Dover Express, 28 Nov 1863.

DEATH OF MR GEORGE HIPGRAVE.

In our obituary today we announce the death of an aged, well-known, and much esteemed inhabitant, Mr. George Hipgrave, the quaint and versatile host of the "Gun Hotel." The regret we experience in having to publish this intelligence will be shared by a very large circle of the deceased gentleman’s friends, resident, no doubt, at all parts of the country, for there are few travellers who have ever partaken of the hospitality of the "Gun" who have a not a kindly place in their remembrance for the worthy though eccentric host, now no more.

Mr. Hipgrave had obtained the ripe old age of 76 and the illness which terminated thus fatally was of brief duration. In the course of his career Mr. Hipgrave occupied a seat on the Conservative benches of the Town Council, but he was never a violent partisan, and his speeches on public affairs, though generally containing a sound substratum of common sense, were mostly of that half-philosophical, half-humorous turn which has characterised the speeches delivered by him on those public occasions when he was wont to ‘set the table on a roar’ and with which his name will long be identified – the annual dinners at the "Gun."

These annual dinners were held every February to celebrate the anniversary of the ‘opening’ (at least by George) of the "Gun Hotel," and were reported by number – the 50th being in 1864, which puts the ‘opening’ in Feb 1814.

Dover Express, Saturday 12 March 1864.

Application was made by the executors of the late Mr. G Hipgrave, for a new licence for the "Gun Hotel," Strond Street., and permission to sell was given until the next transferred day. A similar application was made by the widow and sole executrix of Mr. Barton Venner, for the "Golden Cross," St James's Street, and permission to sell was given.

From the Dover Express and East Kent Intelligencer, 21 January, 1865.

From the Court Sessions.

HIPGRAVE v. J S STIFF

Defendant did not appear to dispute a claim of £1 14s. 3d. for board and lodging at the "Gun Hotel," and His Honour ordered payment forthwith.

From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday 15 February, 1867.

DOVER POLICE COURT

OBTAINING FALSE PRETENCES

Harriett Nowler, the woman brought up on Friday last on several charges of obtaining by false pretences, but then erroneously described as "Lawler," was again placed at the bar.

A charge of obtaining four pairs of children's boots, the property of Mr. Molloway, bootmaker of Priory Street, the offence having been committed nearly a twelve-month ago, was first investigated.

The prosecutor stated that the prisoner came to his shop on the 24th February, 1866, and obtained from him four pairs of children's boots, value £1. She said she was sent for the boots by Mrs. Kemp, of Trevanion Street, for whom, she said, she occasionally worked as a charwoman. prosecutor would not have let her take the boots away but for the last statement.

Mrs. Hannah Kemp, wife of John Kemp, living in Trevanion Street, said she knew something of the prisoner many years since, when living in the country, but had not seen her for many years till a few weeks ago, when she came to her stating that she was in great distress, and begged witness to give her a loaf of bread. Witness gave her two loaves. She had not seen her since until that morning. The prisoner never worked for her, and she never authorised her to obtain any boots from Mr. Holloway or from any other person.

On being asked if she had any questions to put to either of the witnesses, the prisoner said, "No, I am guilty."

The usual caution having been administered to the prisoner, she said she had nothing to state in her defence, but could only hope the Court would be merciful to her.

Dr. Astley: You will be committed to take your trial at the next quarter sessions.

A charge of obtaining two pairs of boots, the property of Mr. Henry Moody, jun., Commercial Quay, was next proceeded with.

Mr. Henry Moody, jun., said he was a bootmaker carrying on business at 3, Commercial Quay. On the 21st September the prisoner came to his shop and said she wanted a pair of kid boots for her daughter, who was servant of the "Gun Hotel." At her request witness allowed her to take away two pairs of ladies' kid boots, value 14s. 6d., for her daughter's inspection, and he did not see her or the boots afterwards. On enquiring at the hotel a day or two after the occurrence, he found there was no young woman living as servant there such as described. He was the more easily thrown off his guard by the prisoner's story as he was in the habit of working for persons in the hotel.

Maltilda, wife of John Ellender, said the prisoner came to her shop, in St. James's Street, some time in September last, to the best of witness's recollection, and selected two skirts. She had no money, she said, but should quickly be in receipt of some, as she was working for a person who would pay her in the course of a few days. In the meanwhile she left as security a pair of boots which had been identified by the prosecutor as her property.

Louisa Myers, cook at the "Gun Hotel," said that no daughter of the prisoner's was living in any capacity at the Hotel. Witness had been living at the "Gun" for a twelvemonth, and during that time there had been no such person there.

Police-constable Raymond said he apprehended the prisoner on Thursday morning. She had with her a round basket from which she took the pair of boots he now produced, and witness took them from her hand. She said she had got them from the pawnshop and was going to sell them.

This was the second of the two pairs of boots the prisoner was charged with stealing, and both were identified by the prosecutor.

Police-sergeant Bailey deposed to receiving the pair of boots left with Mrs. Ellender. Having ascertained that the prisoner had left them there, he went to Mrs. Ellender's shop, and at once obtained them.

The prisoner, who had nothing to say for herself, was committed for trial on this charge also.

The prisoner asked that she might be admitted to bail.

Superintendent Coram said he must oppose the application. The prisoner had been carrying on nefarious practices to a considerable extent, there being scarcely a tradesman in the town who had not been victimised.

Dr. Astley (to the prisoner): Under these circumstances, the Magistrates cannot admit you to bail.

The prisoner said her reason for making the application was on account of ill-health.

Dr. Astley: There is a medical officer of the gaol. He will see that your health does not sustain injury from your incarceration, and whatever recommendation he may make will be attended to.

From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday 15 May, 1877.

Henry Gell, seaman, was charged with being drunk at the “Gun Hotel,” Strond Street, and breaking a pane of glass and five drinking glasses, the property of the landlord; he was also charged with being drunk in the Police-court.

The Superintendent said the prosecutor was not present.

The prisoner was remanded, on the charge of drunkenness, till he became sober.

From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday 2 February, 1883. 1d.

THE REMANDED APPLICATION – A CURIOUS CASE

Mr. M. Mowll applied for the transfer of the license of the “Gun Hotel,” Commercial Quay, from Messrs. Allen and Co., brewers, to Monsieur Emile Vincent, of the Boulogne Café, Hawksbusy Street. This application the solicitor said had been remanded from last week on account of notice of opposition being received from Superintendent Sanders, who had asked for a remand that he might collect his evidence and summon his witness.

Mr. W. Knocker, the Town Clerk, said that he had received instructions to oppose the application, as it was considered that the applicant was not a fit and proper person to hold a license.

Mr. M. Mowll said that the application had been adjourned to enable the Superintendent to produce evidence against Mr. Vincent's character. He thought it would be more convenient for the Superintendent to bring forward the evidence, and then he would plainly show that the applicant was a man of good character, and fit to have a licence.

The Magistrate's Clerk said that there were several very satisfactory testimonials handed in – in fact they were exceptionally good ones, and any contradiction to them he thought should be brought forward at once.

Superintendent Sanders said: Since the case was last before the court I have communicated with the Metropolitan Police, and have received the following report about the applicant.

Mr. Mowll objected to the report being received until after the testimonials were decided upon.

The Magistrate's Clerk ruled that on an application being made for a license the police references of the application were always read.

The Magistrate's Clerk read the report as follows:-

Metropolitan Police Criminal Investigations Department, Scotland Yard, January 24, 1883.

With reference to the attached letter from the Superintendent Borough Police, Dover, requesting to be furnished with information as to the antecedents of one Vincent, who had applied for a transfer of a hotel license, I beg to report that in March, 1875, information was received at this office that a man named Godin, a returned convict named Berthier, and a Frenchman named Vincent, all living at No, 23, Greece Street, Tottenham Court Road, were engaged in uttering counterfeit coins, and were earning their livelihood by other dishonest means. Observations were kept on the above premises by police, but before the time arrived for a seizure to be made Vincent and Berthier were given in custody by one Ethenni Pignot, a stove maker, charged with stealing from him a quantity of iron value £24, and also a quantity of knives, the property of James Monies. They were taken before R. K. Newton, Esq., Magistrate, Marlborough Metropolitan Police Court, on the 20th of March, 1875, and were committed to take their trial at the Central Criminal Court. They were tried before the Recorder on the 3rd May, 1873, and found not guilty. The man named Godin was arrested on the 7th April, 1875, on a charge of uttering counterfeit coin, and remanded to the 15th, but as no second spurious coin was found on him, he was discharged. He was, however, re-arrested on a warrant charging him, in connections with Eugene Bruncan, for having conspired under the name of Blumberg and Co., to defraud M. Blanchard of Paris, of clockworks, &c., to the amount 0f 15,000 francs, in 1874. he was committed to the Central Criminal Court on 18th May, 1875, was tried on the 9th June, 1875, before Sir Thomas Chambers, and sentenced to five years' penal servitude. Emile Vincent at that period (1875) was an associate of foreign thieves and swindlers. He afterwards kept a small restaurant in Ryder's Court, Soho, which was frequented by foreign bullies, swindlers, and prostitutes. I have no knowledge of his ever been convicted in this country.

(Signed) George W. Greenham, Chief Inspector, Frederick Williams, Chief Superintendent.

Witness continued: The applicant has lived in Hawksbury Street three years, and there have been various doubtful reports about the house, which is used as a French café, and called Café de Boulogne. It has been reported to me that intoxicating liquors are sold at the same house. I have heard people in the house late at night. Some time ago I saw an applicant in conversation with Greenham.

By Mr. Mowll; I watched this house on one occasion in particular. From what I have heard I communicated with the excise officers, but did not instruct the police constables to give any special watch on the house.

Inspector Whitney, of the Metropolitan Police stationed in Dover to carry out the Contagious Disease Act, said: I know the house kept by the applicant in Hawksbury Street. I have not visited the house myself, but I have no doubt that it is a brothel, and for the last two years I have reported it as such.

By Mr. Mowll: It is merely my opinion when I say I believe the house to be a brothel.

By Mr. Knocker: I have seen women on the Register frequenting the house with men in the evening, but for the last month it has not been so bad. There have also been seen women we have had our suspicions about at the house.

By Mr. Mowll: I have not watched the house lately, but about twelve months ago I watched it every night.

James Adams, inspector on the South Eastern Railway, said: About two or three months ago a French lady came down at night by the mail train and I saw her on the Admiralty Pier platform. Two men accosted her, and one spoke to her in French. The other one came up to me and told me that the lady wanted to return to London, and asked the time of the next train. I told the lady, and advised her to get into the train, and I would take her up to the railway station, where she could stop in the waiting room, but the two men took her away to the Café de Boulogne. I saw no more of her until after two o'clock, when she was brought to the station by the same two men, who followed her into the booking office. The lady was crying and very excited. As far as I could make out she wanted to be taken away from the two men, and I placed her into a first class waiting room. The two men didn't seem inclined to leave the station, and I ordered them out with a threat that I would give them in charge if they molested the passengers. Shortly afterwards, our interpreter came on duty, and I took him to the waiting room, and told him to take down in writing what the lady said. The statement produced is the same, and reads as follows:- “Madame M. Matson, of Great Street, Soho, on the arrival of the midnight mail train on the Admiralty Pier, was accosted by two men. She, wishing to go back to London, asked them if they could let her know what time the next train went back to London, and afterwards they took her to a café in a back street and tried to make her intoxicated, and the landlady abused her, and wished her to play cards till two o'clock in the morning. They refused to take her back to the station till she paid a certain sum of money, which she paid.

By Mr. Mowll: The lady did not tell me she had refreshment at the café for which she had to pay. It is to my interest to look after the welfare of the passengers, and I therefore asked the interpreter to take down the statement.

Police-sergeant Harman said: On the 1st of April 1880, I was on duty in the afternoon, when a gentleman came to the Police Station and said that he had had a bed at the Café de Boulogne, kept by Mr. Vincent, and while there had been robbed of four sovereigns and some silver and a purse, and the landlady he alleged had taken them. I went with the gentleman in a cab to the house, and he gave the woman in charge, and I bought her to the Police Station. The charge came before the Bench and was discharged but the Magistrates made a remark about it being a disgraceful case. The landlady said that she knew nothing of the case, and said that there were two other women in the house at the time.

My Mr. Mowll: I don't know whether that gentleman has since been imprisoned.

Mr. Knocker said that he had brought sufficient evidence to show that the applicant was not such a person who should have a license. The house was not a first rate character one, and the applicant had been the friend of those who uttered counterfeit coins, and one of them had been sent to penal servitude. Upon those grounds he would urge that the application be not granted.

Mr. M. Mowll after referring to the great prejudice there was against the house in question, on account the French people going to it , called the following witness:-

Mr. Emily Vincent said: I keep a French café in Hawsbury Street, Dover. I have conducted the house in a respectable manner ever since I have been there. I have never allowed any immoral or indecent conduct to take place in the house.

By Mr. Knocker. I have been in the house three years, and was previously seven years at the “London Hotel,” Dover, where I was porter and commissioner, I have heard the document from the Metropolitan Police read, and it is true that I lived in Greece Street, Tottenham Court Road. I was not engaged in uttering counterfeit coins. I know Inspector Greenham, and saw him sometime ago at the “London Hotel.” It is quite correct that I was found Not Guilty on a charge of stealing iron. I never had bad women in the house. The “Gun Hotel” I am taking over from Messrs Allen and Co., the Brewers. I know Mr. Gattell the previous occupier of the “Gun Hotel, but I have made no arrangement for him to have anything to do with the house. I am not married, (laughter), but live with the person who is called my wife. I have no wife alive or children. My house is not the resort of prostitutes. I keep it quietly and properly, and never receive a soldier or bad woman. I don't sell wines or spirits, nor allow card playing. I know a big fat Belgian woman who goes about the town, (laughter) as she lodges at my house. I did not know that she was exiled from Belgium.

By Mr. Mowll: I never knowingly permit any bad characters to enter my house.

Mr. G. Ashcroft, a butcher carrying on business in Oxenden Street, said: I live nearly opposite the applicant. I am about all hours of the night and day, and I have never noticed any improper conduct at his house since he has been there. The house has been kept very respectable.

By Mr. Knocker: I sit at home at night and smoke my pipe, and mind my own business, (laughter), and can see the house in question, but have never noticed anything improper being done.

Mr. John Mynell, grocer, Mr. J. Grundy, coal and wool merchant, Mr. W. Burkett, baker, Mr. White, oilman, who lives close to the café, gave evidence showing that the house had always been well conducted.

A letter was received from Mr. Walter, surgeon, stating that he had frequently visited the house professionally, and had never seen any improper conduct.

Mr. Mowll contended that the evidence he had brought forward that day was direct evidence, whilst that of his friend Mr. Knocker was indirect.

The Bench after consultation, said that in the face of the excellent testimonials they had before them, and the evidence of the neighbours, they could not refuse to grant the application.

From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday 9 March, 1883. 1d.

THE LICENSE OF THE GUN HOTEL

Mr. M. Mowll applied for the transfer of the license of the “Gun Hotel” to Mr. E. Vincent. He said that the case had been fully discussed on a previous occasion, when the Superintendent was absent from the Court. On the second occasion when the man came up the Superintendent asked for a remand, which was granted. At the end of that remand a strong report was presented against the applicant from Scotland Yard, but the Magistrates granted the transfer. The general feeling of the Bench had always been to confirm the transfers made by other Magistrates, and he anticipated that would be the case on the present occasion. He asked that the evidence previously given should not be gone into again.

Mr. Knocker said he was prepared to go into the evidence heard on the last occasion again if the Magistrates desired it, but he proposed to bring fresh evidence forward entirely to the applicant's conduct at the “Gun Hotel.”

Mr. Mowll said he thought that he was entitled to refer to the testimonials of the man's character given on the last occasion, and which were to the effect that the applicant had conducted the Café de Boulogne, in Hawkesbury Street, in a very satisfactory manner.

Mr. Knocker contended that the testimonials as to the house in Hawkesbury Street could not be taken in relation to the “Gunn Hotel.” He thought that a man living with a woman who was not his wife could not be expected to keep a respectable house.

On behalf of the Watch Committee he then called Sarah Reed, who said: I have known Mr. Vincent, who is now keeping the “Gun Hotel” about three weeks. I have often had a liquor with him, and have slept at his house. I was introduced to his house by a woman named Brien, who first saw me in the “Mariner's Arms.” Brien came to me and said she wanted to see me to introduce me to a gentleman. I went to the “Gun Hotel,” and saw a lady whom introduced me to a gentleman there, and I slept with him, whilst Brien slept with another man. I stayed at Vincent's house till the morning, and saw a lady when I went out of the house. I was paid by a foreign gentleman. I do not know whether Mr. Vincent knows that I am on the register.

In answer to Mr. Mowll witness said that she did not see Mr. Vincent while he was in the house, and did not know whether he knew she was there. The gentleman that she slept with paid her 5s., and the lady gave her and Brien 4s. between them in the morning.

Police-sergeant Nash said: On the 12th February I was sent by the Superintendent about noon at the “Gun Hotel,” for the purpose of ascertaining whether a woman named Rachel Ratcliff, formerly a prostitute, was in the house. I went there and saw Mr. Vincent, who told me he had a lady up-stairs, who came about a week previous at about half-past one in the morning, with a gentleman, whom she said was her husband. They gave their names as Mr. and Mrs. Clark, of St. George's Street, London, and shortly after she came she was confined. I asked Mr. Vincent to go and see whether the lady had any objections to me seeing her, and when he came down he said the lady would dress, and then I could see her. I went up-stairs with Mr. Vincent, and there found Rachel Ratcliff. I asked Mr. Vincent if he knew anything of her, and he said he did not. Ratcliff told me she had married a man named Clark giving the address previously referred to, and that as soon as she was better she was going ton her husband's house in London. Whilst I was in there a woman by the name of Brien, came into the room and said she was attending Ratcliff. I said to her, whoever would have thought of seeing Ratcliff here? And she said, who indeed? I have reason to believe that Mr. Vincent knew Ratcliff at the time.

Supt Sanders said: From what I have seen of the house kept by Mr. Vincent, I have reason to believe that it had been used as a brothel. On the 24th of February, when I was on the Admiralty Pier, my attention was given to Vincent buy a man and women, giving the name of Degernier, who were apparently quarrelling. Soon after Vincent left them I spoke to the man and woman, and asked her what was the matter. She said she had been living as cook, at Mr. Vincent's at the “Gun Hotel,” and had left in consequence of Madame Vincent wanting her to go upstairs with a Frenchman from Deal. She said that Mrs. Vincent told her if she would go she would have £2. Degernier said she was very much put out, and asked Mrs. Vincent if she took her for a prostitute; and told her that she had other girls upstairs, and could get one of them.

Mr. G. H. Smith, Deputy Town Clerk, said: On the 24th of February I went to 1, York Street, to the lodgings of Madame de Gernie, saw her, asked her to come to Court to-day, (Friday) to give evidence, but she said she could no, as Vincent had threatened to get her husband out of his berth if she gave any evidence against him. She also told me that she had been called one night to go to the bedroom of a lady who was ill, and she had asked her what was the matter, and she said she was going to be confined. There was a gentleman in the room, who seemed anxious to get away, and De Gernier asked if he was her husband, and she said'; “No. but don't be angry, I am one of those girls.”

Mr. Mowll, on behalf of the applicant, said in the year 1871 Mr. Vincent had separated from his wife, and had lived with another woman ever since. Mr. Vincent did not know whether his wife was dead or not, and therefore was debarred from marrying again.

Alice Gillman said: I have lived at Mr. Vincent's for about twelve months, but have never seen anything to make me think the house was used as a brothel. If I had, I should not have stopped in the house. I do not know Rachel Ratcliff, but I know there was someone confined in the house.

Emily Vincent said: I keep the “Gun Hotel” in Strond Street. On the day following the one on which I was here last time the valuation of the house was made, and I have paid £150. I turned the cook out of the house because she got so drunk. When I turned her out she said I was going to have my license and she would do all she could to prevent me from getting it. I have never threatened the cook against coming to Court today. To the best of my ability I have kept the “Gun Hotel” in a respectable manner, and have not kept the house as a brothel.

Josephine Vincent said: I have lived with Mr. Vincent for 12 to 14 years, and since I have been at the “Gun Hotel” I have never to my knowledge allowed prostitutes to go into the house.

The Magistrates, after having been absent from Court for a quarter of an hour, stated that they had decided not to grant the transfer.

Dover Express - Friday 26 October 1900.

In Oct 1900 a fire ‘caused by detective gas fittings broke out in the dining room of the Gun Hotel. It was soon extinguished, the damage being to the furniture and fittings.