From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 29 March, 1867.

John Ulrick Weidmann, the keeper of a refreshment house in Northampton Street was charged with having on his premises for sale quantities of wine, spirits, and compounds, and not possessing a license.

Mr. Clarke, for defendant, pleaded ignorance of the law.

Defendant was mulcted in one forth of the full penalty, amounting to £12 10s. the Bench sanctioning his application to the Excise authorities for a further reduction in the penalty.

From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 8 January, 1869.

WILFUL DAMAGE.

Thomas Knight was charged with wilfully damaging the door of the "Northampton Arms," Northampton Street, kept by Mr. John Weidman.

It appeared from the statement of Mr. Weidman that the prisoner knocked at his door about one the same morning and asked for a glass of beer. The landlord told him it was too late for him to be served, and locked the door. The prisoner thereupon burst open the door, and taking hold of a bar which was placed across, struck the landlord with it.

The Magistrates fined the defendant 2s. 6d., in addition the amount of the damage, 5s., and the costs, 6d. In default, seven days' imprisonment.

The defendant went to prison.

From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 10 June, 1870.

THE CONTAGIOUS DISEASES ACTS.

Mary Ann Godden, a woman of the town, was summoned to show cause why she should not present herself for examination, under the Contagious Diseases Act.

Mr. Fox appeared in support of the prosecution, and Mr. Delasaux, of Canterbury, for the defence.

Mr. Fox, in addressing the Court, reminded the Magistrates that it was not their province to determine whether the Acts were wise or politic; but that, if they were satisfied that the defendant came under the denomination of "common prostitute," it would be be their duty to make the order sought.

William Capon: I am an inspector of the metropolitan police, and the inspector appointed under the Contagious Diseases Acts for the district. I have good cause for believing that the defendant is a common prostitute. During the last fourteen days she has been residing at 16, Hartley Street. Previous to that she was in prison for neglecting to present herself under the provisions of the Act. Since the prisoner's discharge from gaol I have seen her nightly in the company of various men, at different public-houses and beer-house. On the 30th May I visited the "Old Post Office" public-house at 11.45 p.m. There were fifteen prostitutes including the defendant, and several man-of-war's men, some dancing. At 12.05 on the 31st, the defendant left the house, walked down Snargate Street, and there met a seafaring man, whom she accompanied to the "Northampton Arms," Pentside, and went upstairs into a bedroom.

Mr. Delasaux: You saw all this?

Witness: Yes, I followed them, and went upstairs. I state nothing but what I saw.

Examination continued: She remained there till 12.32 with the man, and then came downstairs and went out. Since that - as late as last night - I have seen her in company with other men. I may add that, after she left prison, she attended for examination, but she objected to sign the voluntary submission.

Dr. Astley: Is it necessary she should sign that?

Witness: It is, under the provision of the Act.

Examination continued: She attended on the 24th May; but she was not examined, as she declined to sign the submission. I have laid this information under instructions from the Commissioner of Police.

By Mr. Delasaux: I have been in Dover since the 5th of January last. At the public-house the defendant was assembled with other prostitutes. She did not commit prostitution with other prostitutes - there is no charge of that nature; but I saw her in a bedroom, with a man, at a house of accommodation. I do not know the nature of the accommodation in this particular room - whether it has a bed or only a couch. A constable was outside the door of the public-house, and saw the woman leave the house. He did not see what I saw in the bedroom. That rests on my testimony alone.

George Crux: I have been in Dover since the 8th January, and within fourteen days prior to the 3rd June I observed the defendant's conduct. I have seen the defendant in the company of various men. On the morning of the 31st May I saw he go into the "Northampton Arms." Prior to that I had seen her with a man in Snargate Street, in whose company she went into the public-house, and I saw her afterwards come out of the public-house with the same man. She afterwards went down Snargate Street; and I do not know what became of her.

By Mr. Delasaux: I have seen the defendant dancing and drinking in public-houses with various men; and I have afterwards seen her with other men. From these circumstances, and the facts now described I conclude her to be a common prostitute.

In reply to Dr. Astley Inspector Capon said that if the defendant had signed the voluntary submission she would have not been summoned.

Alderman Rees: That is, if she had registered herself as a common prostitute?

The Inspector: She is registered a common prostitute already. She has been in prison for refusing to be examined.

This being the case, Mr Delasaux submitted that, although Capon had sworn he was an inspector, he had not proved the fact to the Bench, and he held that, under the act, this was necessary. The appointment itself must be produced, or the copy of the London Gazette containing it.

The objection was over-ruled by the Bench, and the Magistrates' Clerk pointed out that the section of the act which Mr. Delasaux referred to related to the medical inspector, and not the inspector of police. It was necessary that the appointment of the medical inspector should be formally proved by the production of the appointment, or the of the Gazette; but this did not apply to the police officer.

The magistrates then retired to consider their decision; and on their return into Court Dr. Astley said that the majority had come to the conclusion that the case was proved, and that it was their duty to make the required order. They ordered, therefore, that the defendant should submit herself to examination for the space of three months. Dr. Astley explained that the Bench had made the term as short as possible so that the defendant might have every opportunity to abandon her course of life. If she resolved to do so every opportunity would be afforded her of entering a reformatory.

Mary Ann Whiting was summoned for a similar offence; but she was unable to attend, a medical certificate to that effect being put in, and the case was adjourned for a fortnight.

From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 24 June, 1870.

THE CONTAGIOUS DISEASES ACTS.

The case of Mary Ann Whiting, the prostitute summoned to show cause why she should not submit to examination under the Contagious Diseases Act, was resumed; but neither the defendant nor any person on her behalf was in attendance.

Evidence was given to show that, although the defendant did not attend on the day when the case was set down for hearing, in consequence of ill-health, she was found in a public-house on the following evening.

Inspector Capon gave evidence showing that the defendant was given up to prostitution, and the Magistrates made the necessary order for three months.

From the Dover Express and East Kent Intelligencer, 24 February, 1871. Price 1d.

INFRINGEMENT OF LICENSE

Ulrick Weidman, landlord of the "Northampton Arms," charged with keeping his house open at an unlawful time, was fined 20s., and costs.

From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 1 September, 1871. Price 1d.

CHARGE OF ROBBERY

Andrew Kohn, a seaman belonging to a vessel called the “Saucy Jack,” lying in the harbour, was charged with stealing, from a box in the bedroom of Mary Ann McDonald, a woman of the town, residing at Medway Cottages, 7s. in silver, a brooch, and an elastic waist-belt.

Mary Ann McDonald said she was a single woman, and resided at 3, Medway Cottages: On Saturday night she met the prisoner, and he accompanied her to her lodgings. She had in a box there 7s. in money, tied in the corner of a handkerchief, a brooch, and a waist-belt. Shortly after they had got into her room the prisoner asked her to go and get some beer. She said she thought the public-houses were all closed, but she did not mind trying; and she accordingly went out. She was absent a short time, and when she returned she met the prisoner descending the stairs; and she heard the chink of money. She suspected that she had been robbed, and on entering her bedroom she went straight to her box, and found that the money and the other articles mentioned in the charge had been taken away. The handkerchief in which the money had been tied was left. She went down stairs again, but the prisoner had then left the house, and, after having some conversation with another woman lodging at the same house, she returned to her room and went to bed. She saw the prisoner on the following evening at the “Northampton Arms,” and she then asked him to return her money, brooch, and belt; but he said he had not got them. The brooch and belt produced were hers; but a likeness which had been in the brooch when it was stolen was missing. She then gave information to the police, and the prisoner was taken into custody.

Sergeant Barton said he took the prisoner into custody on the previous night, on a charge of stealing 7s. in money, a brooch, and an elastic waist-belt, the property of the prosecutrix. He denied all knowledge of the things. On his being searched at the police station 2s. 7½d. in money was found in his pocket. He was then locked up; and witness, in company with Police-constable Ash, afterwards went to the prisoner's ship, the “Saucy Jack,” and in the presence of the captain searched a chest in the forecastle which the captain said belonged to the prisoner. In it, he found the brooch and waist-belt produced. A place in the brooch apparently intended for a likeness was empty.

Charles Trett, the master of the “Saucy Jack,” said the prisoner was a seaman on board his vessel, and was a well-conducted man. The police came on board the preceding evening, and, very much to his surprise, found the belt and brooch produced in prisoner's box. On the Saturday, previous to the prisoner going on shore, witness advanced him 5s.

The prisoner, in his defence, said the charge of stealing the money was an entire fabrication. He admitted taking away the belt and brooch, but had no intention of stealing them. He got into the prosecutrix's company on Saturday night, and was induced to accompany her to her lodgings. He had already given her money, when she demanded more. He refused to comply with her demands, and as she would not return the money he had given her, he left the house, taking the brooch and waist-belt, which the prosecutrix had just taken off, and which he declared he would keep until she returned him his money. When she afterwards met him in the “Northampton Arms,” he told her that, as soon as she gave him his money back, he would return the articles he had taken away.

The Magistrates said that, as there was some doubt in their minds as to the prisoner's guilt, and as the captain of his ship had given him a good character, he would have the benefit of the doubt, and be dismissed; but the recommended him to be careful how he got into bad company in future. The brooch and waist-belt might be returned to the woman.

From the Dover Express and East Kent Intelligencer, 8 September, 1871. Price 1d.

ANNUAL LICENSING MEETING

THE NORTHAMPTON ARMS

Mr. Weidman, the applicant for renewal in this case, was reminded that, already his license had been once withheld from him. He had been once convicted during the past year, and if he should again be convicted of any infringements, it would be useless for him to apply for a renewal of the license.

From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 6 March, 1874. Price 1d.

IN LIQUIDATION, DOVER, KENT

Important sale of an old-established and well-arranged BREWERY, together with 13 Freehold and Leasehold Public and Beer-houses, a Private Residence, Malt-house, Stabling, &c.

WORSFOLD, HAYWARD, & Co. Have received instructions from the Trusteee of the Estate of Mr. G. S. Page (in liquidation by arrangement, in connection with the Mortgagees, to Sell by Auction, at the “Royal Oak Hotel,” Dover, on Tuesday, 24th March, 1874, at three o'clock precisely, in one or right lots, the following important and Valuable Property.

LOT 8.

Five fully licensed Public-houses, all situate in the Borough of Dover, comprising the “Lion,” Elizabeth Street, the “Sportsman,” Charlton Green, the “Northampton Arms,” Northampton Street, the “Three Compasses,” Finnis' Hill, and the “Spotted Cow,” Durham Place. Also two good beer-houses, the “Plough,” Laurestone Place, and the “Hope and Anchor,” Blucher Row. These houses are held upon leases having from 12 to 20 years to run, and present at first-rate opportunity to any brewer wishing to open or extend a connection in Dover.

From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 6 September, 1874. Price 1d.

ANNUAL LICENSING MEETING

Mr. Thomas Fox applied for a spirit license for Mr. Whiting, the tenant of this house. There had been no complaint against him or his house, and he simply desired, for the convenience of the neighbourhood, to have a spirit license in addition to his beer. Mr. Mowll was instructed to oppose by some neighbouring publicans, but the Bench by granting the license would simply promote a little healthy competition, and induce the publicans to sell better liquor, which was very desirable.

The Superintendent said there was six houses in the immediate neighbourhood, and about ten just round in Snargate Street.

The Bench refused the application.

From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 12 October, 1877. Price 1d.

A BATCH OF INEBRIATES

Joseph Kelly, a young man of respectable appearance, was charged with being drunk in Northampton Street.

About ten o'clock the previous evening a Constable was sent for by the landlord of the “Northampton Arms” to get the prisoner out of his house. It was stated that he had been there since four o'clock, and was drunk then and beer had been given him by soldiers.

Mr. Sanders said the man was speechless drunk when brought to the station.

A friend of the prisoner was present, and stated that he belonged to a highly respectable family in Belgium and had been a great trouble to them. He believed he had now seen his folly and he had promised faithfully to make a new start and that such a thing would not occur again.

The Bench said they would try him and advise him as a man to keep his promise. He would be dismissed on paying 2s. for the hearing.

From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 19 October, 1877. Price 1d.

A WARNING TO INNKEEPERS

William Olifent, landlord of the “Northampton Arms,” was summoned for permitting drunkenness on his premises on the 6th inst.

Police-constable Brace said on Saturday, the 6th of this month, about ten o'clock in the evening, the defendant came to him and asked him if he would remove a troublesome man from his house – the “Northampton Arms.” He went to the house, and there found a man sitting on the floor in front of the bar. He assisted defendant in picking him up and taking him outside. Finding the man so helplessly drunk he took him to the station. He spoke to the defendant about the man being so drunk, and he replied that he had not got drunk in his house; he was drunk when he came there, and had been a trouble to him all evening. Defendant's wife said in his presence “The man was brought here at four o'clock by two other men, and he was then very drunk.”

Defendant said some men put the man in a chair in the back-room, and promised to call for him in half-an-hour, and he had supplied the man with nothing, but what drink he had during the evening had been given him by some soldiers.

The Bench said they would dismiss the charge on the present occasion, but if a like offence were committed again the defendant would be visited by a fine or perhaps have his licence endorsed.

The Police, however, had very properly brought the case forward.

From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 15 April, 1887. Price 1d.

BEGGING

Thomas Briggs was charged with begging at the “Northampton Arms,” Northampton Street.

Police-sergeant Harman proved the charge and stated that he saw the prisoner go into the “Northampton Arms” on Saturday evening. Witness stepped in behind him and heard him ask for some money. The barmaid refused to help him, and witness told him he should take him into custody for begging.

The Magistrates dismissed the prisoner with a caution as he had been in custody since Saturday.

From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 25 October, 1889. Price 1d.

PUBLIC HOUSE CHANGE

On the application of Mr. E. W. Spain, permission was granted to Edmund Godfrey, to draw at the “Northampton Arms,” Northampton Street.

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

PUBLIC HOUSE PROSECUTIONS

Thomas Edward Godfrey, landlord of the “Northampton Arms,” Northampton Street, was summoned for allowing his premises to be the habitual resort of prostitutes.

Mr. Knocker prosecuted.

The Bench considered the case a very bad one, and inflicted a fine of £5, costs 9s. 6d., and endorsed the license.

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 NORTHAMPTON ARMS

In the case of this house, the license of which had been endorsed, Mr. Knocker appeared to oppose on behalf of the Watch Committee, and Mr. Mark Knowles on behalf of the Temperance Council.

The formal service of the notices on G. T. Godfrey, the landlord was proved by Mr. Mark Knowles, who called James Gray for that purpose.

Mr. Minter said he appeared for the owner of the premises, Mr. Barker, to ask that the present license should be transferred from Godfrey, the present holder, to Beaumont, in accordance with the application adjourned from the previous Friday.

The Magistrates' Clerk said that probably they would hear the two applications together.

Mr. Minter urged that the transfer should be taken first.

The Mayor said the Magistrates had decided to take both applications together.

A lengthy argument at this point then followed, after which the Court adjourned to lunch, and on coming into Court again, it was announced that the Magistrates had decided to adjourn the whole question both of the transfer and the renewal of the license till the Broadstairs meeting in September.

From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 11 September, 1891. Price 1d.

DOVER LICENSING SESSIONS

ADJOURNED SITTING AT BROADSTAIRS

THE NORTHAMPTON ARMS, DOVER

The application for the transfer of this license to Mr. E. R. Beaumont, who afterwards intended to apply for the renewal of the license, was opposed by Mr. Knocker on behalf of the Town Council and Mr. Montague Bradley on behalf of the Dover Temperance Council.

Mr. Minter represented the interests of the tenant and the owner Mr. Barker.

After the formal evidence, Police-constable Danson was called by Mr. Knocker to speak of the character of the house. He had watched it nightly from the 27th August until the 2nd of September, and stated that it was constantly frequented by women of ill fame, who met soldiers and others there and went away with them. He had seen as many as five different women, whose names he gave, on the same evening going in and out several times.

Police-constable Scutt corroborated the evidence of Police-constable Danson.

Mr. Montegue Bradley made an effective appeal on behalf of the Temperance Council to the bench to close this house, a step which he contended would raise the moral tone of the whole of the houses in the town.

The Bench having deliberated, the Mayor stated that they had resolved to refuse the application, and their reason for doing so was that the house was frequented by prostitutes.

Mr. Minter: Will you accept notice of appeal on behalf of the Magistrates?

Mr. Stillwell: I can accept nothing.

Mr. Minter: Will you give me the names of the Magistrates adjudicating; I see that the Bench has changed; some have gone; I see that Dr. Astley is not here.

Mr. Stilwell: My Clerk will give you the names.

That concluded the business.