said they belonged to me, and if he did not give them up I should give him in charge. The defendant would not give them up, and the landlord put him out of the house. I followed him and asked him again to give them up, and as he would not I took them away from him and gave him in charge.

The prisoner pleaded “Guilty,” saying that he was drunk at the time and did not know what he was doing.

The prisoner was sentenced to seven days' hard labour.

From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 5 August, 1887. Price 1d.

ASSAULT

Frederick Day was summoned for assaulting Mr. Attwood, a commercial traveller, living at London, by striking him in the face on Saturday evening, on the Commercial Quay.

Mr. Mowll appeared on behalf of the defendant.

Arthur William Attwood said: I am at present staying at Dover and am a commercial traveller. Last Saturday I was on the Custom House Quay, between half-past nine and ten, walking alone, when three youths came up to me and asked if I was following them. The defendant Day asked me if I was following him. I replied that I was not. I started walking on. Day struck me in the eye knocking me down. The three defendants ran up a court close by, but I waited on the spot till a Policeman came. I went to Day's house the next morning in company with a man named Stewart. I saw defendant and asked him “what about the affair last night.” I told defendant he was one of them. He replied, “I know I was.” I asked him who the other two were, but he declined to tell me and swore at me.

By Mr. Mowll: I did not know defendant Day before the assault. I told him that he was the one who struck me. I was in the “Fleur de Lis” public house on Saturday. I had a game of skittles. I did not challenge to fight a man after the game of skittles. I can not say whether the man was in the bar or not. I was in the house about half an hour. It appeared that I was following the three youths after leaving the public house, but it was not to my knowledge at the time. I am certain Day struck me when on the quay.

Archibald Stewart, a labourer, living at Limekiln Street, said: On Sunday morning last Mr. Attwood came to me on the Crosswall. From the conversation we had I accompanied him to the defendant Day's house. I told him about the assault, and that if he would apologise for the assault Mr. Attwood would look it over. Day said he did it and did not care what he did about the matter.

Alfred Martin, living at 25, Adrian Street, said: I was with Day on Saturday. Day, Hubbard and myself went into the “Fleur de Lis” about half past nine p.m. Mr. Attwood came into the bar from the back while we were there. Mr. Attwood was in the bar when we came from the skittle yard. We came out of the house, and Mr. Attwood followed us. We stopped near the “Pavillion Hotel” and Mr. Attwood came along. I asked him if he was following us. He replied, “No.” Day had a few words with him and then struck him in the face.

Police-constable Corry said: On Saturday night he was called by Mr. Attwood near the “Pavillion Hotel.” He complained of being struck in the face.

Mr. Mowll, for the defence called Charles Hubbard, who said: I was with Day and Martin on Saturday evening last. I went into the “Fleur de Lis” with them. After some time we came out of the house. Mr. Attwood followed us out; he had previously challenged to fight Day in the house. Attwood stopped when we did opposite the “Hotel de Paris,” and said to Day, “I want to fight you,” and put his hands in a fighting attitude. Day then struck him on the head. Mr. Attwood fell down on his right side; he was not sober.

Defendant was fined 10s. and 16s. costs, which was paid.

From the Dover Express, Friday 21 July 1905.

Permission was given to Mr. Walter Gambrill, of the "Donkey," Temple Ewell, to sell beer at the Ewell Flower Show on the 26th; and to Mr. G. Austen, of the "Fleur-de-Lis," Dover, for the sale of wines and spirits at the same place.

Dover Express 12th July 1918.

The Dover Tribunal met on Wednesday afternoon at the Town Hall. The Mayor presided and there were also present Messrs. Robson, Barnes and Beeby.

Mr. R. Mowll appeared for Mr. F. W. King, Grade 11, master slater and a licensed victualler. It was stated that applicant was fully employed in repairing damage from air raids and it was impossible to replace him and no one else did the work. Letters were placed before the Tribunal from the chief Dover builders to this effect. Three months exemption was granted.

From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 8 September, 1950.

MORE DEMOLITION

Demolition has been in progress this week in two parts of the town.

Near the Marine Station, in Clarence Place and Council House Street, workmen have been taking down buildings upon which the Corporation had posted notices ordering their removal as being "in a ruinous condition and dangerous to passengers."

The buildings concerned include the "Royal Hotel" Flats in Clarence Place and two houses and the "Fleur de Lis" in Council House Street.

At the other end of the town, in Woolcomber Street, contractors employed by the Corporation have been pulling down four old houses in Exhibition Place, which was so named because the buildings there were erected in 1851 - the year of the Great Exhibition. These properties were included in the Central Area No. 1 Compulsory Purchase Order.

From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 15 September 1950.

THE LAST OF EXHIBITION PLACE.

The four houses comprising Exhibition Place, in Woolcomber Street, built almost  a century ago, in the year of the Great Exhibition, gradually come down under the attention of the demolition experts. On the left of the picture are the remains of Old St. James Church.