From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday 8 August, 1863.

A NOCTURNAL VISITOR WITH AN UNLAWFUL PURPOSE

Robert Sullivan, a gunner of the 2nd Brigade of Royal Artillery, whose general appearance betokened a night's debaunch, was brought up on the complaint of Mrs. Elizabeth Barton, the landlady of the "Ordnance Arms," public-house, Queen Street, in whose bedroom he had been found, with "a supposed unlawful purpose," at half-past three o'clock the same morning. It appeared that Mrs. Barton, on rousing from her first sleep in the hour named, was shocked and horrified to find the prisoner coolly seated in an arm chair at her bed side. In the confusion caused by her sudden surprise, she thought him one of four artillerymen who had been billeted at her house a few days before, and indignantly demanded of the prisoner how he had dared to mistake her bedroom, but on recollecting that the billeted man had left her house on the day previous, she became more alarmed, and arouse Mr. Barton. It was then found that the prisoner was without his shoes, and that although he was the worse for liquor he knew sufficiently well what he was about to have forced the till in the bar and made such an inspection of the premises as might have warranted a charge of a more serious nature than that now preferred. As nothing had been missed, however, Mrs. Barton was content to rest her accusation on the "unlawful purpose." It seemed that the prisoner must have obtained access to the premises by squeezing himself through an open fanlight over the back entrance, although, on being called on for his defence, he declared himself quite unconscious of the matter in which he had got into the house, or what had been his object in going there. His only excuse was that he was drunk, but from the facts above detailed it will be seen that he had his wits well about him. As a sergeant of his battery gave him a good character, however, and as Mrs. Barton was not desirous of pressing heavily against him, the bench took a lenient view of his offence, and sent him to prison for fourteen days with hard labour, telling him he might consider himself very lucky in getting no heavier punishment.

From the Dover Express and East Kent Intelligencer, 23 August, 1867. Price 1d.

CHARGE OF INFRINGING A PUBLIC HOUSE LICENSE

Edward Phillis, landlord of the "Ordnance Arms," was summoned for having his house open for the sale of beer at an illegal hour on Sunday last. The Magistrates took a lenient view of the matter in this case, and ordered only the payment of costs.

From the Dover Express and East Kent Intelligencer, 19 November, 1869. Price 1d.

THEFT FROM A PUBLIC HOUSE

Elizabeth Brown, a married woman who had been before the bench on several previous occasions on charges of felony, was brought up, charged with stealing from the "Ordnance Arms," Queen Street, one artificial flower, value 1s., and a bottle of spirits, value 2s.

Police-constable Bath deposed to taking the prisoner into custody from information he had received and asked for a remand order to obtain further evidence.

The Magistrates remanded the prisoner until today (Friday.)

From the Dover Express and East Kent Intelligencer, 2 January, 1880. Price 1d.

ROBBERY

Patrick Wheelan, a private in the 84th Regiment, was charged with stealing about 8s. from the till at the "Ordnance Arms," Queen Street, the property of the landlady.

Mary Reilly, landlady of the "Ordnance Arms" said: The prisoner, with another soldier of the same regiment, came in our tap-room about four o'clock yesterday afternoon. After a short time they went and sat in front of the bar. The other man fell asleep. I had occasion to go downstairs with my daughter into the cellar, returning into the bar in about three minutes. As I came up the prisoner was on his way on his way out of the front door, and the other soldier was asleep. On looking towards the counter I noticed the till was wide open, with the bowl containing coppers on the counter, but the other bowl was still in its place. Both bowls were empty. The one on the counter when I last saw it contained about 2s. 9d. or 3s. in coppers, and the other about ten or eleven six-penny pieces. I went into the tap-room to my lodger and told him what had happened, and sent him after the prisoner. he said he had not stolen any money out of the till, and what he had got was his regimental pay. I told him if he returned the money I would forgive him, but as he would not I sent for a constable who came and took him in charge. The prisoner had been drinking, but knew well what he was about.

Emily Thorpe, wife of Francis Thorpe, bandsman of the 30th Regiment, said: I am the daughter of the last witness and am lodging at the "Ordnance Arms." I saw the prisoner and another of the same regiment come into my house yesterday about four o'clock. They went into the tap-room and prisoner asked for two threes of whiskey and a pot of ale, which I served them. They afterwards went into the bar and prisoner asked for some more whiskey, and paid for it with 2s. 6d. I gave him a 2s. piece for change. I served him again with two threes of rum. He was then a little the worse for drink, but knew what he was about. My mother and I had occasion to go down in the cellar, leaving the prisoner with the other man, who had fallen asleep. We returned in about three minutes and found the till empty. The prisoner was gone and the other soldier fell asleep. My husband went after the prisoner and brought him back. My mother accused him of stealing the money, and as he denied it she gave him in charge.

Police-constable Baker said: I was sent for yesterday about four o'clock to go to the "Ordnance Arms." Police-constable Cadman accompanied me. We went at once and the prisoner was given into my charge for stealing some money out of the till. The prisoner took out two six-penny pieces and several coppers from his pocket, and put them on the table saying it was what he received as his regimental pay. I heard some money fall down his trouser leg. I picked up another two six-penny pieces and 1s. 6d. in coppers, making about 2s. in silver and 2s. in coppers. I took him to the police-station where he was searched by Police-constable Cadman, who found on the prisoner another 6d, and 6½d. in coppers in his boots. In answer to the charge he said he did not take the money. Prisoner was drunk.

Police-constable Cadman gave corroborating evidence.

The prisoner pleaded not guilty, and said: I left the barracks with my chum yesterday, shortly after one o'clock. I had received 5s. as it was pay day, and I had 2s. 9d. of my own. We went to the "Ordnance Arms" and stopped there till I got drunk, and did not know what happened till I was at the station.

The Bench committed the prisoner for trial at the Quarter Sessions.

From the Dover Express and East Kent Intelligencer, 6 January, 1882. Price 1d.

STEALING WHILE BEGGING

Henry King, 37, labourer, and Emma King, 42, were charged with stealing a bonnet and other articles and money to the value exceeding £5, the property of fanny Hussey, from No. 2, Clarence Lawn, on the 16th November, 1881.

There was a second charge against them of having stolen two shoe brushes, value 2s., the goods of Mr. Steriker Finnis, of 1, Wellesley Terrace.

The prisoner pleaded Not Guilty to both charges and the female prisoner said she was guilty of stealing the bonnet and dress, but not the brushes, for she had picked them up.

The case of stealing the brushes was only gone into.

Mr. Dickens prosecuted in the case of the brushes.

Mr. Prosser said he prosecuted in the other charge, which would not be gone into, as the prisoner had pleaded guilty.

Police-sergeant Hammings said: On the 16th of November last I went in search of the prisoners and found the man in Northampton Street at about six o'clock in the evening. I asked him where his wife was, and he said he had left her about an hour previously at the top of the street because she was drunk and quarrelsome, and he wanted to get away from her. I asked him if he would go with me to look for her, and she said he would. We went together to different places, but eventually found that she was in custody at the police-station for being drunk between six and seven o'clock. I said to the man “where is your luggage and your parcels?” and he said he had left them at a public house. We went in search of the house and he did not know if the name or district, and found that it was the “Ordnance Arms,” Queen Street, where we obtained a parcel from the landlord. From what I found there I took the male prisoner in charge, and on searching him at the police station I discovered the two brushes produced in his coat pocket. The parcel contained groceries and some of the clothing as described in the other charge. There were bacon, butter, tea and sugar. He said the brushes were his wife's, and that was all he had of hers in his possession.

Walter Potter, butler to S. Finnis, Esq., 1, Wellesley Terrace, said: I know the brushes produced are the property of Mr. Finnis, I saw them on the 16th November last at about 10 o'clock in the wood house in the back yard of 1, Wellesley Terrace. Anyone leaving the lower door and going up the steps and through the back gate could see it. It was not kept locked. At about 12 o'clock I found the brushes were missing. They are worth about 2s.

By the male prisoner: I did not see you anywhere near the house on that day.

Susan Sneller, cook to Mr. Finnis said: At about 11 o'clock on the 16th of November last a woman came down the back yard steps and begged. I could not recognise her again, as I refused her anything, and closed the door. She came in from the Liverpool Street side and could se in my wood-house as she passed it. I did not see what she did nor did I give her any authority to take those brushes.

Sarah A. Mempes, wife of William Mempes, keeping a general shop at the bottom of St. James's Street, said: At a quarter to two o'clock on the 16th of November last I remember the female prisoner coming into our shop, and the male prisoner stood outside. Our shop is a short distance from 2, Clarence Lawn and 1, Wellesley Terrace. I sold the woman some bacon, butter, sugar, cheese and tea, for which she paid 9s. 9d.

The Recorder then went through the case with the Petty Jury, and explained the difference points to them.

The Jury found the male prisoner guilty of receiving the brushes well knowing them to have been stolen, and the female prisoner guilty of stealing the brushes.

Mr. Prosser said it was hardly worth while going into the other case for the purpose of restoring the property to its owner because nothing of any value had been found. She had pleaded “guilty” to taking them, and the bonnet and dress were left at the “Ordnance Arms,” but the money had not been recovered. No doubt the half-sovereign went to buy the groceries. The speaker did not think it necessary to try the case unless the learned Recorder desired it.

The Recorder: I do not think it is necessary. Mr. Sanders, do you know anything about this woman?

The Superintendent said: The woman was convicted and sentenced to one month's imprisonment with hard labour for stealing sausages from a shop in February, 1881, when she went by the name of Mary Hayes. She has told me that her husband was a discharged soldier, and had left her, and she had taken up with this man since. I do not think the prisoners are married.

The female prisoner: Yes we are, sir.

Henry Lilley, prisoner warden, said: The male prisoner confessed to the Governor that he was convicted in the name of Joseph Whitehead at Warwick about six years ago for embezzlement, and was sentenced to nine calendar months with hard labour. He made that statement in front of the Governor previous to his being brought here, and it was said voluntarily.

The Superintendent said the money had not been recovered.

Mr. Prosser said it was about one o'clock the same day as the brushes were taken, the houses being close to each other. Nine and nine-pence was spent in groceries. The act was done by going to beg, and in the absence of the servant taking the things in the passage.

The Recorder, addressing the prisoner, said: It is very lucky for you that I hear nothing about you since six years ago, when you were convicted as you say, or you would have been sentenced to a term of penal servitude. Depend upon it that if you go about in this way you will be sent, but I will give you one more chance, and you will be kept to six month's hard labour from the present time, and as to you, Emma King, I have no doubt that you go about, and that when doors are open you steal property. You had one warning, but as I have heard nothing since the 22nd of February, the sentence is that you be imprisoned for four calendar months.

From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday 19 June, 1885.

AN OLD OFFENDER

Mary Knott was charged with breaking a pane of glass, value 2s., from the window of the “Ordnance Arms,” Queen Street; and also with being drunk and disorderly in Queen Street.

Daniel Slatterly, landlord of the “Ordnance Arms,” Queen Street, said that prisoner went into his house on Saturday afternoon. She had nothing to drink as she was almost drunk. He requested her to leave the house, but she refused. Witness put her out, and then she commenced making a disturbance in the street. She afterwards deliberately put her hand through the window. She was very disorderly, and used most filthy language. The Police were afterwards sent for.

Police-sergeant Johnson said: About three o'clock on Saturday afternoon his attention was called to the “Ordnance Arms,” Queen Street. He saw the prisoner in the road creating a nuisance. She was very drunk. She was sent away by witness, but shortly after returned and continued the disturbance. Prisoner was then given into custody for breaking the window, and also with being drunk and disorderly. Her hand was bleeding, but she would not have anything done to it.
The bench sentenced her to one months' imprisonment with hard labour.

From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday 15 February, 1907. Price 1d.

DOVER LICENSING MEETING

The Annual Licensing Meeting of the Dover Magistrates was held at the Police Court on Monday at noon. The Magistrates on the Bench were:- The Mayor (G. P. Raggett, Esq.), Sir William Crundall, Messrs. J. L. Bradley, M. Pepper, W. J. Barnes, W. J. Adcock, H. W. Thorpe, H. F. Elwin, J. W. Bussey, F. G. Wright, E. Chitty, J. Scott, F. W. Prescott, and T. A. Terson.

THE ORDNANCE ARMS

Sir Wollaston Knocker who appeared to represent Messrs. Leney and Co., the brewers intimated that he should raise no objection to the licence being referred to the Quarter Sessions for compensation.

Mr. Dick Wakefield the tenant was informed that the objections of the Superintendent of the Police objected to the renewal of the licence. (1) Having regard to the character and necessities of the neighbourhood and the number of licensed houses in the immediate vicinity being excessive, the licence now held by him was unnecessary. (2) That in the interests of the public the renewal of the licence was undesirable.

Chief Constable Knott said that the “Ordnance Arms” was a fully licensed house in Queen Street, and the present tenant, D. Wakefield, had the licence transferred to him on 29th January, 1905, there had been four changes in six years. The licensed houses in the immediate neighbourhood were the “Cause is Altered,” 115 yards away, the “Five Alls,” 91 yards, the “New Mogul,” 108 yards and there were two other houses at no great distance. The rateable value was £18, and net £14 10s. It had a private bar in Queen Street and a public bar in Chapel Place. On Saturday, December 8th, at 12.50 p.m. there were six customers, on Friday, February 1st, at 7.30 p.m. there were eight customers and on Tuesday, 5th February, at 11.05 a.m., six customers.

Inspector Fox gave corroborating evidence and said that on Thursday, January 3rd, at 7.03 p.m., there were two customers.

The Magistrates also reserved their decision in this case.

After the luncheon adjournment:

The Magistrates' Clerk announced that all the five houses, i.e. those at the “Star,” the “Volunteer,” the “Comet,” the “Nottingham Castle,” and the “Ordnance Arms,” would be provisionally renewed so that they could go before the Compensation Authority the Quarter Sessions at Canterbury with a view to compensation.

From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday 14 February, 1908.

THE ANNUAL LICENSING MEETING

THE ORDNANCE ARMS

Mr. R. Mowll applied for the renewal of this licence, which was opposed by the police.

Inspector Fox stated: The "Ordnance Arms" is a fully licensed  house situated in Queen Street, the owners being Messrs. Leney and Co. The present tenant Charles Wallis, went into the house  on October 4th, 1907. There have been five tenants in 6½years. The rateable value is £18 gross, nett £11 10s. The licensed houses in the immediate neighbourhood are the "Cause is Altered," also owned by Messrs. Leney and Co., 15 yards away on the opposite side of the road; the "Five Alls," Market Street, 91 yards away; the "New Mogul," Chapel Place, 108 yards away; the "New Inn," York Street, 109 yards away, the "Marquis of Anglesea," 114 yards away. The frontage is 19ft. There is a private bar with entrance in Queen Street, and a public bar with entrance in Chapel Place, there is no bar parlour. That is all the accommodation for customers. There is seating accommodation in each of these bars. It was visited on January 25th, at 10.10 a.m., when there were six customers' on Thursday, 30th January, at 2.16 p.m. when there were two customers; on Tuesday, February 4th, at 8.30 p.m., when there were two customers; and on Friday, February 7th, at 5 p.m. when there were five customers. There are 15 occupied customers in Queen Street, including the two licensed premises. The St. Mary's School Friends' Meeting House, and Dickeson's warehouses are close by.

Detective Mount corroborated.

Mr. Rutley Mowll said: In this case you referred to the house in the Quarter Sessions last year, and on behalf of the owners I have only to say that we should like to have our life or our death. We feel like the mouse that the cat is playing with. Either give us our life or put us out of our misery.

The Chairman: That is not on our power, or we should have dine it long ago.

The whole of the four cases, "Canterbury Bell," "Old Fountain," "Ordnance Arms," and "Devonshire Arms," were referred to  the East Kent Quarter Session for decision whether they would grant compensation for the non-renewal of the licenses.