Snargate Street
Dover
Earliest mention of this public house I have found at present is from a
list of public houses of 1851 documented at the Dover museum.
The Pout's officiated in 1854. The renewal was refused in 1869 but an
appeal proved successful. It was refused again the following year however
and it never showed again under this title.
From the Dover Chronicle, Saturday November, 1863.
CHARGE OF HARBOURING PROSTITUTES
Richard Burch the landlord of the "Miltary Arms," Snargate Street,
was charged on the information of Police-sergeant Barton with having
knowingly and unlawfully suffered common prostitutes to assemble, and
continue in his house. The defendant's wife attended to answer the
charge; but the Bench said Burch himself must be present, and the case
was adjourned till Monday, for his appearance.
|
Dover Express, Saturday 12 March 1864.
The Robbery at the Military Arms.
Patrick Morgan, a young fellow who had the appearance of a soldier, was
charged with stealing a half of a bullock's head and a jug from the
"Military Arms" public house, Snargate Street, on the 29th February.
The case arose out of the charge before the Bench last week.
Richard Birch, landlord of the "Military Arms" deposed that about 1
o'clock in the morning of the 29th of February he was in his back room,
and, in consequence of hearing a noise in the cellar, he went below, and
their saw the prisoner and Morgan with the soldier Binn, who was
committed to prison the previous week for entering the cellar.
Other evidence of a collaborative nature having been given, the Bench
considered the case proved, and sentenced the prisoner to 14 days' hard
labour.
Suspected Robber at Walmer.
Thomas Finch, Joseph Burrows, and Patrick Morgan, (the man convicted in
the last case,) was brought up and charged on suspicion of stealing two
coats and several other articles, the property of Mr. Humphries, at
Walmer.
Remanded until next Monday.
|
From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday,
19 June, 1868.
ASSAULTING A LANDLORD.
Rosa Huntington, an unfortunate, was charged with drunkenness and
disorderly conduct and with assaulting Mr. Higgins, the landlord of the
"Military Arms" public-house.
Mr. Higgins, on presenting himself before the bench, said he
was quite willing to withdrawer the charge, if defendant would promise
to keep away from his house and abstain from annoying him in future.
Rosa willingly gave the required promise. She said she belonged to
London, whither she was desirous of proceedings as soon as possible. If,
therefore, the Magistrates would discharge her, she would quit the
town forthwith.
The providing magistrate said that upon this understanding she would
be set at liberty.
|
From the Dover Express and East Kent Intelligencer, 16 March, 1861.
ASSAULTING A LANDLADY
William Simmonds, a young man of fashionable though dirty exterior,
who described himself as of no trade or profession, was charged with
having assaulted the complainant, Mrs. Burch, landlady of the "Military
Arms" public house, on the previous night. It appeared that the
defendant, with another man, a suspected card-sharper, entered the
"Military Arms" on the previous evening shortly before midnight and
ordered some beer, which the landlady drew. After discovering that the
rooms of the public house were emptied of customers, defendant and his
friend endeavoured to leave the house without drinking or paying for the
beer they had ordered; but the landlady although having no objection to
their leaving their drinks insisted on their paying for for it, as it
was then too late to expect that any fresh guests would make their
appearance to require it. This request was not complied with, and a
scrummage ensued, and will be seen by the appended evidence.
Charlotte Burch, wife of Richard Burch, examined:- About half-past
seven o'clock last night the defendant came to my house with another
man. They wanted some beer, and I drew them a pint. The other man went
into one of the rooms, but returned again almost directly, saying
"There's no one of any consequence there; we will go." They were then
about leaving the house, when I asked who was going to pay for the beer?
The defendant said he should not. I said, "You must have it now; no one
else will, as it is nearly shutting up time." The men were going out of
the door, but I put up my hand and the defendant's cap came off.
Dr. Astley:- What by accident?
Complainant:- No, I suppose I knocked it off in endeavouring to
prevent him opening the door. The defendant thereupon caught hold of my
hair net, at the same time pulling out a great handful of my hair; my
apron also came off in the struggle; and the defendant, seeing hold of
my hair net and apron, got out of the door. I followed him, and after
asking him in vain to give up the apron and the net I gave him in charge
of police-constable Faith.
By Defendant:- Your cap came off by accident. I had it in my hand - I
picked it up and laid it on the counter.
Faith said he took the complainants hair net and apron from the
defendant, and saw the defendant's cap lying on the bar of the
complainant's house. He saw no blows struck, or anything of that sort.
Witness saw a handful of hair, which Mrs. Burch said had been pulled out
of her head. The defendant at first resisted violently, but he
ultimately went to the station-house quietly. He seemed to have had
plenty to drink, but knew what he was about.
Defendant denied that he had refused to pay for the beer, and
submitted that the complainant was the aggravator in taking his cap; but
as she had done so he took her hair net and apron in exchange, that was
all.
Faith also stated that he ran after the defendant's compassion,
suspecting that he had something about him he had no business with, and
that in making his escape he threw away a pack of cards and some dice,
which he (the officer) produced. A dice box was found on the defendant.
The defendant was fined 10s. and the costs 7s., and in default of
payment was sent to the House of Correction, with hard labour, for seven
days.
|
From the Dover Express and East Kent Intelligencer, 21
December, 1861.
DRUNK AND OBSTRUCTIVE
Matilda Croft, a dissipated looking woman about thirty years of age,
was placed at the bar by police-constable Maxted, who charged her with
obstructing the foot-pavement in Snargate Street in a state of
drunkenness, on the previous Saturday night.
The constable said he was called to go to the "Military Arms"
public-house, Snargate Street, on Saturday night, and on getting there
he found the defendant creating a great disturbance inside the house.
The landlord desired him to assist in putting her out, and he did so.
After he had got her into the street who would not go away, and he
therefore took her into custody.
Mr. Jennings: Did she cause an obstruction of the pavement?
Witness: Yes, Sir, a hundred and fifty people were collected.
Mr. Jennings: You cautioned her as to the consequence of remaining?
Witness: Yes, and she would not go. She also caught hold of
police-constable Conner, who was with me, round the neck. (Laughter.)
Superintendent Corran said he rather thought the disturbance in the
house was the cause of the people assembling outside. In reply to other
questions from the Magistrates he said he knew nothing of the prisoner,
except that she had been summoned on a previous occasion.
After a short conference with the other Justices, the Mayor said the
Magistrates had taken a very merciful view of her offence, which might
have been attended with a good deal of personal inconvenience or expense
to her had they done otherwise. It appeared, however, that this was the
first time she had had to answer such a charge as this, and if she would
promise better behaviour in future -
Defendant: I shall not come here again, your worship.
The Mayor: No, I should hope not. Above all, don't get drunk again.
(A laugh.)
Defendant was then discharged.
|
From the Dover Express and East Kent Intelligencer, 28
March, 1863.
CHARGE OF WILFUL DAMAGE
Patrick Molarty, a private in the 83rd regiment, was charged with
wilfully breaking three panes of glass at the "Military Arms" public
house; but although it was proved that the windows were broken shortly
after the prisoner was seen near to them in the act of swinging his
belt, there was no evidence that it was the prisoner who had broken
them, and he was therefore discharged.
|
From the Dover Express and East Kent Intelligencer, 5
March, 1864.
ROBBERY AT A PUBLIC HOUSE
Thomas Binn and Thomas Hogarth, two soldiers of the 85th Regt., were
charged with entering the premises of Mr. R. Burch at the "Military
Arms," Snargate Street, and stealing there-from a bullock's head, a jug,
and some firewood.
Richard Burch, landlord of the "Military Arms," Snargate Street, said
that about one o'clock the previous morning he was eating his supper,
with his wife, in a back room at his house. His wife went to the bar to
fetch something, when she heard a noise in the cellar. He immediately
went below, and saw there a soldier and a civilian. He told them to get
out of his house, and they got out of the cellar window. Some time
during the previous day he saw a bullock's head hanging in the cellar.
When the soldiers were gone, he missed the bullock's head, a jug, and
some firewood. The taps of the beer casks were turned on. The prisoner
Binn was the soldier he saw in the cellar; and he had previously that
evening seen Binn in the house. The shutters of the house were closed
before eleven o'clock; but he could not say whether or not the cellar
shutters were fastened. The value of the articles missing was 2s.
Charlotte Burch, wife of the last witness, stated that on Monday
morning, about one o'clock, she was taking her supper, and went to the
bar to fetch some beer; but she could not get any, as it was turned off
at the pipes in the cellar. She heard a noise in the cellar, and, in
consequence of what she said, her husband went down into the cellar. She
fastened the house at a quarter to eleven, and barred the cellar
shutters. There was a flap to the cellar window, to which there was no
fastening; and it was very easy to lift up the flap and get in. The
prisoner Binn was the last she let out of the house, and on leaving he
enquired what time the house would be open in the morning, as he wanted
to come in. Shortly after the men were turned out of the cellar, she
missed the meat, jug, and wood.
Mr. Burch, on being recalled, stated, in reply to the Bench, that he
found a shake produced upon a beer barrel in the cellar of the house.
Ann Briggs, servant at the "Military Arms," sad the prisoner Binn
came in about eight o'clock on Monday morning, and remained in the house
during the day. About twelve o'clock a civilian came in, and brought a
bullock's head, which he asked her to "put in the pot." She did so, and
the prisoner Binn and the whole company partook of soup made from it.
Thomas Woodhouse, a corporal of the 85th Regt. It was worn by Thomas
Binn, of No.1 company, 85th Regt.
Police-constable Smith apprehended the prisoner at the "Red
Lion," public-house, St. James's Street, on suspicion of having
entered the "Military Arms."
Police-constable Campany said that about one o'clock on Monday
morning he was on duty in Adrian Street, and saw the prisoner Binn going
up Five Post Lane in company with a civilian, who appeared to be
intoxicated. The prisoner Binn wore no cap or shake, and he saw him drop
a jug, the fragments of which had since been identified by Mrs. Burch
as the jug stolen from her cellar.
The Bench discharged Hogarth, as there was no evidence to implicate
him in the robbery.
The prisoner Binn elected to be tried by the magistrates, but pleaded
guilty, saying that on Sunday night he was in conversation with one of
the girls at the "Military Arms," and as he was leaving she told him he
might come back again to the house. When he returned the door was
locked, and finding the cellar window was open, he got into the cellar,
with a civilian, who said he wanted to get a pot of beer. The landlord
of the house came and told them to get out. He knew nothing of the
bullock's head.
Corporal Woodhouse, in reply to the Bench, said Binn bore an
indifferent character, having just been released from prison after
serving six months' hard labour for a military offence.
The Bench committed Binn to prison for one month, with hard labour.
|
From the Dover Express and East Kent Intelligencer, 21
May, 1864.
ASSAULT
Frederick Brown, a saddler, was charged with assaulting
police-constable Perrott in the execution of his duty on the previous
day. It appeared that there was a disturbance at the "Military Arms"
public-house, caused by the wife of the defendant committing an assault
on the landlady, Mrs. Burch, and on Perrott going to interfere, the
defendant struck him.
The Bench fined defendant 5s. and costs 7s. which he paid.
Mary Ann Brown, wife of the defendant in the last case, for the
assault on Mrs. Burch, was fined in the like amount, which was also
paid.
|
From the Dover Express and East Kent Intelligencer, 22
October, 1864.
PUBLIC HOUSE OFFENCES
William Adams, landlord of the "Military Arms," public-house, situate
in Snargate Street, was charged with infringing his license, but there
being mitigating circumstances in the case, and the house being
generally well conducted, the Magistrates directed that the costs only
should be paid.
|
From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday,
6 August, 1869.
ASSAULTING A WIFE AND SETTING FIRE TO A HOUSE.
Henry Alfred McQuillan, a man who had the appearance of a discharged
soldier, and who, it appeared, was the landlord of the "Military Arms,"
a public-house in Snargate Street, was brought up in the custody of the
police, charged with assaulting his wife and threatening to take her
life, and with wilfully setting fire the bed-clothing of a room of the
house, on the previous evening.
The case arose out of a great disturbance which had taken place at
the "Military Arms" on the previous evening, and which necessitated the
police being summoned. The defendant, it appeared, had assaulted the
wife, whose cries caused a large crowd of people to assemble outside the
house, and on the police getting to the spot it was found that the
defendant had set on fire the clothing of a bed in which it was said one
of his children was sleeping.
Margaret McQuillan, a middle-aged woman, whose face was somewhat
disfigured with recent injuries, described herself as the wife of the
prisoner, and said she was sitting at the bar on the previous evening,
between eight and nine o'clock, when her husband came towards her, and
without any provocation struck her in the face with his fist. He gave
her two blows, and the mark on her cheek was caused by the injury he
inflicted. He had been out all day, drinking, and when this occurred he
was the worse for liquor. From the threats he had uttered the witness
went in fear that he would do her some injury.
The defendant said his wife's statement was greatly exaggerated. he
did not strike her with his fist, and it was not true that he did not
receive provocation. The statement that he had been out all day drinking
was also false. The facts were that he had been out for a week from
about five o'clock until eight, and on his return his wife begun to
abuse him in unmeasured terms. In his irritation he struck her across
the face with his open hand, for which he was very sorry, but he
narrowly escaped getting his head smashed in return, his wife throwing a
pot and a glass at his head in succession. Her conduct in fact was as
bad as his own. He hoped the Magistrates would take this view of the
case and dismiss it. he was in the habit of receiving great provocation
from his wife, but it was not true that he gave her provocation, for he
challenge her to say whether his conduct was not generally kind both to
herself and her children.
Superintendent Coram, in reply to the Magistrates, said there were
frequent disturbances at the "Military Arms," owing to the disagreement
of the complainant and defendant, and the street was sometimes blocked
up by people attracted to the spot out of curiosity.
In reply to another question Mr. Coram said the charge of setting
fire to the premises must be postponed, the agent of the office in which
the property was insured being unavoidably absent.
The magistrates considered the charges of a very serious nature. They
regarded the charge of assault as fully proved, and expressed their
intention of sending the prisoner to gaol for one month, with hard
labour, without the option of a fine, for that offence. The other charge
would stand over.
|
From the Dover Express and East Kent Intelligencer, 16 September, 1870. Price 1d.
THE ANNUAL LICENSING DAY
FRESH APPLICATIONS
Application was made by Mr. Richard G. Beecham (supported by Mr. T.
Lewis) for a licence to be granted to the “Military Arms,” Snargate
Street; but the Magistrates declined to ascend to it on the ground that
there were sufficient public houses in Snargate Street already.
|
LICENSEE LIST
POUT 1854
BURCH Richard 1860-64
ADAMS William 1864+
HIGGINS Mr 1868+
MACQUILLAN or McQUILLAN Henry Alfred 1869+
BEECHAM Richard G Sept/19870 (Application refuced)
From the Dover Express
|