From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 16 February, 1906. Price 1d.

OBJECTION TO THE LORD ROBERTS

The objection to the license of the “Lord Roberts” on the ground that in the interests of the public it was unnecessary was next taken. The landlord was George Sanders, and Mr. Mercer appeared for the tenant and owner.

Inspector Fox said that the house had a back entrance to Commercial Quay, and it was opposite the Shaft. Mr. Sanders had held the license since March 1889. It was first called the “Sir Garnet Wolseley,” then the “Lord Wolseley” and then the “Lord Roberts.”

Mr. Mercer: Such is popularity. (Laughter.)

Inspector Fox then went on to describe the number of licensed houses in the vicinity, as given in the last case.

Cross-examined by Mr. Mercer: The house was very straight in front of the Shaft.

You said you considered a church on the opposite side rather than against a house?

Yes.

Do you consider the position as far as the Shaft is concerned against, or in favour of the trade?

The house is frequently used by soldiers.

The Magistrates' Clerk: The Wesleyan Church is on the opposite side of the road. (Laughter.)

Mr. Mercer, with astonishment: It must be very small. I failed to mention it. (Laughter.)

You said what was said last year in the Court of Appeal. That there must be a beginning somewhere. I do not know whether you read the case. The Court of Appeal said that was not a good reason. Do you know that the law laid down by the Court of Appeal is that there must be evidence called to differentiate houses?

I have not read that.

Witness in reply to further questions said that if it were called upon to choose the house to be opposed, the trade done and the number of changes would the location be considered? The present tenant had been in the house twenty years. He did not know the previous tenant had been there 11 years but he knew he had been there a good many years. He did not think he could point to a house in that block that had had a tenant one tenth of that time. He did not think he had heard that one of the house in the block, during the last 18 years had changed hands 20 times, but some of them had changed very frequently.

Mr. Mercer suggested that the “Mitre” changed hands from 15 to 16 times during the last 20 years and on witness examining the register, he said it had changed hands 16 times since 1888. he also found that the “Ordnance” had changed 14 times since 1882.

In reply to further questions, witness said that he was afraid he could not point to many tenants of practically 20 years standing in Dover. He had, however, been in trouble in 1894. Years ago the house had been a source of trouble to the Police, and it had been out of bounds to the Military once.

Mr. Sanders said that was 12 years ago.

Mr. Mercer, in addressing the Magistrates, said that he was not going to suggest that there were too many houses in Dover. The state of trade during the last few years was a remarkable one. The returns just come out, showed that since the War tax in 1889, the beer trade had fallen one eighth, and the spirit trade one fifth throughout the whole of England, due to the lesser spending power of the people, or to the efforts of the Temperance party, although he attributed it more to the former reason. Referring to the Drinkwater case recently decided by the Court of Appeal he urged that no sufficient reason had been shown for the Magistrates to refuse to renew the license, especially in view of the fact that there had only been two tenants in 30 years; and this house, moreover, had in fact, during the last year, increased its trade by about 20 barrels, and he would ask the Magistrates to say that from the position of this house, and in consequence with others, that there was a public need for this house to me maintained.

THE MAGISTRATES DECISION

After a short consultation in private, the Magistrates turned to the Bench. The Chairman said “The following houses will be referred to the Kent Compensation Committee of the Quarter Sessions in due form: The “William and Albert,” The “Three Compasses,” the “Wellesley Inn,” the “Old Commercial Quay,” the “Duke of York,” and the “Half Moon.” The licenses for these houses will run until the time when the compensation is paid, and then the licences will cease. With respect to the “Devonshire Arms” and the “Lord Roberts,” and the “Nottingham Castle,” they will be withdrawn from the list.- These licences will be renewed in the ordinary way.

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

DOVER LICENSING SESSIONS

The objection to the licence of the “Lord Roberts” was then taken. No one appeared in respect to the house.

The Chief Constable said that it was a beer house, owned by Messrs. Flint and Co., and the tenant was James Broadbridge, it having been transferred to him on June 7th, 1912. The house had an entrance from Commercial Quay. Its rateable value was £25 gross, nett £20. The licensed houses in the immediate neighbourhood were the “Mitre,” (13 yards), the “York House,” (54 yards), and the “Ordnance” (76 yards); on the Commercial Quay, the “New Commercial Quay Inn,” (7 yards) the “Standard” (31 yards), the “Golden Anchor” (31 yards), the “Union” (53 yards), the “Barley Mow” (62 yards). After describing the accommodation of the house, Chief Inspector Lockwood said that he served the notice on January 23rd. He visited the house on Wednesday, January 22nd, at 3 p.m., and there were no customers; and the same occurred on subsequent visits on the 23rd January, 10.35 a.m.; 27th January, 12.20 p.m.; 29th January, 7.55 p.m.; 30th January, 5.25 p.m.; and 31st January, 9.40 p.m.

The licence was sent for compensation.