From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday 18 July, 1873.

INFRINGEMENT OF LICENSING REGULATIONS

Edward Pay, landlord of the “Globe” public-house, Peter Street, Charlton, for having his house open at a quarter past twelve on Sunday last, was fined 5s. and costs.

John Phipps and Thomas Molloy, charged with being in the house at the time, were dismissed.

From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 12 February, 1904. Price 1d.

DOVER LICENSING SESSIONS

A question had arisen as to the closing of the back entrance of this house, but it was stated that Mr. Adcock, one of the Justices, had visited the house and found that it was impossible to close the entrance, and the Magistrates therefore made no order.

From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 20 November, 1908.

GAMBLING AT THE GLOBE

SMART RAID BY THE POLICE

LANDLORD FINES

At the Dover Police Court on Friday, before Messrs. L. J. Bradley and H. F. Edwin, William Henry Rogers, landlord of the "Globe" public house, was summoned on the information of the Chief Constable for unlawfully suffering gaming, to wit, card playing, on his licensed premises, on Sunday, November 1st.

Mr. Budden, from the Town Clerk's office, prosecuted, and Mr. Rutley Mowll defended, and pleaded not guilty.

Mr. Budden, in outlining the case, said that on the evening in question, Acting Police-sergeant Finch, with Police-constable Dunford went into the private bar of the house. The sergeant returned later with Police-constable Taylor, and went through the public bar into a room behind it. As the constable went through the defendant tapped the window communicating with the room. When the sergeant opened the door, he saw several men scrambling for money and cards, which were on the table, and he captured three of the cards, but none of the money. It was not necessary fro him to prove that the landlord had actual knowledge, but it was for the landlord to prove that he did not shut his eyes to the offence.

Acting-sergeant Finch said he visited the "Globe" public house on Sunday evening, November 1st, at 8.05 p.m. with P.C. Dunford. They entered by the private bar, where they found a man and a woman. They then left the house, went into the Street, and then through the public bar into the room behind, which did not communicate with the part of the house they first visited. In the room were six men sitting round a table, on which was a single glass; otherwise the table was clear. When they passed through the bar the landlord was in it. He an Dunford then left the premises. About 8.45 witness returned to the house in company with P.C. Taylor. They went through the public bar, witness going first, and the police-constable following, into the same room at the back. On opening the door witness saw several men sitting round the table, in the centre of which was a board, about two feet square, covered with a green baize cloth. On the board were three playing cards, a king of hearts, 7 spades and 7 clubs, also some money, which some of the men were scrambling up. Witness made a rush and got hold of the three cards, but did not get any of the money. He took the names and addresses of the men in the room, seven in number. He did not recognise any of the men who were there on his first visit. The names of the seven men were, Walter Gibbons, John Knox, Henry Hoile, Frederick Hogg, two deaf and dumb men, brothers named Head, and Frederick Ballard. The door leading to the public bar faced the street, and the back room was straight through. At the back of the public bar was a glass wicket, communicating with the back room in which the men were. He sent for the landlord, who was in the public bar, and found him what he had seen. He said, I was not aware that it was going on; I know nothing about it." Witness asked who served the customers in the back room, and stated, "They come to the bar themselves, and I server them over the bar." He showed the landlord the cards, and he said they did not belong to him. On November 10th he served ma summons on the landlord personally, and he said, "All right, I think I shall clear myself all right; I know nothing about it." It was not possible to see the bar door from the table in the room. The wicket was shut, and it was made of opaque glass. He did not think there was anyone behind the counter assisting the landlord when he went in a second time.

Mr. Rutley Mowll; When you say that you do not mean that there were customers in the public bar behind the landlord? - I did not notice any. There are a lot of partitions, and it would be hard to see, especially when rushing through as I did.

Cross-examined. On the occasion of his first visit after he had been in the room at the back of the public-bar, he said nothing to the landlord. The wicket mentioned was really a window, but the glass was worked with a design of leaves, rendering it opaque. There was only one glass on the table.

In explanation to the Bench Mr. Mowll said there was no question in serving in improper hours.

Mr. Bradley: No. If drink was served someone must have gone into the room, or the customers to the bar? - That is so.

Cross-examination continued: On his second visit he went straight through the bar to the door of the smoking room, and opening that brought him directly into the room, there being no passage between. When he entered the room he only saw the three cards, which were lying on the board. The money he had spoken of consisted of five or six coppers.

Police-constable Mark Taylor stated that he went to the "Globe" with Police-sergeant Finch at 8.45. He followed the sergeant through the bar to the room at the back, and as he went through he saw the landlord tap the window. He followed the sergeant into the room, and saw three cards on the table, and also some money. Several men round the table scrambled for the money, and he thought more than one had some of it. The names of seven men were taken. Another man came from the back, but as he was not seen at the table his name was not taken. All the men belonged to Dover.

Don't you know whether there were people in the bar; you went through? - No, we were too much interested in the other job.

You mean in a great hurry? - Yes.

Cross-examination continued. He saw several coins on the table, but he did not know how many. It would be about 12ft. from the bar door to the other room, and the sergeant was about 2ft. from the door when the landlord tapped the window.

Mr. Mowll: You saw all this while you were rushing through the bar, and yet you are not prepared to say whether anyone was in the bar?

The witness said he watched the landlord while the sergeant's eye was fixed on the door.

Mr. Budden. It was your duty to keep an eye on the landlord? - Yes, and the house as well.

William Henry Rogers, the landlord, said that on Sunday, 1st November, he was without assistance in the house, his wife, who generally assisted him, being ill. That evening he had an exceptional number of customers in the house, and was somewhat busy. He did not go from the public bar into the smoking room at the back that evening, as he had no occasion to, and the serving hatch mentioned was not once opened; all the customers were served at the public bar, and took their drinks into the other room. Until the police directed his attention to the fact that he had not the slightest idea that there were any cards in the smoking room, or that there was anything in the nature of gambling going on. On the occasion of the last visit of the police he was behind the counter wiping glasses.

Mr. Mowll: On the arrival of the police did you rap the window? - No. As the constables came in I put a glass on the shelf, which is directly under the wicket window.

By Mr. Budden. Some of the men in the back room were regular customers, but others were strangers.

You were extraordinarily busy? - Yes, I was. I have been in the trade 27 years, and never had anything against me.

Cross-examined: The green baize board was his property, having been left by a former landlord. It was seldom used. He did not know if the chink of money could be heard upon it. He always kept in it the back room.

Mr. Mowll said the charge, one of unlawfully suffering gaming on the premises, resolved itself into two parts. First, was there gaming on the premises? and secondly, did the defendant suffer gaming on the premises. He would impress on the Bench that it was undoubtedly a fact that to play cards on licensed premises was perfectly lawful and constituted no offence. If a licensed victualler asked him the question, he would have to tell him cards could be played on the premises, but he should most strongly advise him to have nothing to do with them, because one knew that some people who played cards were tempted to do what was wrong, and not allowed on licensed premises - play for money. The mere fact of having cards or of cards being played on licensed premises was no offence whatever. In this case there was no very clear evidence that there was gaming on the premises. Though it was stated there was part or a pack of cards on the table it was made clear there were only three cards, and it was not at all clear why the coppers were there. They may or may not have been for the purpose connected with the three cards. It was perfectly impossible for him on behalf of his client to answer that question, for the simple reason that his client was not there. He had been a licensee for 27 years, and had had licenses in the town for 14 years of that time, and he had never been summoned, much has previously convicted on any occasion. He, therefore came before them with a perfectly clean sheet. The next point to consider was whether he suffered that gaming to take place. The defendant did not keep a potman. his wife assisted him a s a rule, but on this particular evening she was unwell. He consequently had his hands very full, with a larger number of customers than usual, and having people in the two bars, the living room at the back, and this smoking room. Customers from this room went into the bar for their drink, and took it into the smoking room with them. His friend, in opening the case, said it was not necessary for him to prove actual knowledge on the part of the landlord, but one had to bear in mind the true legal aspect in order to understand what that meant. He quoted a case which laid it down that if a game is played without the knowledge of the licensed person or the manager, and if of a mere casual nature, no penalty was incurred, but the conduct of the landlord was such that if he left the conduct of the house to a servant, and either he or that servant closed his eyes to what was going on, the landlord would be guilty of the offence. Mr. Mowll was proceeding to quote other cases when the Chairman said he did not think he need go right through.

Mr. Mowll: I rather think I must read you the whole. I do not quite know how your mind is working. (Laughter.)

Mr. Mowell read this and the next case, in which a potman was as actual witness to gaming on his master's premises. The Magistrates referred to convict, and their ruling was upheld by the High Court. He pointed out that there was no suspicion of the landlord shutting his eyes to what was going on. It was quite the reverse. The police had only been in the house for a few minutes previously, and he had asked the sergeant if he had any complaint to make against the conduct of the house then, and instead of the landlord knowing that there was something wrong going on, and shutting his eyes to it, it was the opposite, for he knew the police had just visited the house. Here must be proof that the landlord knew of it, or that he deliberately refused to take notice of it. There was nothing of that sort here. He would like to refer to one point which Police-constable Taylor, who appeared to have very quick eyes, said he had noticed. He said he saw the landlord tap the window when the sergeant was 2ft. away from the door of the very room in which these men were. All he could say was that the constable must be a marvel. (Loud laughter.) he was most sorry to hear that laughter, because he would be the very last person in the world to make a suggestion against a Dover police. But this young constable, on this occasion, did see a great deal. There was the sergeant going on as fast as ever he could to he room where the cards were found on the table and the coppers picked up. The constable followed the sergeant, and saw all the same things. He told them there was a scramble, and that he saw the landlord tap the window, not one word of which had been mentioned by the sergeant. He thought in that he had made a mistake. It was admitted that whatever happened happened very quickly, and people often made very honest mistakes. He could not for the life of him see what advantage it would have been for the defendant to have tapped on the window, because the sergeant was at the door of the room, and the passage of time between that action and the sergeant's entry would be infinitesimal, and would not give time for anything to be done. The landlord's explanation of this was a very probable one. He submitted that the charge had not been proved.

The Magistrates retired to consider their decision, and on returning the Chairman said they had carefully gone through the evidence, and given it full consideration. They were bound to say that they had considered the offence had been proved, but they took into consideration the length of time the landlord had borne the character he had up to the present, and therefore they would inflict but a very light penalty, £1 including costs.

From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 5 August, 1910.

ALTERATION TO PUBLIC HOUSES

At the Dover Police Court this morning, before J. L. Bradley, M. Pepper, J. W. Bussey, E. Chitty, H. F. Edwin, G. C. Rubie, F. G. Wright, P. W. J. Mackenzie, and W. J. Barnes, Esqs.

Plans showing alterations to the bar of the "Globe," Peter Street, were approved.

From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 26 March, 1915. Price 1d.

DISORDERLY CONDUCT AT THE GLOBE

At the Dover Police Court on Tuesday morning, before Alderman F. W. Prescott (in the chair), and Mr. J. H. Back.

James William Holt, Dover, was charged with being drunk and disorderly in Peter Street, and further with wilfully breaking a glass panel in the door of the Private bar of the “Globe Inn,” public house, Peter Street, doing damage to the extent of 30s.

P.C. Fox said: On Monday evening at 6.15 I was on duty in Peter Street, opposite the “Globe Inn” when I heard the prisoner there. He was drunk and bleeding from the right wrist and being held by two men. I went towards the Private Bar door when prisoner broke away from the two men and knocked the soldier down and rushed into the Private Bar doorway, when I stopped him and examined his wrist which had been bound up with some rag. The landlord came forward and said he wished to charge prisoner with breaking his window. I brought him to the Police Station, with assistance, where he was cautioned and charged, and he said, “I didn't break the window. I don't think I am capable of doing such a thing.” Dr. Baird came and attended to the injury to his wrist.

Prisoner: I don't think I broke it. I might have fallen back and done it.

Herbert Harvey, the landlord of the “Globe Inn,” said the prisoner came to his house at a quarter past four on Monday afternoon. He appeared to be sober. He stayed there until he was arrested. When he came in first he had two of beer and later he had two of gin and a drop of ginger beer mixed. There was a friend with the prisoner and they were having drinks together. At about half-past five prisoner's wife came in and asked him when he was coming home to tea. He said all right and asked her to have a drink. She drank two of stout and prisoner then asked her if she would have another. Witness said she must not have any more nor prisoner either. Prisoner then used strong language towards him and witness told him that he did not think he should have to stand behind the Bar and be insulted in this manner. The man prisoner the woman was with said “You had better go home.” Prisoner said something like “Did you ever strike China,” and hit the other man who fell down in the Bar. Two or three soldiers who were going by and two more who were in the bar, got prisoner out into the street. Witness closed the door and naturally thought prisoner would not come in any more. A little later prisoner rushed back and broke the glass in the Bar door. The damage was estimated at 30s. Mr. Harvey further said that Holt had been in his house on several occasions, but he always conducted himself in a most respectable manner. Witness had been in his house for eighteen months and this was the first time there had been any trouble there.

William H. Cloke, a bricklayer, who was in the Bar at about half-past five on the evening in question, said the prisoner and his friend were very sociable when he first went in. they then had a little argument and with it Holt said something to the landlord which he did not approve of, and the landlord said, “I refuse to serve you any more.” Witness did not see how the glass was broken.

Prisoner told the Magistrates' Clerk that he had nothing to say to the bench, and added that he was working in the Bay.

The Chairman to the prisoner: In your case we have decided to fine you half the damage, 15s. and 5s. doctor's fee.

Addressing Mr. Harvey, landlord of the “Globe Inn,” the Chairman said: I think your conduct has been bad in this case and we shall have the matter reported to the Watch Committee.

From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 9 April, 1915. Price 1d.

ALLEGED DRUNKENNESS AT THE GLOBE

At the Dover Police Court this (Friday) morning, before Mr. M. Pepper (in the chair), and Messrs. G. C. Rubie, H. Hobday, Capt. Cay, J. Scott and W. J. Barnes.

Herbert Harvey, “Globe Inn,” Peter Street, was summonsed for 1. permitting drunkenness to take place on his premises.

Mr. Vosper was for the prosecution and Mr. Rutley Mowll for the defence, and pleaded not guilty.

The Chairman asked by whose orders the prosecution was taken?

Mr. Vosper: The Watch Committee.

Mr. Hobday a member of the Watch Committee, said that was not so, and the Magistrates' Clerk said that it was by the order of the Mayor.

Mr. Vosper said that the case arose out of a charge of drunkenness against a man named Holt, on March 22nd, and the landlord had been reported to the Watch Committee. The onus lay on defendant of showing that all reasonable steps were taken to prevent drunkenness.

Mr. Mowll said Holt was charged on the 22nd with two offences, one was at the instigation of the present defendant for breaking a window, for which the man was convicted. On a charge of being drunk and disorderly, which was brought by the Police, he was not convicted.

John Henry Holt, 9, Colbranch Street, a labourer, working for Messrs. Mowll and Co., Ltd., coal merchants, said that on Monday, March 22nd, he came ashore and had 2d. of beer at the back of the “Hippodrome” and then went to the “Globe” getting there between 3.30 and 4 p.m. he asked for 2d. of beer. After that he had another 2d. of beer and later 2d. of gin and ginger-beer. There was a miner there who started arguing about breaking China, whatever that meant. About 5.30 witness's wife came in and asked him to come home. She had a drink but, refused to have another. The miner then tried to get him on to have more drink, but the landlord refused witness. After that he did not know what happened. About a quarter to six he thought the miner must have put him into the street, and he must have lost his temper and struck at the miner, but broke the glass in the door. He did not know what happened until the next morning when he woke up and found himself in the Police cell. The witness remarked that he did not want to spend his money this way; he could do with it at home.

Mr. Vosper called the witness's wife.

Mr. Mowll said the prosecution had called a witness who had answered the case in the defendant's favour. Was the prosecution going to call another witness to contradict the first witness's statement that he was not drunk?

The Bench decided to hear Mrs. Holt.

Mrs. Holt said she went to the Inn and saw her husband there. He was not very drunk. She had a drink with him, and he asked her to have another, and she said “No,” and signalled the landlady not to let him have any more. The landlady said she was not going to serve him. Her husband used an expression which the landlord objected to. The miner then began pushing her husband about he bar, after arguing about the matter. She then went home and told her brother what was happening. She told the landlady not to serve her husband with any more drink as she thought he had had enough.

Dr. Baird stated that on the evening in question he was called to the Police Station. It was about 6.30. he saw Holt, who was asleep, lying with his head down on the table. He was dazed, caused through alcohol. The man was drunk, absolutely.

By Mr. Mowll. Dr. Baird said the man's wrist was badly cut, in a way that made it bleed profusely. The man was so drunk that he could not get to the cell without assistance.

Mr. Mowll: Assuming a man had lost a lot of blood, and had knocked down a man twice in the bar, he had knocked down two soldiers, and had been marched down to the Police Station, do you say a man, after all that would not naturally be dazed?

I would not like to say. Possibly, somewhat.

Detective-constable Fox said on the evening in question, about 6.15, he saw Holt outside the “Globe Inn.” Being held by two men. He was drunk and bleeding profusely from the right wrist. The glass of the Private Bar door of the “Globe Inn” was broken. Witness went towards the door, when Holt broke away from the other two men, knocked a soldier down, and rushed into the Private Bar doorway. Witness found him inside the bar, and the landlord came forward and said he wished to charge Holt for breaking the glass. With assistance witness took Holt to the Station. Later witness asked the defendant how long Holt had been in the Inn.

Mr. Mowll: Did you caution him?

Witness: No.

The Chairman said it was utterly wrong not to do so.

The witness answered that he had no idea that any case would arise against the landlord.

The evidence was not allowed.

Cross-examined, witness said he did not know that the landlord had already sent for the Police before he (witness) arrived in peter Street.

Mr. Mowll: Have you ever known a case where the prosecutor, whose evidence has been believed, has been turned into the defendant, and the man, who has been convicted is brought to give evidence against him?

This is my first experience of a case of this sort.

Mr. Mowll: So it is mine.

The Chairman: The Magistrates are very divided in opinion, but the majority say the case must be dismissed, but at the same time, the minority say that Mr. Harvey should be cautioned, and I think so too. You should be very careful to deal with these people at once.

Mr. Mowll said that it was only fair to say that he had a large body of witnesses, who would seriously contest such evidence as was given on the subject of drunkenness.

The Chairman: I take the opportunity of differing from you. We believe the man was drunk.

Mr. Vosper said that there was another summons for selling intoxicants to a drunken person. If their Worships were satisfied that this man was not drunk, he should ask that the summons might be withdrawn.

The Chairman: But we are satisfied that he was drunk. The landlord was not drunk.

Mr. Vosper: But the landlord was not charged with being drunk. If you Worships are satisfied that Holt was drunk, I propose to proceed with the next summons.

The Chairman: Then they will bring the evidence that he was not drunk, and we shall stop here all night.

The Chairman said that he gave the defendant on the last summons a caution. They appreciated the difficulty of managing this class of public house, and, as he had been cautioned, the best thing would be to drop the matter.

Mr. Vosper, after consulting the Police, said that he would withdraw the other summons.

From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 16 April, 1915. Price 1d.

THE GLOBE CASE

The way in which the Magistrates approached and dealt with the case against the “Globe” public house on Friday last does not show any disposition to be ready to give that assistance to the Police that is required in these critical days. The man who was alleged to have been served when under the influence of liquor was a War worker, i.e., he coaled war vessels. It appeared from his own evidence that he went into the house sober, and nearly three hours later he left under such circumstances that the next thing he remembered was awaking in a Police cell the next day. Evidence was given by the Police and the Police Surgeon that the man was very drunk, and it was stated that he knocked down two soldiers, as well as other people, and broke the window of the public house. The cross-examination did not shake this evidence, although the man who got into this state did not admit being drunk. Is it here that the extraordinary behaviour of the Magistrates comes in, in the face of this evidence the Chairman stopped the case and dismissed it, without calling on the defence to rebut the evidence.

There is no excuse for a body of Magistrates dealing with a case in this way at any time, but at the present moment, when excessive drinking is delaying the completion of the War and sacrificing thousands of lives, the Magistrates ought to make an exhaustive inquiry into such a case. The offhand way in which it was dealt with is the more remarkable by the fact that the Chairman expressed the opinion that the man served was drunk and not the landlord – who was never charged with being drunk. The Magistrates at the previous hearing dealt with the case in an extraordinary way. Then the landlord had prosecuted the man, who was alleged to be drunk, for breaking a window. The man was also charged for being drunk and disorderly by the Police. On that occasion the Magistrates adopted the strange method of fining the man for the damage and making no reference in their decision to the charge of drunkenness, although they ordered the facts to be brought before the Watch Committee! It showed great carelessness in administration, and led the way for the very strange conduct of the bench on Friday.

The Dover Bench has recently not covered itself with credit. It seems that the time has arrived when a radical change should be made in the administration of the law in Police Courts – either to re-organise the Bench, or by stipendiary Magistrates being appointed to deal with districts.

Dover Express, Friday 20 January 1928.

At the Dover Police Court on Monday, the licence of the "Globe Inn," Peter Street, was transferred from Mr. George James Bond to Mr. Percy James Lewis, previously licensee of the "Hand and Sceptre."

From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 6 February, 1931. Price 1½d.

DOVER BREWSTER SESSIONS

The licence of the "Globe Inn," Peter Street was transferred to Andrew Reid Nicoll of Eltham, Kent.

The tenant said that he was afraid he would be unable to carry on the houseproperly.

The magistrates' Clerk: What is your disability?

A fractured thigh, and i have to wear a caliper.

You are no worse than when you took the house.

No; I am carrying on. I had an accident twelve months ago, and that is why I am in the trade.

The magistrates' Clerk said that if he found he could not carry on he would have to ask the brewers to find another tenant.

From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday 19 June, 1953.

Stole Outside Public House

Probation for Bicycle Thief

Admitting stealing a cycle from outside the Globe public house in Peter Street, 35 year old Frederick George James, of no permanent address, was placed on probation for two years by Dover magistrates on Thursday.

Chief Inspector F. Wood told the court that William E. Hoyle, of 15, Whitfield Avenue, left the cycle outside the public house. When he discovered it was missing he told the Police.

D.C. Bush made enquiries, and ascertained that Corpl. Lay of the T.A. at Wanstone, had the cycle. Lay was seen, and he said he bought it for £5 from James, who was working in the cookhouse at the camp. James told the Corporal that the cycle had cost him £23, but as he was unable to ride it any longer because of health reasons he wanted to sell it.

James was seen by the detective, and he agreed that he had stolen it from outside the public house. "I had a few drinks, and took it to ride back to camp," he added.

Three previous convictions were reported, two for stealing and one for stealing by finding. The Inspector said the £5 had been recovered and so had the cycle.