From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 11 February, 1870.

CHARGE AGAINST AN OLD SOLDIER

John Donovan, a pensioner was charged with stealing from the parlour of the "Milestone" public-house a half-guinea, a shilling, 3d. in coppers, and a portemonnaie the property of the landlord, Mr. Cooper, and fanny Back, apparently of the unfortunate class, was charged with receiving the same, knowing it to have been stolen.

Upon the case being called on Mr. Cooper said he should feel very grateful to the Magistrates, if they would permit him to withdraw the charge. The prisoner, he found, was an old soldier and was in receipt of a pension of such an amount (1s. 1d. per day) as showed that he must have eared it by exceptionally good conduct. He was aware that no pension of such an amount was granted, unless the person receiving it had been of the defaulters' book for sixteen years. If this case was proceeded with, and a conviction took place, the prisoner would infallibly lose his pension; and as the prisoner was without a wife, and had a young boy to support, he did not know what would become of him in this event.

The Magistrates enquired if the recommendation applied to both prisoners.

The prosecutor said it did.

The Magistrates after consulting a short time, said they hardly felt satisfied in condoning offences of this kind, and they yielded to the prosecutor's request with some reluctance. It was a sad thing to find a man like the prisoner, who had carried a substantial pension by good conduct in the army, disgracing himself and risking the loss of his income by such an act as he was charged with committing.

Dovovan said he was under the influence of drink at the time. or he should not have committed the offence.

Magistrates said they could hear nothing from him on the subject of the charge. They could only hope that, if the Bench acceded to the prosecutor's request, the prisoner would allow this to operate as a caution; for he might rely upon it that if he fell into the hands of the police again the circumstances would be remembered against him.

The man and the woman were then both discharged.

From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 14 February, 1873.

LICENSING ACT

H. Brown, the landlord of the “Milestone Inn,” Buckland, appeared in answer to a summons charging him with selling a glass of spirits to Patrick Macfadden, a drummer in the 38th Regiment, under sixteen years of age, contrary to the new Licensing Act.

Mr. Worsfold Mowll defended, and Lieutenant Coner watched the case on behalf of the 38th Regiment.

Patrick John Macfadden deposed: I am a drummer in the 38th Regiment of foot, and am fifteen years and six months old. I went out with some other drummers and band-boys on Saturday, the 1st of February. I do not exactly know how many we mustered together, I think there were seven including myself. I remember Vince, Skinner, McEroy, Welsted, Holmes, and Bushell. There might have been some more. We all went into the “Milestone” public house. I stood at the bar for a few minutes and had a glass of beer. I asked the barmaid for two-pennyworth of rum. I said, “A glass of rum please.” The barmaid gave it me. I gave her 2d. for that and 1d. for the beer. I drank the beer myself, and gave Vince, who was standing next to me, the glass of rum. After we had had our drink we went into a room at the back of the bar.

John Vince deposed: I am a band-boy in the 38th Regiment of foot, and am fifteen years and six months old. I was at the “Milestone” public house, Buckland, on the 1st inst., with some other boys named John Skinner, Thomas McEroy, George Welsted, Alfred Bushell, Holmes, and John Macfadden. Some beer and ginger-beer was called for. While I was in the bar, Macfadden called for a glass of rum and a glass of beer. The barmaid served him with both, and he paid for them. He handed the glass of rum to me, and drank the beer himself. I drank the rum. I was not ill before I drank the rum, I was only cold. After I had drunk it, we returned to the tap-room, where we skylarked about for a little while. I afterwards felt sick, and laid down on three chairs. I don't know how long I remained there. Skinner and Bushell remained with me, and they afterwards took me home. I felt very sick when I got home. I did not have a very large glass of rum. I did not drink it all off at once. Macfadden and McEroy were standing beside me when I drank it. I scarcely knew what I was about afterwards.

Lieutenant Conner said he had another witness to corroborate the statements of Macfadden and Vince, if the bench thought it necessary to call him. All he was desirous of proving was that intoxicating liquor was sold to the boys, and he thought that had been done.

Mr. Mowll said that he must deny that intoxicating liquors were sold. The boys simply had a mixture of beer and ginger-beer – “shandygaff” he believed it was called – and Vince had some rum given him because he was ill.

Thomas McEroy, the third witness, was ultimately called. He said: I am a drummer boy in the 38th Regiment of foot. I was at the “Milestone” public house on the afternoon of the 1st instant with some other boys, I had a glass of rum to drink there. The barmaid supplied me with it. I paid her 2d. for it. I called for it myself. I am fifteen years and six months old. I drank it at the bar. It did not make me sick.

This was the case for the prosecution.

Mr. Mowll then addressed the Bench for the defence. He submitted that the boys had only been served with “shandygaff” until Vince complained of being ill, when the landlady, out of kindness, gave him a little rum, thinking that it might perhaps do him good. The statement of Mr. McEroy was quite false. One of the boys certainly had asked the barmaid, Miss Brown, for a glass of rum; but she exercised a wise discretion and would not serve him. No infringement of the Act had been committed. He called Amelia Brown, daughter of the defendant, who remembered serving in the bar on Saturday afternoon, the 1st instant. She served some drummer boys of the 38th with some beer and ginger-beer mixed; and one of the boys, nicknamed by his company “Tommy Dodd,” being taken ill while at the house, Mrs. Brown told witness to give him a glass of rum, and she did so. The glass emptied the decanter, so that no one else could have had rum afterwards. Witness's mother bathed “Tommy Dodd's” head with vinegar and gave him some tea, before sending him home to barracks. He had been sick, and had been lying up on chairs. Witness remembered one of the boys asking her for rum, but she refused him.

In reply to Dr. Astley, witness said she was certain Macfadden was not served with rum or beer. She gave the rum for Vince to a boy named Skinner, who took it into the back room to him. Skinner was the biggest of all the boys in the house.

Evelina Brown, wife of the defendant, corroborated her daughter's statements.

Joseph Pope, a carpenter, said he was standing at the bar of the “Milestone” on the afternoon in question when a drummer boy of the 38th came in and asked the barmaid to serve him with some rum, but she refused him.

The Magistrates retired for a few minutes; and on their return into Court, the Chairman said the bench were of opinion that the law in this case had been infringed, but were inclined to think that there must have been some misunderstanding with regard to the serving of the spirit. Defendant would be fined 20s. and costs.

Defendant paid the fine.

From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 24 October, 1873. Price 1d.

TRANSFER OF THE MILESTONE INN

Mr. Hatton Brown attended before the Bench and stated that he intended to transfer his license of the "Milestone Inn to Mr. William Watson, who had been keeping the "Golden Lion" Canterbury.

Permission was given to Mr. Watson to carry on the business till transfer day.

From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 16 February, 1877. Price 1d.

DISTURBANCE AT A PUBLIC HOUSE

Edward Little was charged with being drunk and disorderly in London Road, Buckland, and with wilfully breaking two panes of glass, the value of 12s., at the “Milestone” public-house.

Police-constable Bowles said: last evening, about ten o'clock, I was passing by the “Milestone” public-house. I was called by Mr. cane to take a man into custody for wilfully breaking two panes of glass. I went in the house and found the prisoner there. He was drunk and very noisy. He said he would not come out for anyone and we had to force him out. After getting him outside I told him to go home and advised the landlord to summons him for the damage. He went towards his home with his wife, and I went in an opposite direction. I had not gone far before my attention was called by two little girls who said the prisoner had returned. I went back and saw him at the bar and he said he would have a glass of beer. I told him if he did not go away I should have to lock him up. He persisted in going in and I took him into custody.

Mr. Benjamin Cane, father of the prosecutor, said; Last night I was at my son's house about ten o'clock. The prisoner was there when I went in. He and another man were using very bad language and I asked them to leave the house. The prisoner was not drunk; I believe he knew perfectly well what he was about. They refused to leave the house and I called the Police-constable and had them removed. The prisoner deliberately pushed his fist through the window of the door. Another window was broken in the bar at the same time which, I believe, was done by the prisoner. The amount of damage done to the two windows is about twelve shillings.

Prisoner: Didn't the other man swear at you?

Witness: Yes, if I knew his name I should have summoned him.

Prisoner: didn't I offer to pay you for the window?

Witness: No, you did not.

Prisoner: I can bring witness to prove it.

Mr. A. Cane, proprietor of the “Milestone,” said the prisoner broke the window in the bar striking at him.

Prisoner said he was after a soldier who had taken hold of him by the neck and that was how the windows were broken.

The Bench ordered him to pay the amount of damage, 12s.; fine, 5s.; and costs, amounting altogether to £1 4s.

Dr. Astley said he considered it a disgraceful position for the defendant to be in.

From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 29 October, 1880. Price 1d.

ASSAULT ON CONSTABLE

William Duffy and James Murray, privates of the 86 Regiment, were brought up charged with stealing from the "Mile Stone Inn," Buckland, one bottle of whisky, value 1s. 6d.,and wilfully breaking two panes of glass, value £2, and with assaulting Police-constable Bayley and Hogben.

Police-constable Bayley said from information he received he went to the "Mile Stone Inn," Buckland at half-past ten the previous evening, and assisted to apprehend the two prisoners for stealing two half-pints of whisky from the public-house. Police-constables Wickham and Suters, and the lately appointed new constable, Hogben, assisted, the latter being assaulted by the prisoners, and is unable to appear today to give evidence. prisoner Duffy is charged with assaulting witness with his belt.

The deputy-superintendent produced the surgeon's certificate, showing that Police-constable Hogben was so injured that he would not be able to give evidence for another week, and he therefore asked for a remand, which was granted.

From the Dover Express and East Kent Intelligencer, 14 February, 1902. Price 1d.

MARX v. ELLAND

This was a claim for 16s. for moving defendant's furniture from Cannon Street to the “Mile Stone Inn,” London Road. There was a counter claim for £1 12s. for damage to the furniture moved.

Plaintiff having stated his case, defendant said in the move a wardrobe was damaged to the extent of 10/-, three pictures were broken, a lamp had part of the bracket wrenched off, a bamboo table was broken, the leg of a flower stand and a music stool damaged, a quilt torn to shreds, and some bedding damaged by being made dirty. He complained about this on December 9th to plaintiff.

Plaintiff said he did not take the work on at a rate which included being responsible, but at the owners risk. They had made hundreds of removals without any complaints. They only charged 2/- an hour for two men and a horse.

His Honour: Do you suggest you can do what you like?

Plaintiff: Certainly not! I deny there was any damage. I had nothing said to me about the damage when I took the bill a few days afterwards. He told me to call again. Being laid up some weeks, it was left, and then when I called again he said the work was unsatisfactory, and I could County Court him for the money.

William Barton, one of the men who assisted the move, said the only thing broken was a picture, and another man, Terry, gave similar evidence.

His Honour gave judgement for 16/- on the claim, and 2/- Court fees, and for £1 2s. and fees on the counter claim.

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

PUBLIC HOUSE PROSECUTION SERVING BEER TO A BOY

At the Dover Petty Sessions this morning, before J. L. Bradley, F. W. Prescott, and M. Pepper, Esqrs., the landlord of the “Milestone Inn,” London Road, George Ravenhill, was summoned for selling beer to be taken off the premises not in a sealed container, to a boy named William Croft, under 14 years of age. Mr. Reginald Knocker appeared to prosecute, and Mr. Rutley Mowll for the defence.

Police-sergeant Hambrook, who saw the boy bringing the mug from the house, said he did not look more than ten years old, so he took him back to the house, when Ms. Ravenhill said she served the boy every day in the same way, and that he had told her his age was 14 years.

The mother of the boy, who is French was called and through an interpreter she admitted that the boy was but ten years old, but he was tall for his age.

The Magistrates said that they would like to see the boy, and hear his evidence, and as he had gone on holiday to Calais, the case was adjourned for a week for his attendance.

From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 19 August, 1904. Price 1d.

PUBLIC HOUSE PROSECUTION

George Ravenhill, holder of the license of the “Milestone,” London Road, was summoned for unlawfully selling beer to William Croft, under the age of 14 years, not in a sealed vessel.

Mr. Reginald Knocker, on behalf of the Town Clerk, appeared to prosecute, and Mr. Rutley Mowll appeared for the defendant, who pleaded not guilty.

Police-sergeant H. J. Hambrook said: At 1.15 p.m. on Sunday, 7th July, I was in London Road, when I saw a boy, William Croft, leave the “Milestone Inn” carrying a jug. I asked what was in it, and he said beer. On being asked how old he was, he first said nine and then ten. He said he was served with the beer by the landlady.

Mr. Rutley Mowll questioned whether this was evidence against his client, it being stated in his absence.

The bench said that they would take it in another form.

Witness continued: I did not think that the boy was older than ten. I took the boy to the public house, and I said to the landlady, “You served this boy with some beer.” She replied, “Yes, he is 14, he comes here every day for beer.” I asked her if she had asked the boy his age, and she said she had. The boy said, “You haven't.” I told her I should report the matter. I then took the boy to his home at 23, Bartholomew Street.

Cross-examined. The landlady volunteered the information that the boy came every day for beer. I believe the boy is French, but he speaks very good English. He easily understood what I said. I did not know he was French until I took him home. I saw that the jug contained beer.

George Ravenhill, in reply to Mr. Mowll, said: I did not serve the boy on the day in question. I was downstairs at the time. I remember when the boy first came to my house about four months ago. The boy on that occasion came in and asked for a pint of porter, I said, “Hello, sonny, are you 14?” and he said, “Yes, yes.” Of course I took it for granted, and I served him. The boy being rather a tall boy I took him for 14. On that occasion when the boy first came to my house a Mr. Gann was present.

Cross-examined: I took the boy at first to be English, but from the way he pronounced his words I thought he was French. I thought he was 14 when I first saw him, and I put the question to make certain.

Mabel Elizabeth Ravenshill, the wife of the defendant, said: I know the boy Croft. I think it was about four months ago that he first came to our house. I have asked him his age, but not on the last occasion. On the day when I first served him I said, “How old are you?” He did not answer. I then said, “Are you 14?” and he replied, “Yes, yes.” I took it that he was 14. We have sealing wax and labels for sealing down vessels in serving children, and if I had doubted his word I should have put the beer in a bottle and sealed it down. It was porter that the boy had on Sunday.

Cross-examined: I have several times asked the boy his age.

By the Court: I never knew the boy's parents until yesterday, not where the beer was to go to.

The Court suggested that the boy should be called.

Mr. R. Knocker said that he was sorry the boy was not present, but he had gone across the water.

Mr. Rutley Mowll thought that the prosecution ought to call the boy. He said that he had advised his client to get the boy to give evidence, but when they applied to the parents the mother said that the boy had gone to France. The mother had told then that she asked the plain clothed constable who served the summons if it was necessary to have the boy present as he had to go to France, and he said it was not necessary for the boy to stay.

Mr. Mowll said that the boy's mother was present, but she was French and would need an interpreter.

In reply to the Bench, the boy's mother, interpreted by her daughter, said that the boy had come to Calais, and he went last Sunday morning.

In reply to the Bench the mother said that the man who served the summons was asked if the boy would be wanted as he was going to France for a holiday, and he said, “Let the boy go; he will not be wanted.”

By the Bench: How old is the boy?

Witness: Ten, but he is very tall.

Mr. Bradley: The boy ought to be produced.

Mr. Mowll: I think it most desirable, but the onus lies on the Police. I, as representing the defendant, should not be called upon to prove the case of the other side, but in his absence the defendant ought not to be convicted.

Mr. Bradley: We will adjourn the case for a week.

Mr. Knocker said he would do his best to secure the attendance of the boy next Friday.

There was also a summons against the mother for sending the boy for the beer, and that was adjourned also.

From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 19 August, 1904. Price 1d.

THE MILESTONE CASE

This case, in which the landlord of the “Milestone Inn,” London Road, was summoned for selling beer in an unsealed vessel to a boy under 14 years of age, was further heard. The boy who fetched the beer was called, and he stated that he did not understand what was said to him when asked if he was 14, but he said, “Yes, yes.” The Bench said they had decided to dismiss the case. It was a very proper one for the Police to have brought, and they thought the landlord might have used a little more discretion, but there was doubt, and they gave the benefit of it to the defendant.

The mother of the boy was summoned for sending her boy for the beer, but as she was French and did not understand the law, the case was dismissed on paying the costs, 6/-.

From the Dover Express and East Kent News, 11 February, 1910.

DOVER LICENSING SESSIONS

THE MILESTONE.

In respect to this house, notices had been served of objections to the license on the grounds of redundancy.

Mr. Rutley Mowll appeared for the brewers and the tenant.

Chief Constable Fox said; The Milestone is a fully licensed house situated in London Road. The owners are Messrs. George Beer and Co., Canterbury. The present tenant is Edwin Stock. It was transferred to him on the 7th August, 1908. There have been six changes in eight years. The rateable value is gross £24, net £19 5s. The licensed house in the immediate neighbourhood are the "Rose and Crown," 61 yards, the "Crown" beerhouse, 132 yards. The frontage of the house is 13ft. 8in., the accommodation front bar, bar parlour, and private room on the ground floor, the kitchen in the basement, and upstairs three bedrooms. It is next to the Wesleyan Schools. I visited the house at 10.50 a.m. on Thursday, 20th January, and found no customers. At 3.05 on Monday, January 24th, I found no customers. At 9.30 a.m. on Saturday, January 29th, I found no customers. At 6.50 p.m. on Thursday, February 3rd, I found one customer.

Cross-examined: Do you really consider your evidence as to the number of customers is of value having regard to the carefully selected times of visiting the house? - I visited it morning, afternoon, and evening.

But look at the time of the week; there is no visit to the house on either Friday or Saturday afternoon or evening? - No, I did not know any reason why I should go here then.

You did not go when there was any chance of wages being left? - I went on Monday afternoon.

When people aught to be at work? - I visited it four times. I did not think it fair to go there on a Saturday evening.

THE DECISION.

The Mayor at once said: The Bench have come to the conclusion that the four licenses ought to go forward. Of course we quite appreciate the eloquence of our friend, Mr. Mowll, and if it were a question of dealing with a matter from one of sentiment, it might have been decided otherwise. We have a very difficult question to deal with, and the decision we have come to must have regard to the question of redundancy in the neighbourhood. before even this case went to Court great care was taken that those houses which we really believed are redundant, are those that come before the Court, and I think the Bench in this case are of the opinion that all these houses are in that category, and that it is important to do otherwise than to send the four cases to be dealt with by the Quarter Sessions.

The licenses were provisionally renewed pending the decision of Quarter Sessions.