From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday 22 January, 1886. 1d.

On Tuesday evening, a supper was given at the “Marquis of Waterford Inn,” Union Row, by Mr. J. Collard, of Alkham to his Dover customers. The spread was an excellent one, the room prettily decorated, and the evening passed off very pleasantly.

From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 31 July, 1891. Price 1d.

PUBLIC HOUSE PROSECUTIONS

Naomi Finden, landlady of the “Marquis of Waterford,” Union Row, was summoned for keeping her house open during prohibited hours, on Sunday, July 12th.

Mr. E. W. Knocker appeared to prosecute, and Mr. M. Mowll defended.

Two Constables gave evidence in support of the charge, and there were a number of witnesses for the defence.

A fine of £5 was eventually imposed, the license to be endorsed.

Mr. Newby (clerk of Messrs. Mowll and Mowll) gave notice of appeal.

From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 28 August, 1891. Price 1d.

DOVER LICENSING SESSIONS

THREE ENDORSED LICENSES

Objections being taken to the “Mariners' Arms,” (otherwise known as the Khedive), both by the Watch Committee and the Temperance Party, it stood over till the end, as did also the “Marquis of Waterford” for the same reason, and the “Northampton Arms.”

THE TEMPERANCE OPPOSITION

The Magistrates' Clerk said the Magistrates would next proceed to consider the objections to the houses standing over.

THE MARQUIS OF WATERFORD

Mr. Knocker: I oppose in this case on behalf of the Watch Committee.

Mr. Knowles: I oppose also.

Mr. Mowll: I appear for the owner and the occupier.

The Clerk to the Magistrates: Counsel have pre-audience.

Mr. Knocker: But perhaps in this case I may be allowed to be heard first as I am about to apply for an adjournment.

Mr. Knowles: I have no objection.

Mr. Knocker: The ground on which I ask for pre-audience is that I am going to ask for an adjournment. I have been instructed by the Watch Committee to oppose the renewal of the whole of the licenses which have been endorsed, but in this particular case I ask for an adjournment, because notice of appeal has been given against the conviction, and endorsement; therefore, the case being subjudice, I suppose that there should be an adjournment until after the Quarter Sessions which the Recorder has agreed to hold earlier so that this matter may be settled before the end of September.

Mr. Knowles thought it best to proceed with the case.

Mr. Mowll, on behalf of his client, strongly objected to the adjournment. He was fully prepared to go into the case on its merits at once.

The Magistrates retired to consider the point, and on returning to Court the Mayor said that they had determined to go on with the case.

Mr. Knocker: then, as far as I am concerned, I must withdraw from the opposition.

Mr. Knowles: As far as I am concerned I shall go into it.

The notices of objection were formally proved.

Mr. Wilkie was called to prove that he signed the notice.

Being cross-examined by Mr. Mowll he said he did not think that this license was required.

The record of the conviction was put in, to the effect that the house was open from 8 a.m. till 10 a.m. on Sunday, the 12th of July last, and that the conviction was endorsed on the license.

Mr. Mark Knowles said he must submit that this was a case in which the Magistrates ought to exercise their power, and refuse this license. He could not see what the appeal had to do with the matter. The Magistrates had absolute discretion and power in the matter. It was a gross case, a person was seen going backwards and forwards seven times on a Sunday morning in this house.

Mr. Mowll objected that there had been no evidence of this.

Mr. Knowles said that it had been clearly proved before the Bench in July.

Mr. Mowll objected to the learned Counsel making a speech on matters not given in evidence.

Mr. Knowles said he was only refreshing the judicial memory by mentioning things within their own knowledge.

Mr. Mowll then addressed the Bench, after which he called Mr. Archibald Wilson, who said he had known Mr. and Mrs. Findon for 25 years. They bore a good character. He did not know anything about the house because he never went there, but he never heard anything against it before.

The decision in this case was reserved.

The Mayor said: I will now read the decisions of the Magistrates in the following cases:-

The “Marquis of Waterford,” license granted.

From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 28 October, 1904. Price 1d.

PUBLIC HOUSE TRANSFERS

Mr. Mowll applied for the transfer of the licence of the "Marquis of Waterford" from Mr. Thompson to Mrs. Friend, late of the "Criterion." he said that Mr. Thompson went in three months ago, and an application would not have been made in the ordinary way within at least nine months. Mr. Thompson, who had the best of recommendations, had had some domestic trouble and the brewers thought that in order that the house might be conducted properly, the application for the transfer of the licence should be made.

The Magistrates said that under the circumstances it would be granted.

From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 6 January, 1911.

PUBLIC HOUSE SCENE

(Before M. Pepper (in the chair) and E. Chitty, Esqrs., Captain R. B. Cay, R.N.)

Mrs. Adelaide West, living at Mount Pleasant, was charged with wilfully breaking a plate window, at the "Marquis of Waterford" public house, Union Row, doing damages to the amount of £1 18s. 6d., the property of Mrs. Bourner, the licensee.

The prosecutrix stated that she kept the "Marquis of Waterford" in Union Row. About 10 o'clock on Wednesday evening the prisoner came into her house alone. She had nothing to drink, but taking the cap of a man who was singing outside the door, went into the parlour to collect money for him. The prisoner's husband was in the front bar, and witness told her he wanted her. She left the parlour, and went round to her husband, who she found did not want her. She then became violent and went outside, but about ten minutes later she came back and smashed a window with the matchstand (produced), which she must have got from another public house. She came into the house and taking some glasses off the counter threw them at the witness, although none actually struck her, some smashing against the wall. The police came and arrested the woman, and subsequently witness charged her at the police station. She did not appear to have had much drink, and had none at all in witness's house. A glazier had valued the window at £1 18s. 6d.

Cross-examined, witness said she did not remember the prisoner asking for permission to go round with the hat. She had not been in the house previously that evening.

The prisoner alleged that Mrs. Bourner was drunk at the time and could not remember.

Polices constable Standford said that on Wednesday evening about 10.30, while in the Market Square, he was called to the "Marquis of Waterford," where he saw the landlady, Mrs. Bourner who told him a woman had broken a pane of glass in the bar. The prisoner was standing in the roadway with several others. She came to him and said, “I broke the window.” She was under the influence of drink, but not sufficiently so to justify her being charged with drunkenness. Mrs. Bourner gave her in charge, and be brought her to the police station. When cautioned and charged she replied, “I broke the window.” When she was being put into the cells, she told witness that she took her boot off and broke the window with that.

In reply to the Bench, the witness said Mrs. Bourner seemed worried and agitated, and complained that a woman had called for a glass of beer, and that on her refusing to serve her, the woman went outside and broke a window. Mrs. Bourner appeared to be considerably upset by the row.

Mr. Chitty (on the Bench): Was Mrs. Bourner herself sober?

She was.

Chief Constable Fox said he was not present when Mrs. Bourner charged the woman at the police station, but he had had no complaints from his officers that the prosecutrix was otherwise than sober.

Lawrence West, the defendant's husband, who is a labourer, and desired to give evidence on his wife's behalf, said his wife and he went into the Marquis of Waterford about 7 o'clock on Wednesday evening. He had several drinks, his wife had a drink, and he also treated the company present. He and his wife were in the house for two hours, during which time his wife asked Mrs. Bourner's permission for a man to sing. After the song was over witness's wife went round with the man's hat, again by Bourner's consent, and collected 6½d. She afterwards came up to him and said Mrs. Bourner had told her he wanted her. He replied that he did not want her, and she then picked up a glass with the intention, he believed, of throwing it at him. He put his arm up to protect himself and the glass was knocked over the counter. Two or three people came to his assistance and some glasses got knocked off the counter and smashed. He then took hold of his wife and she went quickly with him home. He supposed his wife must have gone back to the house again if she broke the window. The witness added that Mrs. Bourner was under the influence of drink, as she often was.

The Chairman said that was nothing to do with it, Mrs. Bourne was not charged with drunkenness.

The witness farther alleged that he had heard Mrs. Bourner had to be escorted down to give evidence there.

The Chairman said that was not what the witness knew himself and he must not say it.

Addressing the prisoner, the Magistrate said that she had admitted breaking the window, so she might as well plead guilty.

The prisoner expressed her sorrow for what had occurred, and hoped the Bench would take a lenient view of the case. She said she had not had any drink for some time.

Chief Constable Fox said the prisoner had never been before the Magistrates previously to his knowledge. The police had a little trouble with her some time ago, when she tried to give a female prisoner, who was being escorted to Canterbury, a bottle of spirits. The officer refused to allow it, and she then used very bad language and made herself very obnoxious. He added that the neighbourhood was a very difficult one for a person who endeavoured to keep a public house. in a respectable and straightforward manner. If a woman did not rule the house with a firm hand she was liable to all sorts of allegations being made against her. He discussed the Marquis of Waterford with the brewers, and he having known Mrs. Bourner for a long time, they decided the might get along there all right. She had previously held the licence of the Rose for many years, and also a house at East Cliff, and had conducted both satisfactorily.

The Chairman said the prisoner would be fined 50s. or in default 21 days' imprisonment, no time being allowed for payment.

The defendant and her husband said they were unable to pay, and the woman was taken below, the Chairman remarking that if the fine were paid she would be released.

The prisoner: Good morning, Mrs. Bourner.

From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 2 February, 1912.

PUBLIC HOUSE SCENE

Sarah Ann Collins described as a flower seller, was charged with wilfully breaking a plate-glass panel in the door of the “Marquis of Waterford,” Union Row, doing damage to the amount of 16s. 8d.

Mrs. Christine D. Bourner, the licensee, stated that the defendant entered the bar of Saturday evening and called for a glass of ginger beer. She did not drink it but went out of the house. She returned in a few minutes and picked up a glass from the counter, she threw it at the door window and smashed it. Defendant was the worse for drink, but she left the house quietly, being subsequently arrested by the Police.

Defendant pleaded guilty and asked for leniency. She promised to sign the pledge.

It was stated the defendant was fined only in December last for common assault.

The Bench imposed a fine of 25s., this including the amount of the damage. A fortnight was allowed for payment, in default 14 days' imprisonment.

From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday 5 July, 1912.

MORE WINDOWS SMASHED

At the Dover Police Court on Saturday morning, before Messrs. P. W. J. Mackenzie (in the chair) G. C. Rubie and L. Bradley.

Henry Godden was charged with breaking a plate class window in the "Marquis of Waterford," Union Row, to the value of 16s. 8d., the property of Christina Bourner.

Christina Bourner said: Last Saturday, about 9 p.m. prisoner came into the bar under the influence of drink. I refused to serve him because I considered he had had enough. He then tried to make a disturbance, so I put him outside. The next thing I heard was a smash, and I went outside and saw the window broken and the prisoner going up the hill.

Ellen E. Lawrence said: I live at 9, Blucher Street. Last evening I was coming up the hill with two children. I saw the prisoner pick up  stone and throw it at the window, the stone rebounded. Prisoner then threw another, and this smashed the window.

The Chairman said in 1908, the prisoner was charged with breaking the same window, and he would be sent to Canterbury for one month's imprisonment, with hard labour.

From the Dover Express and East Kent News, 5 February, 1915.

SANITARY ACCOMMODATION

Mr. Mowll appeared in the case of the "Marquis of Waterford."

The Chief Constable said that that was a case which he was placing before the Court against his own opinion. In that case the urinal and W.C. accommodation was placed at the back and people wishing to use them would have to go through the  living room or sitting room of the occupier to use it. In his report to the justices he stated fully that all places of accommodation could be used on application to the tenant or attendants. He was of opinion that the accommodation there was quite sufficient for the public need. if the lavatory was placed at the disposal of the public in his opinion it would be grossly abused and would be likely to be damaged every day. The people using the house lived in the neighbourhood and there was amply accommodation at their own houses.

Mr. Mowll said that he was informed that the tenant had been there ten years and had only had five applications for the use of the closet during the whole of that time.

The Chairman said that with regard to the "Town Arms" they would adjourn that matter until the adjourned meeting. He did not think there would be very much difficulty about it, but the Magistrates took an interest in those matters and it was just as well that they should do so. With regard to the "Marquis of Waterford" and the "Marquis of Anglesey" they did not see how they could go behind the statement made by their officer and the licences would be renewed.

From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 18 June, 1915. Price 1d.

MARQUIS OF WATERFORD PROSECUTED

At the Dover Police Court this (Friday) morning, before Messrs. M. Pepper (in the chair), H. Hobday, A. Clark, and Dr. Wood.

Elizabeth Ratcliffe, an unfortunate, was charged with being drunk in the “Marquis of Waterford,” Union Row, on June, 9th.

Defendant pleaded guilty.

Mr. Vosper prosecuted.

P.C. Kingsmill said that on the 9th he was searching for defendant who was wanted on a warrant. He found her in the bar of the “Marquis of Waterford,” drunk and improperly dressed. She went to a house near by to put her clothes on before coming to the Police Station. She was in company with a woman named Collins, who was also drunk.

The defendant said she had been out all night and had a drink of brandy. She went into the house and got some ale. She kept going in and out of the house waiting for her brother, but she did not have any more drink.

It was stated that she was being arrested at the time to be taken to Canterbury. She had been convicted nineteen times.

Defendant was fined 5s.

Sarah Ann Collins, of Radnor Street, Folkestone was summoned for a similar offence.

Defendant pleaded not guilty.

Mr. Vosper prosecuted.

Police-sergeant Fox said that on the 9th he visited the “Marquis of Waterford,” at 7.40 p.m. the defendant was there drunk, leaning against the partition of the Public Bar. He called the attention of the licensee to the woman's condition. The defendant was having an altercation with a man and another woman in the bar. The landlady at his suggestion asked her to leave. She said, Not until I have finished my beer which I have bought and paid for.” She held up a half pint glass filled with beer. She asked the landlady if she had served her with the beer. She replied, “No, my daughter-in-law, who was in charge of the bar when the defendant came in must have served her.” He told the landlady that she would be reported. The defendant left the premises at his request. She refused to give her name and address and he took her to the Police Station.

Defendant denied being drunk, saying she only went to four houses and four glasses would not make her drunk.

P.C. Kingsmill said that at 7 p.m. the same day he saw the defendant there when he went on the other case. She was drunk and came out with Ratcliffe, and would not go away till he cautioned her.

Defendant was fined 10s., or seven days in default.

Christina Dunn Bourner, who did not attend. “Mr. Rutley Mowll, who appeared for she stating that she was not well enough). Was summoned for permitting drunkenness at the “Marquis of Waterford,” of which she was the holder of the licence.

Mr. Vosper prosecuted.

P.C. Kingsmill repeated the evidence he had given in regard to Ratcliffe and Collins.

In reply to Mr. Mowll, witness said he went to the “Marquis of Waterford” in search of Ratcliffe. She recognised witness.

Chief Constable Fox said that on the 9th inst., he went to the Police Station and found the last witness there with Ratcliffe. She was too drunk to send to Canterbury that night.

Cross-examined. Mrs. Bourner and her husband before her had held licenses in Dover for twenty-five years without a conviction. When Mrs. Bourner went in, although the house was in a rough neighbourhood, no objection was made to her holding it owing to her character. She was now too old to manage it.

Mr. Mowll said that after a person had been in a house for so many years he was sure that the Magistrates would hesitate to record a conviction against her in the evening of her life. No doubt she was too old to manage the house now and that would be communicated to the brewers. He suggested that the case should be dismissed on the payment of the costs so as not to besmirch her record and on the understanding that she should leave the house.

The Magistrates fined the defendant £1 including costs.

Mr. Vosper withdrew a second summons for selling drink to a drunken person.