From the Dover Express and East Kent Intelligencer, 11 June, 1859.

WILFUL DAMAGE TO PAINTWORK

William Cook, a lad nine years of age, was charged with wilfully damaging the property of Mrs. Nye, by obliterating some newly-painted letters on the outside of the complainant's house, the "Greyhound," Union Row.

The father of the defendant urged that the damage had not been occasioned wilfully, but the opposite was distinctly spoken to by the complainant.

The Bench recommended the father of the boy to reimburse the complainant in the amount of the damage, but this he declined to do; and the Magistrates then adjourned the case for a month, in order to allow the defendant further opportunity. If the money was not found within that period, and the boy was again brought up, the Bench would have no alternative but to send him to prison.

From the Dover Express and East Kent Intelligencer, 20 February, 1880. Price 1d.

HOUSEBREAKING

William Bradley, a private in the 86th Regiment, was charged with breaking and entering No. 1, Bowling Green Hill.

Robert mills, painter, living at 1, Bowling Green Hill, said: Last night about half-past twelve or a quarter to one I was in bed when I heard the people in the next house calling for me to go in as they thought someone was in the cellar. I opened my window and so did my neighbour next door and again said he though there was someone in the cellar. Looking round I saw a Police-constable coming up the hill, and by the time I got to the door the constable was in the next house. My wife followed me downstairs and went in the back room, and called out, “Come back; the man is in here.” I went and caught hold of the prisoner as he was coming up the stairs. The back door in the yard was broken open. I caught hold of him and called for my neighbour and the constable. The yards of both houses are in one, and laid into Union Row. The prisoner said: “It's all right; where's the “Greyhound” public-house?” I gave him in custody to the constable. We are the only occupiers of the house.

Police-constable Edmunds said: At a quarter to one I was on duty in York Street when I heard a noise and stopped to listen, and the window of the last witness opened. I heard someone say they believed a man was in the cellar and requested the other to come down. The neighbour then asked me if I would look and see if anyone was there. The man came downstairs and we examined the cellar and the back yard. I then heard Mr. Mill say, “He's here,” so I at once went and found the prisoner in the back room. He had bursted the yard door. Mr. Mills gave him in charge. The prisoner made no reply to the charge. He appeared as if he had been drinking, but was not drunk.

The prisoner said he was a stranger here and had lost his way from the “Greyhound” public-house which leads from the back yard.

The officer in attendance said the prisoner had the entry against him, and he only enlisted on the 3rd of December last.

The Bench dismissed the prisoner.

From the Dover Express and East Kent Intelligencer, 11 February, 1881. Price 1d.

SUDDEN DEATH

An inquest was held on Tuesday evening at the “Greyhound” public-house, Union Row, on the body of William Henry Green who dies suddenly the previous evening.

Mr. John Penn was chosen foreman of the Jury, and after the body had been viewed, the following evidence was taken:-

John Kirby Green, labourer, living at Finnis's Hill, said: The deceased, William Henry Green, is my brother, and resided with his wife at 12, Union Row. His age is about 39. I last saw him alive on Saturday morning, when I passed him, and just said “Good morning,” to which he answered. I heard he had a cold, but nothing more. He was stevedore at the Oil Mills.

William Henry Doble, landlord of the “Standard” public-house, said: Last evening, about half-past seven, the deceased came into my house on the Commercial Quay, for the purpose of paying his men, who had been discharging a barge. He complained of being very ill, and said he would like a glass of hot brandy and water, which was served to him by my wife. A few minutes after he went out the back, and returned again in a short time to the Bar. I then told him he looked deathly pale, and he answered that everyone was telling him so and would soon make him think he was. The deceased then requested another drop of brandy and water, and after drinking it he said he thought he should be able to get home. I then went to the back of the house, and when I returned the deceased and his friend, a man named Marno, were gone. The deceased left a small tally book with my wife, which he said he did not think he could really take home. I heard soon after that he had died.

Henry Marno, working at the Oil Mills, said: I was with the deceased at the “Standard” public-house last evening. He appeared very ill, and complained of being short of breath. When we left there we got as far as the Post-office corner, where the deceased fell on me in a fit, and struggled for about five minutes. When he came to, we got as far as the “Gothic Inn,” where he had another fit, and foamed at the mouth, but rallied again. On getting near Mr. Barratt's, confectioner, the deceased fell down in another fit, and with assistance I took him into the shop, where he died within a few minutes. The deceased spoke several times as we were going along the street, and said he would like to get home. I don't think he was subject to fits.

Dr. Allen Duke, residing at Folkestone, said: I have been stopping in Dover for the last few days with my son. Last evening, between seven and eight, I was called to see a man at Mr. Barratt's, who had had a fit. I went immediately, and found the man lying in the shop floor quite dead. I examined the body and saw there were no marks of violence. I should think he died from spasms of the heart.

The jury returned a verdict according to the medical testimony.

Police-constable Stevens, who was in charge, said that Police-constable Nash, who searched the body, found £10 on him. The Coroner made an order for the money to be handed over to his wife.

From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday 7 September, 1883. 1d.

ANNUAL LICENSING DAY

THE GREYHOUND

The Clerk to the Magistrates reported that a memorial had been received against the renewal of the license of the “Greyhound” public-house, Union Row.

The Superintendent said that he had sent for the landlord of the “Greyhound” but had received a reply that he was out of town.

Mr. W. Knocker said that he appeared on behalf of Mr. Leney as he had heard that there was a memorial against the house. As the landlord was not present he would hand the memorial over to the occupier if the bench wished it. (Laughter).

The Magistrates decided to hear the case at their sitting at Broadstairs.

From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday 5 September, 1884. 1d.

DOVER BREWSTER SESSIONS

Mr. Vernon Knocker applied for the transfer of the license of the “Greyhound” to the Brewer's Clerk, the license to be retained by the Clerk to the Magistrates until a tenant was found. There was no legal evidence that the former tenant had given up the house, therefore the Chairman ruled that the matter should stand over and be dealt with at Broadstairs.

From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 7 February, 1913. Price 1d.

DOVER LICENSING SESSIONS

Mr. Lister appeared for Messrs. Gardner and Co.

The Chief Constable said that this was a fully licensed house situated in Union Row, the brewers being Messrs. Gardner and Co. The present tenant was Mr. Galley, the licence having been transferred to him on June 7th. It had been transferred in 1907,1909 and 1910. the rateable value was £20, nett £16. the licensed houses in the immediate neighbourhood were the “Marquis of Waterford” (8 yards), the “Marquis of Anglesea” (65 yards), the “New Inn,” York Street (71 yards), the “Royal Mortar,” Military Hill (88 yards), the “Crown,” Military Hill (98 yards), the “Five Alls,” Market Street (123 yards), and the “King Alfred,” Portland Place (126 yards).

Mr. Lister asked what the change was before 1907?

The Chief Constable said that it was last transferred previous to that date in 1897.

Chief Inspector Lockwood said that he visited the house on the 22nd January, and found no customers; again on the 23rd January, at 11.15 a.m.; and on the 27th January, at 9.15 a.m.; and on the 29th, at 7.30 p.m., he found three customers; at 5.35 p.m., on the 30th January, three customers; and at 9.10 p.m. on the 31st January, six customers.

This house was also sent for compensation.
 

From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 11 July, 1913. Price 1d.

PUBLIC HOUSE LICENSES

Mr. Dickens applied for the renewal; and Mr. Davidson appeared for the Licensing Justices who had refused the renewal.

Mr. Davidson, in opening the case, said that the “Greyhound” was a fully licensed house situated at the foot of Military Hill in Union Row, Dover. There were no less than six other licensed houses within a distance of 123 yards, and one of them was immediately opposite eight yards away. It was a small house with a frontage of 17ft 6in. It was difficult for Police supervision, and its sanitary arrangements were in a bad condition. The rateable value was £20 gross and £16 net, and it was doing a barrel a week. He would call the late licensee, Mr. Galley, who would give some figures as regard to that point. As regards to transfers, there were more transfers in this house than any of the other houses. There had been no less than four transfers in seven years, and since the preliminary meeting in February the late licensee, Mr. Galley, had gone out, and a protection order been asked for, and another licensee went in. Mr. Galley had not been in the house above ten months. He thought that, taking these things into consideration, that it was a proper and fair house to be taken away. The Inspector visited it six different times, and only three times did he find customers there. In Dover there were 180 licensed houses, or one to every 252 persons.

Chief Constable Fox said that the present licensee had a protection order in May and a full transfer on June 6th. The licence previously had been transferred to Mr. Galley on the 7th June last year. Previous to that there had been transfers in 1907, 1909, and 1910. There were six other fully licensed houses in the immediate neighbourhood, and the Marquis of Waterford” was only eight yards distant.

By Mr. Pitman: Previous to the transfer mentioned, there had not been any for nine years. But Mr. Galley would give evidence.

Have you subpoenaed him to come here and give evidence?

We have not subpoenaed him, but he has attended here.

Rather a curious proceeding, is it not? It strikes me as unusual.

By Mr. Davidson: It is a fact that the late licensee refused to give you the trade of the house?

I have not applied to him.

Mr. F. G. Hayward said that he had made the map (produced) of this part of Dover, and it was a fact that there were six other public houses within a distance of 123 yards. He had also gone over the house. It was in a fair condition; the worst part was the sanitary arrangements.

By Mr. Dickens: It was a house that had been built twenty years ago, and was not an old one. He had never heard any complaints about the sanitary arrangements.

Alfred Galley said that now he resided at 14, Tower Hamlets Road, Dover, and was the old licensee of the “Greyhound.” He entered as licensee on the 12th June, 1912.

Have you got your books here?

No.

Can you tell the Bench roughly what was your trade?

Mr. Dickens said that the proper evidence was the book.

The Chairman: Were they produced before the Local Committee?

Mr. Dickens: No.

The Chairman: He can make a statement for what it is worth.

Mr. Davidson: Can you tell, roughly speaking, how many barrels a week you did?

Witness (taking a paper from his pockets): I can tell you the takings.

Mr. Dickens: What document is that you have pulled from your pocket?

Witness: A rough note of the money takings.

Mr. Dickens: When did you make it?

Witness: This morning.

Mr. Dickens: Then I object to that.

The Chairman: I do not think we can have it.

Mr. Davidson: Did you make a living out of the house?

No, sir. I can tell you I did not do two barrels a week; between one and a half and two barrels.

Cross-examined by Mr. Dickens: You actually applied for the renewal of this licence that was referred here? Do you understand the question?

No, sir.

You were the licensee when the matter came before the Justices, and applied for the renewal of your licence, did you not?

No, sir.

Be careful what you say.

I gave notice to my brewers last October that I wanted to get out of the house.

You were present at the meeting of the Justices below, were you not, and you then applied for the renewal of your licence at that time?

Yes, sir; that is right.

Did you then tell the brewers that you wished to leave owing to the illness of your wife?

Before that.

Was that the reason you gave?

Not the first time.

Was your wife, in fact, ill?

Not the first time I gave notice.

Did you not write to the brewers that, but for the illness of your wife, you would like to stay on?

Yes, sir; provided I was paid to do so.

Have you, in fact, paid your rent?

Yes; out of my deposit.

Have you paid the rent up to the time you went? Do you swear that?

I owe the brewers about £3.

Who did you approach in regard to coming to give evidence on the opposite side?

No one.

Who approached you?

I was asked by the Police.

By the Inspector who gave evidence?

No; by the Detective Sergeant.

Inspector Lockwood said that he visited the house in January on six occasions, at 2.50 p.m., 11.15 a.m., and 9.15 a.m., when he found no customers; and at 7.30 p.m., three customers; 5.35 p.m., three customers; and at 9 p.m., six customers.

Detective Sergeant Mount corroborated.

Mr. Dickens for the applicants for the renewal, submitted that, under these circumstances, there was no alternative but to renew the licence. His learned friend had said that he would call evidence of differentiation, but he must say he thought from what he then said that he did not appreciate what differentiation was. He called no evidence in regard to any other public house but this one. That was no evidence of differentiation. Assuming that all the evidence that was given was true, it was no evidence of differentiation to say that the house was a bad one, or that there were no customers on a certain day. That was no evidence, comparing this house with the other houses, and showing some reason why, if there was redundancy, this house should be selected. At one time that was not thought necessary, but in the case of the Dartford Brewery against the County of London Sessions, before the King's Bench, it was held that evidence of differentiation was necessary. He, therefore, asked them to take the only course open and say that no evidence was given them of differentiation by the Justices. They do not seem to have made any enquiry. At all events, there was no evidence, and under these circumstances, there was no alternative but to renew the licence. Exactly the same thing had happened in the way the West Kent Division, and there the Committee had no alternative but the renew the licence.

Mr. Davidson submitted that in the case of Rex v. Tolputt it was held that in all cases it was not necessary to have detailed evidence of differentiation, as the Justices could form their opinion on their local knowledge.

Lord Harris, after consulting the Clerk of the Peace, said that they had no proof of differentiation, and the licence must be renewed.