DOVER KENT ARCHIVES
PUB LIST PUBLIC HOUSES Barry Smith and Paul Skelton

Earliest 1748

Prince Louis

Latest Sept 1969

1-2 Chapel Lane (Grubbin's Lane or Gubham's Lane)

Prince Louis 1910

Above picture shows the Prince Louis staff of 1910.

Prince Louis 1968

Above photo 1968. By Lisa Hudson.

Prince Louis

Picture kindly supplied by Ken Lynch.

 

A fisherman's cottage, one of a row of five, was converted to provide this one. I know not when. It was functioning by 1748 and the title prior to 1910 was "Prince Louis of Hesse". Running up to World war one saw that abbreviated. The name of the lane altered about 1820.

 

From the Dover Express and East Kent Intelligencer, 28 August, 1863.

A SCRIMMAGE

Jane Sladden, daughter of Mrs. Paul, the proprietress of the "Prince Louis of Hesse" public-house, Chapel Lane, and of a well-known house or two adjoining, was summoned by Mary Amelia Lane, an unfortunate girl, who, up to the preceding day, had been living in one of the last mentioned houses, assaulted her. It appeared that on a previous morning there had been a quarrel between Mrs. Paul and several of the young ladies who were her tenants, at exorbitant rentals, as it appeared, and on their threatening to leave the house, Mrs. Paul and the defendants grew desperate, fisticuffs were resorted to, and the complainant, as she declared, had her hair torn out and her hand bitten through by the defendant. For the defence it was contended that the complainant and her friends were about to leave their lodgings without paying their rent, and Mrs. Paul's husband went into the house and threatened to detain their goods. They thereupon paid the rent due, but defendant hearing her father's "upbraided," went in to his assistance, when the complainant seized her by the throat and also by the hair of her head. If she need her teeth - and she was not sure she did - it was only in self-defence. Witnesses were called on both sides, and the Magistrates, after hearing a mass of conflicting testimony, dismissed the case and ordered each of the parties to pay their own costs.

 

From the Dover Express and East Kent Intelligencer, 21 April, 1870.

CHARGE OF STEALING A SOVEREIGN

Annie King, 21, an unfortunate, was charged with stealing one sovereign, the money of Henry Tye, at Dover, on the 19th April. She pleaded not guilty.

Mr. Biron was for the prosecution.

Henry Tye, a mariner living at Colchester. I was in Dover on the 1st of this month. About three in the morning I was in the "Prince Louis" public-house, Chapel Street, with the prisoner and another woman, Sarah Ann Jones. We had two half-pints of gin between us. I had been drinking, but was sensible. In taking out some money from my pocket I dropped a sovereign. It was the only sovereign I had. We all looked for it, and I saw the prisoner pick up something which appeared to be the sovereign.

The Recorder remarked that in the witness's examination before the Magistrates he had said he could not say that he saw the prisoner pick up a sovereign, but that he only saw her pick up something.

The witness said that was quite true. He did see something. (A laugh.)

Sarah Ann Jones, another unfortunate, said she was in company with the prisoner and Tye on the morning of the 1st April. She saw Tye take some money out of his pocket, and he said he had dropped something. He did not say he had dropped a sovereign.

The Recorder said the prisoner had before sworn that she saw the prosecutor drop a sovereign.

The witness said she saw the prisoner pick it up, and she supposed therefore that the prosecutor had dropped it.

The Recorder said she had sworn she saw the sovereign in prosecutor's hand.

The witness: He had a lot of money in his hand.

Police-constable Nixon said the prosecutor called him to the "Prince Louis" about three o'clock on the morning of the 1st April. He charged the prisoner with stealing a sovereign. She at first denied that she had got it, bit afterwards she said that what she had got she meant to keep.

Philadelphia Smith, wife of Henry Smith, who keeps the "Prince Louis" public-house, said that on the morning of the 1st April the prosecutor and the two girls came into the house and had something to drink. The prosecutor dropped something, and she handed the prisoner a splint to look for it. The prisoner afterwards admitted that she had picked up something - a sixpence, witness thought she said.

Susannah Howse, the female searcher at the station-house, was called; but it appeared that no money was found upon the prisoner.

 

From the Dover Express and East Kent Intelligencer, 2 June, 1871. Price 1d.

PUBLIC-HOUSE INFORMATION

Henry Smith, landlord of the "Prince Louis" public-house, charged with having his house opened before half-past twelve on Sunday, the 18th of May, was dismissed, on it transpiring that some ale found by the constable had not been sold, but drawn for a person in the house who was assisting Mrs. Smith in her domestic duties.

 

From the Dover Express and East Kent Intelligencer, 30 June, 1871. Price 1d.

AN IRATE FLY DRIVER

Henry Smith, a fly driver, and the landlord of the “Prince Louis” public house, Chapel Lane, appeared in answer to a summons, charging him with assaulting William John Knott, a boy about ten years of age.

The defendant admitted the assault; but said he was innocent of whipping the boy to an extent which would cause him any injury. From his statement it appeared that he was a fly driver, and had just cleaned his fly, when the complainant, as he was driving down the Military Road, threw a handful of straw , dirt, and stones at the vehicle. This provoked the defendant, as he had spent nearly the whole day in cleaning the carriage, and he jumped off the seat to correct the boy. When he had done so, Mrs. Knott came out and told the complainant that it served him right, as she had continually cautioned him about throwing stones. The defendant added that it was far from his intention to hurt the boy.

The father of the complainant was present and he here came forward and told the Bench that he witnessed the whole of the assault. Some straw, he said, had been spilt from a waggon on the way to the heights, and the complainant, together with another boy, began throwing the straw about in each other's faces. The defendant came by at the time; but he did not see the complainant or the other boy throw anything at the carriage. The defendant, on arriving opposite his (Mr. Knott's) house, jumped off the box of his vehicle and thrashed the complainant with his whip, hitting him across the face as well as on the lower part of his body.

The defendant denied hitting the boy across the face.

Mr. Knott said that Sergeant Barton, who saw the mark of the whip on the boy's face, when he took him to the police-station, would bear witness to the fact. He might also inform the Bench that the defendant, after having committed the assault on his son, desired him to go and have a glass with him, and say no more about it. The defendant, he added, was “not far from drunk” when the assault took place.

The defendant admitted having asked the boy's father to have a glass with him, but denied being drunk, as he had been at work at his stables during the whole morning.

Mr. Mowll drew the attention of the complainant's father to the fact that children in the neighbourhood in question were far too fond of stone-throwing, one of his son's having had a stone thrown at him on the previous Sunday afternoon.

The Magistrates, after some discussion, dismissed the case, cautioning the defendant to be more careful in the use of the whip in the future.

 

From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday 11 February, 1881. 1d.

Messrs. Worsfold and Hayward, at their auction sale last week, sold the “Prince Louis,” Chapel Street, a part of the late Mrs. Paul's estate, for £1,540. At the same sale the “Fox” at Ewell was sold for £550, and a forty year lease of the “Endeavour,” Bulwark Street for £380.

 

From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 17 February, 1905. Price 1d.

PROSECUTION BY INLAND REVENUE

At the Police Court last Friaday, before Messrs. J. L. Bradley, F. W. Prescott, and F. G. Wraight. Herbert George Pullen, landlord of the “Prince Louis” public house, Chapel Lane, and A. Mangilli, restaurant keeper, of 5, Bench Street, were charged on the information of James Elgar, with selling on the 14th November, 1904, at 5, Bench Street, spirits without having a license, whereby they forfeited a sum of £50. They were further charged with selling on the 14th November, 1904, at 5, Bench Street, beer, without having a license, whereby they forfeited a sum of £20. They were further charged with selling a certain wine, without a license, on the 14th November, 1904, whereby they forfeited a sum of £20.

Mr. B. Hawkins, Solicitors' Office, Somerset House, appeared to prosecute.

Mr. R. Mowll appeared for Mr. Pullen, and pleaded not guilty. Dr. Hardman appeared for Mr. Mangilli, and pleaded not guilty.

Mr. Hawkins said this was a prosecution by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, which dealt with the question of the right of unlicensed restaurant keepers to send out for intoxicating liquors to be consumed by his customers. The customs was a very widespread one, and they were not in this case seeking to say that the custom was necessarily illegal, but in the case that he had put before them, under certain circumstances the custom might be illegal. The informations were laid under the Excise Acts. For spirits, section 26 6 Geo. IV. Chap. 81, the penalty for beer under section 17 of the Act 4 and 5 Will IV. Chap. 85, and wine under section 10 of the Act 23 and 24, Vic. Chap. 27. there were also two other sections that he would ask their attention to. They were section 17 of 30 and 31 Vic. Chap. 19 – that section says that any person who should receive profits from the sale of any article for which an Excise License was required without obtaining such a license would incur the penalty for the sale without a license. The other section, which related to Mr. Mangilli, sectioned 26 of 6 Geo. IV. Chap. 81, provided that where liquors were sold by an unlicensed person who was privy and consented to the sale, he would be liable to the penalty, although not actually the person selling. After detailing the evidence that he subsequently called, he said that he did not think that there would be any serious dispute as to the facts of the case, but would be rather on the inference that the Magistrates would be asked to draw from these facts, and on points of law. Referring to the widespread practice of any unlicensed restaurant keeper sending out for intoxicating liquors to be consumed by the customers at the restaurant, he referred to a case that had been decided. Pasquire v. Neale. In that case the restaurant keeper was charged with selling wine without a license. He was the proprietor of a restaurant in Soho, and was a partner in a wine merchant's business. An Inland Revenue officer went to the restaurant, and was shown a wine list, and from this list a bottle of wine was selected. The officer was asked for the money, and the waiter went to the licensed premises of Mr. Pasquire, and purchased the bottle, for which he paid apparently, but there was no evidence as to the price paid. The Magistrates , Mr. Denman, thought there had been a sale of wine to the officer at the unlicensed premises. The case was taken to the High Court, but the High Court refused to reserve the decision. Of course there was a certain amount of difference between that case and the present one, but there was only one principle underlying all these cases: The first question to be decided was where did the sale take place – at the restaurant, or on the premises of the publican where the wine was sent for? That question, he submitted, turned on the question whether the restaurant keeper was the agent of the customer or of the publican. If he were the agent of the publican, then the contract was made between the customer and the publican's agent on unlicensed premises. He submitted that Mr. Mangilli was the agent of Mr. Pullen. There was an arrangement between the two not entered into at the request of any particular customer, by which Mr. Pullen kept a stock of wines for the sole purpose of being consumed by people going to the restaurant, and for which Mr. Pullen charged a higher price then he would to people going to his public house. In order to further the sale of this wine, Mr. Mangilli had the wine list exposed in his restaurant solely for the purpose of obtaining orders for these goods. He did not expose other people's wine lists, and orders when received were at once taken to Mr. Pullen's, and to no others, although on the way other licensed premises were passed. He would submit that it was clear that Mr. Mangilli and Mr. Pullen were carrying on jointly a business of disposing at these unlicensed premises this stock of wine. That they were jointly selling – Mr. Pullen as principle, if his statement were true that he received the whole of the profits, and Mr. Mangilli as agent.

James Blake Davies, in charge of the Preventative Department, said that on the 14th of November he went to Mr. Mangilli's restaurant, 5, Bench Street, Dover, with Mr. Cope, an officer of the Inland Revenue. He arrived there at 7.05 p.m. and ordered dinner. Prior to entering he posted two officers outside, Messrs. Hayward and Bate. On the table were wine lists. The waiter serving handed him a wine list, and he ordered Volney, price 2/6. and a 3d. Bass. The waiter asked for the money, and he gave him half a sovereign. He gave the order at 7.17. At 7.23 the waiter placed before him the bottle of Volney and the small Bass, and the 7/3 change. At 7.33 he ordered two liquors of brandy and gave the waiter a 1/-. The brandy was handed to him at 7.37 by the same waiter. Mr. Cope drank the Bass, and witness drank a portion of the wine. Each of them had a liqueur of brandy. When he left he was presented with the bill (produced), which he paid.

The Magistrates Clerk: There is no reference to the drink?

Witness: No it is an ordinary bill.

On the 16th November he called upon Mr. Pullen, accompanied by Mr. Brereton, Supervisor of the District. Witness saw Mr. Pullen there, and he explained the object of his visit. He said, “I supply the price list of wines,” and he handed me the one produced “to Mr. Mangilli.” It contained the prices, the same as he sold them to Mr. Mangilli, who received no discount, no commission, nor no return whatever. The price list was his own making out. In the room where they were conversing he saw a number of baskets of wine, which were numbered, the numbers corresponding with the numbers on the list. He then said, “I should not keep the stock of wine I do if not for Mr. Mangilli, as my trade is not a wine trade. I had the wine lists printed and I supply these lists to Mr. Mangilli.” Witness asked him to produce the book in which the transactions with Mangilli and himself were recorded. He said he had no book. Witness told him he knew there was a book. He then said, “Mangilli's brings a book here when he makes purchases. Either I or my wife make the entries in the book. In this book I enter the number or the description of the wine, and the amount as shown in my price list.” Witness asked him whether he took the trouble to keep a book like that if all the money were paid in respect to each sale. He replied that the book was kept so far that there should be no dispute as to what was paid. Witness said, “Why does Mangilli keep the book?” He replied, “So that there cannot be an overcharge.” He said that arrangement had started last summer. Pullen said, “Mangilli used to go elsewhere, but I did not think it fair to be made a convenience of on Sundays and Bank Holidays when other spirit merchants were shut.” Mangilli said he could not see why he should not. Witness put it that Mangilli's man passed Lukey's. Pullen said “If he went to Lukey's he did not think he should serve him or keep a stock of wine.” He said he had no call for wine as very few of his customers ever asked for it. Witness then went to Mr. Mangilli's at 5, Bench Street. He found Mr. Cope with Mr. Mangilli. Mr. Cope handed him a book in which sales were recorded. This was the book produced. The orders which witness gave were recorded in the book – the Volney 2/6, brandy 1/-, and the small Bass. Witness asked My. Mangilli when he made the arrangement with Pullen, and he said he could not remember. Witness asked him if he gave the whole of his custom to Mr. Pullen in consideration of Mr. Pullen serving him on Sundays and Bank Holidays. He said, “I cannot remember.”

Dr. Hardman objected to the way the evidence was being taken. The suggestions were all contained in the questions, and not in the answers.

The Magistrates Clerk said they would put it down as an answer to further questions.

Dr. hardman: That is not the proper way; the evidence should be. “I asked so and so, and he answered “So and so.” This is a three-hours' cross-examination, or rather badgering.

The Witness: No, it was not; you were not there.

Witness asked him if he or his waiter kept a book. He said he did not keep a book, nor did the waiter. He said the book (produced) was Mr. Pullen's book. Witness asked who supplied the wine list, and he said Mr. Pullen. Witness asked him who selected the wines, and he said Mr. Pullen selected them, that being his business. He asked him who made the ticks in the book, and he said he could not say. He said, “My people do not touch the book.” Witness said he noticed a bottle of Johnny Walker written there and Mangilli said that was for his own use. The waiter, in going to Mr. Pullen's, would pass by Messrs. Lukey's wine merchants, premises. Binfield's was close behind Pullen's premises. The “Shakespeare” and the “Guildhall” were also close. Witness had read the prices charged and the price list produced.

Mr. Mowll objected to witness being asked how these compared with ordinary wine lists. Witness said he considered the bottle of Volney for which he was charged 2/6 would have been dear at 1/-.
Cross-examined by Dr. Hardman. Witness produced his notes which he made at Mr. Pullen's during his conversation with him. He went to Mr. Pullen's at about 11, but the conversation with him and Mr. Mangilli did not last till 2, as he had lunch at Mr. Mangilli's. The note was a substantial record of what occurred.

Dr. Hardman: That is to say you took what you thought was in your favour?

Witness: I took what he stated exactly.

Let us test it. You said that Mr. Mangilli said his book was at Pullen's. I wonder whether you have got that? – You look and see.

I have and see you have not got that – I put several questions I did not put down, and a portion of the conversation given today was given from memory.

When you went in you said that you were handed a list. Do you suggest that you did not call fro a wine list?

Yes. I saw a wine list on the table.

Did you not ask the waiter for a wine list?

Yes, to hand me the list on the table.

And you consider it a fair way of stating that the waiter handed you a wine list when you asked the waiter for a wine list?

The wine list was a little out of my reach.

It does not matter whether it was or not, you asked them for the wine list?

It saved me getting up and taking it.

Do you think it would be more accurate if you gave it as it took place?

I think my answer is quite consistent as recorded.

It is now; it is consistent with the truth?

And it was.

Dr. Hardman asked if the course pursued in getting the wine was not the usual one?

Mr. Hawkins said the witness was not entitled to give his opinion.

Dr. Hardman: This gentleman is an expert.

Mr. Hawkins: Not on question of law, that is the whole point of the case.

Witness in answer to further questions by Dr. Hardman said that he repeatedly asked Pullen if he did not get some advantage from the sale of wine at the restaurant, and he stated that the list contained the price of wines as he sold then to Mangilli, and that Mangilli had no discount.

Did it not occur to you that it was a reasonable thing in order to secure the beer and spirit trade that Mr. Pullen might put himself to some little inconvenience about he wines?

It struck me as unreasonable, and to be in accordance with other similar cases that we have.

Dr. Hardman then proceeded to ask witness questions in reference to the book, and the witness declared that Pullen told him that there was no book.

Mr. Mowll pointed out that the answer in witness's own notes was that Pullen said he had no book, which was a very different thing.

Witness continuing said that Mr. Pullen gave him a reason for keeping the book, but he did not believe it.

Now with reference to what you call the arrangement. Mr. Pullen clearly explained to you how that came about?

Yes.

He explained to you that Mr. Mangilli sent to different places, and that he was anxious to secure the custom, and that the shops closed early on Wednesdays and on Sundays?

Yes.

Do you know that Lukey's or Binfield's cannot sell 6d. of brandy or liquors?

Yes, but he could get it from the “Shakespeare.”

And therefore Pullen was anxious that Mangilli should not make a convenience of him on Sundays, but should give him the other trade.
He said that the arrangement was come to in consideration of his supplying on Sundays and Bank Holidays, and that he was to get the whole of his custom right through, as he put it.

Witness, in reply to further questions, said that he could not say that the “Prince Louis” was the closest licensed house. He did not subject Mr. Mangilli to a cross examination of more than half an hour. He began to cross examine Mr. Mangilli about the arrangement after Mr. Cope finished. Mr. Mangilli's Italian origin was no difficulty to him. He understood English perfectly, and was well acquainted with the law. The reply “I cannot remember” was what they usually got from the Italians. Witness on being pressed, admitted that Mr. Mangilli answered a great many questions other than by saying, “I do not remember.” He first said when witness asked him whether he had any discount or commission “I cannot remember,” but he said after, “None whatever.”

Dr. Hardman: This is the first time you have admitted this. Do you call that a fair way of giving evidence?

Witness, in reply to further questions said that he did not tell Mangilli that he was certain there was a secret arrangement as they were not fools; he would not have used the latter expression, although he might have said there was a secret arrangement. The conversation took place upstairs. Mangilli did not tell him that he used to deal at the “Shakespeare” but had ceased for certain reasons. Whilst they were conversing with Mr. Mangilli Mr. Cope went to Mr. Pullen's, but he certainly never authorised him to say, “Look here, if you give Mr. Mangilli away we will not prosecute you,” and to tell Mr. Pullen what he should say.

Cross-examined by Mr. Mowll: Witness said that he considered he purchased the wine, etc., off Pullen according to the wine list.

Alfred William Cope, officer in the Inland Revenue Prevention Staff, said that on the 14th November he accompanied Mr. Davies to Mangilli's and corroborated his statement as to the meal. He was at Mangill's premises on the 16th November. He corroborated Mr. Davies's statement as to what took place between Mr. Davies and Mangilli. He went to Pullen's from Mangilli's, and returned afterwards. He denied that he said to Pullen that he would not be prosecuted if he gave Mangilli away. He asked witness what he could do, and he advised him to see a solicitor. Previously, on the 16th, he had a conversation with Mangilli, and told him that he knew he had a book in which entries were made relating to the supply of wines from the “Prince Louis.” Witness looked round and saw the book (produced) on a shelf behind the bar. Mr. Mangilli at first refused to get it but on witness stepping to get it, showed it to him. He told Mangilli that Mr. Davies was at Pullen's. he said that he had a wine license for his business at Deal. Witness said, “Do you get a profit for commission from Pullen?” and after grinning he replied, “I can't say.” He continued to grin all the time he was there. Witness asked him again, and he said he could not say. Witness then said, “You used to deal at the “Shakespeare;” are the prices you charge now similar to those you charged then?” and he said, “Yes.” Witness said, “Do you pay more now than when you dealt at the Shakespeare?” he said he could not say. Witness said, “When you dealt at the “Shakespeare” did you charge more than you paid?” he said he could not remember. Witness asked him if the wine was of the same quality as it was before, and he said, “Yes, about the same.” Witness asked, “If you charge the same as you pay for the wine, why do you pay 50 per cent more than you need to?” he said he could not say. Witness said, “Whose book is this?” and he said he did not know, ask Pullen; he said he did not make the ticks in the book.

Cross-examined by Dr. Hardman: It was after three quarters of an hour of this sort of thing that Mr. Davies took up the running?

I think it was half an hour.

I suppose Mr. Mangilli thought these were peculiarly English methods and as an Italian he was a little out of it. They were singularly English methods of dealing with a man?

I thought there was nothing in it.

I am glad you think that it was perfectly right and proper that a foreigner should be badgered in this way and that every method should be tried to convict him out of his own mouth?

Foreigner! He knows more than I do. I saw the sort of man he was.
What sort?

He was smiling all over his face, and saying, “I do not know.” I never met a man like him before. (Laughter.)

Then it was quite a new experience, and you did your best for him?

I reported what took place.

Witness continuing, said, in reply to further questions, that Mr. Davies when he came into Mr. Mangilli's read over what Mr. Pullen had said. Witness then went to Mr. Pullen's and told him the substance of what Mr. Mangilli had said. He made no statement to Pullen about not being prosecuted. He could not have done such a thing. He pointed out to Mr. Pullen that he had a great deal to lose, and Mr. Mangilli very much to lose.

Cross-examined by Mr. Mowll. Witness said he went to the “Prince Louis” thinking there was an understanding between Pullen and Mangilli, and he went there to find out. Witness told Pullen he had a lot to lose, and Mangilli very little. Witness did not ask Pullen to tell him his “little game.” Witness did not say to him that one of them had got to go through with it.

Mr. Mowll told the witness that Mr. Pullen came to him the same afternoon and gave him the account of the conversation that he was putting to him.

Witness in reply to further questions, admitted that he said to Pullen, “You don't think that Mangilli is such a fool as to let you have this for nothing,” and Pullen replied that Mangilli got nothing.

Mr. Mowll: You see how this witness admits all the questions I put to him.

Mr. Hawkins: Yes, except the important ones.

Mr. Mowll: Except the one he was warned of.

Did you finish up by saying “As you will not tell me I will summon you both?

No, I did not. If you do not mind I might say that I finished up with, “I have heard Mr. Mowll is a very good man.” (Laughter.)

Mr. Mowll: That is a most happy remark, to which I have not the slightest objection. (Laughter.)

By Mr. Hawkins: he never made the slightest attempt to induce Mr. Pullen to make a statement by any threats? He pointed out to him one brand of champagne, of which the ordinary price was 8/-. and for which he was charged 12/- at Mr. Mangilli's.

The Magistrates' Clerk: That is no offence.

James John Hayward, officer of the Inland Revenue, said: On the 14th November he saw Mr. Davies and Mr. Cope go into Mangilli's premises. He remained on observation. At 7.16 a waiter came out of the Restaurant and went to the “Prince Louis” public house. Witness followed him, and he ordered a small bottle of Volney and a small Bass. He placed the book (produced) on the counter and half a sovereign, and said, “I'll call back in a minute.” The lady behind the bar took the book and wrote something in it, but he did not know what it was. She placed the bottle of Volney and Bass on the counter, together with the book and 7/3. The waiter returned and took them to Mangilli's. That was at 7.22. While he was away from the Restaurant, he left Mr. Bate outside.

Percy Hart Bate said that on the 14th November he was on observation outside Mangilli's. At 7.34 a waiter came from the Restaurant with a book and footed tumbler in his hand. He went into the “Prince Louis” public house and called for two liqueurs of brandy. A lady behind the bar served him and took the book, and witness saw her put 1/- in the £ s. d. column. The waiter put down 1/- and received no change. He took the brandy in the tumbler back to the restaurant at 7.36.

George Edgar, Inland Revenue Officer for Dover, said that Mangilli had no license for the sale of intoxicating liquors to be consumed either on or off the premises. He was licensed as a Restaurant keeper, and a tobacco dealer. Pullen was a fully licensed on and off dealer at the “Prince Louis.”

Mr. Mowll submitted on behalf of Mr. Pullen that there was no evidence of any offence by him. They had it in evidence that the wines and spirits were sold at the “Prince Louis,” for which he was fully licensed. The only possible ground for suggesting that he sold them at 5, Bench Street was the fact that there was a wine list at Mangilli's, but it was stated on it that the wines on it were specially selected by H. G. Pullen, “Prince Louis,” Chapel Lane. There could be no reasonable doubt, therefore, that the wines were going to be supplied from the “Prince Louis.” Referring to the case of Pasquire and Neale, he pointed out that the Restaurant keeper had a partnership in a wine business close by, and it was held that he sent his waiters to purchase his own wine, and the Lord Chief Justice pointed out that whilst if the wine were sent for from a neighbouring house the sale would not take place at the unlicensed premises of the Restaurant, but that in the Pasquire case he was employing his waiter as an agent to promote the sale of his own wines. It was a very different case from this case, because there was no evidence of any interest whatever, notwithstanding the very long cross-examination his clients had been subjected to. In Pasquires case there was no evidence of the amount that was paid, but there was in this. As to the place where the sale took place, he pointed out that when the waiter was given the bottles and paid for them at Pullen's they were then the waiter's property, and how could it be said that a sale under these circumstances took place at Mangilli's Restaurant. He quoted three cases where beer was sold by agents at a house and the money received at the house by an agent of the brewer, and in those it was held that the contract was not accepted till it reached the brewer. So in this case he contended there was no account at all till it was accepted by Pullen at his premises. He also pointed out that Pullen's case was strengthened by the fact that the transmitter of the order was not even in his employ. The wine list was nothing more than an advertisement of what customers who want to get stuff from Pullen's at Mangilli's can obtain by sending the waiters there.

Dr. Hardman also submitted there was no case against his client. The only case on which the prosecution relied was one where the case was decided purely on the ground that the Restaurants keeper was a part owner in the wine business, which, as had been pointed out, did not apply to the present case. The cases that had been quoted by Mr. Mowll were summonses in which the principle was laid down that the sale takes place where the goods are appropriated to the contract. That was where the bottles were separated from the other bottles and placed to the customer's credit or handed to his messenger. He objected to the way the evidence had been given by Mr. Davies in saying that the waiter handed him the wine list, when he asked him for it. As to their suggestions and surmises, the case was built on them. What was proved to be done was absolutely legal, but they said it cannot be right. “These people are not fools, there must be a secret arrangement. We have no evidence of it, but we ask the Court out of their inner consciences and anything but the evidence to say there was an arrangement.” Why should the Court find that? The effects of a conviction were terrifying. No person so convicted could hold a license, and if he held one it was immediately forfeited, and was unable for the rest of his life to hold a license. It was, therefore, therefore, essential that the offence should be strongly, fully and convictingly proved.

At the conclusion of Dr. Hardman's speech he accused the prosecuting witnesses of attempts to exaggerate or misunderstand, and a sharp passing of words took place between Dr. Hardman and Mr. Hawkins, the former sticking to his charge, although he said he did not include Mr. Hawkins.

Mr. Hawkins, referring to the hardship which Dr. Hardman had referred to in the forfeiture of the license, said that was only carried on the conviction on the charge of selling spirits without a license, and he would withdraw that summons. His contention of the question of law was that Mr. Mangilli was Mr. Pullen's agent, on the ground that the money in the first instance was handed over in Mr. Mangilli's premises, and that the appropriation of the goods took place there.

Dr. Hardman said that if that were so no restaurant keeper could send out for anything.

The Bench said: The bench are unanimous that the case must go on and be heard. You say there is no case, but we consider there is without any question whatever.

Herbert George Pullen, licensee at the “Prince Louis” public house, who said he had held the license for three years. The house was within about thirty yards from Mangilli's Restaurant. From time to time he had supplied wines, spirits and beer to Mangilli, to men bearing the appearance of waiters from Mangilli. Mangilli was not obliged to come to him. The book which had been produced contained entries made by the wife or himself. Items were put in it of the goods supplied to Mangilli.

Cross-examined by Mr. Hawkins. He had known Mangilli for many years. Mangilli had dealt with him a long time. About April he asked Mangilli if he kept all the wines that Mangilli required, would he deal off him. He did not ask him to deal exclusively off him. Mangilli asked him to get the wine list printed, and witness paid for it. He copied the list from Mr. Binfield's list. The prices on witness's list corresponded with Mr. Binfield's. After April he got in the special stock of wine, but anyone who liked could buy them. No discount or commission was allowed by him to Mangilli. He got the wine from Mr. Binfield. Mangilli suggested having a book. He was handed one of Mr. Binfield's retail price lists, but witness said he had not seen it before. The prices did not correspond with the list he supplied at Mr. Mangilli's.

Mr. Mowll pointed out that the charges Mr. Binfield made were exactly the same as those witness did.

Witness in reply to further questions, said he did not know the price that Mr. Binfield charged private customers. He got his goods from him at wholesale price. He did not know whether Mr. Mangilli sent elsewhere, but had seen his waiters coming out of other public houses with jugs or bottles. The book was simply kept to see that there was no over charge.

Cross-examined by Mr. Mowll. He had been advised by Mr. Mowll that what he was doing was quite legal.

Achille Mangilli said that he carried on business at 5, Bench Street for 4½ years, and during that time had sent out to most of the neighbouring houses for wines, spirits or beer that customers asked to be supplied with. Up to two years ago he was in the habit of taking a certain share in the profits, but was then advised by an Excise Officer that it was illegal. He had, however, never had any such arrangement with Mr. Pullen. During the past two years he had never received any commission, discount or return. He had some time since applied for a license for his premises, and he was then advised to keep a book showing what business he did, so that he could be seen by the Bench. He had kept the book since, and had also found it useful in checking his waiters, and had by its means discovered cases of dishonesty on two or three occasions. He was under no obligation to go to Mr. Pullen. But a wine and spirit merchant was unable to supply him after eight in the evening and on Wednesday afternoon and Sundays. He kept open till eleven in the evening, and a great deal of business was done after eight, and it was a great convenience for Mr. Pullen to be able to supply him. He had when asked for a special wine sent for it to wherever requested. Whatever profit Mr. Pullen made on the sales to witness's customers he had not benefited directly or indirectly. Referring to the conversation with Mr. Cope and Mr. Davies, witness denied that he said, “I cannot remember.” He had answered their questions, but when they kept badgering him he began to get angry and said, “I can't remember.”

Cross-examined. He had never had more than one person's wine list on his premises at the same time. He had one from the “Shakespeare,” and he also had one from Mr. Binfield's. he found that owing to the hours of business it was more convenient to obtain the wines, etc., through Mr. Pullen. Mr. Binfield gave him 15 per cent commission up to the time he was warned by the Excise Officer. He then told Mr. Binfield that he could not take it as it would be dangerous, and he did not take it afterwards. He continued to deal with Mr. Binfield, and the prices, which were exactly the same as Pullen's, were continued to be charged.

Mr. Mowll offered to recall Mr. Pullen to give evidence as to the ticks in the book to which Mr. Mangilli was subjected to cross-examination, but Mr. Hawkins said he did not want him.

Mr. Mowll and Dr. Hardman both shortly addressed the Bench for the defendants, and Mr. Hawkins again extended his offer to withdraw the summons in respect to the spirit license if the bench saw fit.

The Magistrates retired, and after a quarter of an hours consideration, returned and the Chairman said: I think the gentlemen on both sides will say we have given the case very ample consideration. It was a very serious case, and we have come to the conclusion that we do not consider the evidence sufficient to convict.

 

From the Dover Express, 12 February, 1904.

To the Overseers of the Poor and the Superintendent of Police of the Parish of Dover in the Borough of Dover, and to the Clerk of the Licensing Justices of the Licensing District of Dover, and to all whom it may concern.

I ACHILLE MANGILLI of No 5 Bench Street Dover aforesaid (known as Mangilli's Café Restaurant) Restaurant Keeper do hereby give notice that it is my intention to apply at the Adjourned Meeting of the General Annual Licensing Meeting for the Borough of Dover to be holden at the Sessions House Dover aforesaid in and for the said Borough on Friday the fourth day of March 19th at 11 o'clock in the forenoon for a license to hold any excise licenses that may be held by a publican for the sale by retail of all intoxicating liquors pursuant to the Alehouse Act 1828, and any Acts amending the same to be drunk and consumed either on or off the house shop or premises thereunto belonging situate and being No. 5 Bench Street, Dover aforesaid and known as Mangilli’s Cafe Restaurant of which I am the occupier and owner.

And if such license is granted to me I shall apply for a condition to be inserted therein that such liquors shall only be supplied to persons who use the premises for the obtaining of food as a Restaurant and that no public bar be opened thereon.

Given under my hand this 9th day of February, 1904,

ACHILLE MANGILLI.

 

From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 29 December, 1933. Price 1½d.

FIRE AT THE “PRINCE LOUIS”

About 6.50 a.m. on Wednesday, Mr. G. Jeffrey, the landlord of the “Prince Louis,” Chapel Lane, was awakened by his wife who had heard crackling in the room adjoining. These two rooms are above the public and private bars of the public house and are connected only by a passage, and from this passage there are stairs leading below. They had to pass the room which was on fire and had they not heard the fire in time their retreat would have been cut off. They escaped this way and the Police were immediately notified. The Morris fire engine, in charge of the Chief Constable and with several firemen, was quickly on the scene, despite the difficulty in negotiating the awkward corner from Snargate Street up Chapel Lane. A good supply of water was obtained from a stand-pipe in Chapel Lane and the fire knocked out, but the room – the sitting room over the private bar – was gutted, and the contents, including a piano, practically destroyed. There was also some damage to the ceiling of the bar below. The Police were engaged for over an hour.

 

 

War damage repairs were authorised in November 1951 and a description at that time is well worth repeating.

 

"The walls and ceiling were decorated with about two hundred and forty articles. Included were swords, horse brasses, guns, including a two inch mortar, model ships etc. There were also three hundred and four photographs displayed, three hundred and fifty one beer mats, two hundred and eleven service flashes, hundreds of foreign currency notes and a ship's wheel".

 

From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 19 August, 1938.

DOVER PUBLIC HOUSE CHANGES.

The Bench approved plans for alterations to the "Prince Louis," Chapel Lane.

 

From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 4 September 1942.

THE PUBLIC HOUSE AND THE BACK-OUT.

At the Dover Police Court on Friday before Messers. W. B. Brett, W. G. Jeffrey and Mrs. Binge.

Ernest John Bateman, licensee of the "Prince Louis," Chappel Lane, was summoned for allowing a light to be displayed during the hours of black-out on August 15th.

Mr. P. A. G. Aldington defended, and pleaded not guilty.

War Reserve Relf said that on August 15th at 11.45 p.m. He was in bench Street, and received a complaint of a very bright light at the back of the "Prince Louis." War Reserve Dunigan was with him. He saw the light from the adjourning premises.  When he got there he found that the light came from a window 5ft. by 3ft., uncovered. He went to the front of the "Prince Louis," and while the defendant was coming to the door he heard him say "there's the Police about that light." Defendant said he did not wish to make a statement, but followed up by saying "My wife must have made a mistake and that's that. You fellows have got your job to do, and that's all there is to it." Black-out was at 8.51 p.m.

Cross examined. He had no doubt that the light came from the "Prince Louis." He did not ask the defendant to put the light out because he had heard him tell his wife to put it out.

Re-examined by the Chief Constable. Witness said he did not wait to see the light out, as he had heard defendant to put it out, and the wife was in an argumentative mood.

War reserve Dunigan corroborated.

Mr. Aldington said that he had a watching brief and was asked to put those queries, but he did not propose to address the bench.

Fined £3 4s.

 

Dover Express 14th May 1943.

WOMAN ASSAULTS POLICE. SCENE OUTSIDE PUBLIC HOUSE.

At the Dover Police Court on Saturday, before Mr. W. G. Jeffery and Mrs. Morecroft.

Mrs. Kathleen Brankley (39) of 46, Albany Place, was charged with assaulting PC J. H. S. Harman and War Reserve W. D. L. Moore and with having been drunk and disorderly in Chapel Lane on 7th May.

Defendant pleaded not guilty to all three charges.

PC Harman said that, at 10.10 p.m. the previous day, he was in the Market Square when he was informed that there was fighting in the “Prince Louis” public house. Outside he saw War Reserve Moore in the centre of a crowd of women, soldiers and sailors. Mrs. Brankley was there and she was shouting and using obscene language. She tried to get into the public house. Witness advised her to go home but the defendant persisted in pushing past witness and War Reserve Moore. She was very violent and continually used obscene language. With the assistance of a military policeman, witness carried defendant into Queen Street to await the patrol car. She stopped resistance but, at the Police Station, she again used obscene language. When charged she said “No. No. I’m not drunk”. She smelt very much of drink.

Defendant: I told them they had no need to drag me up. If they had loosed me, I should have walked up.

War Reserve Moore corroborated the previous witness’s evidence.

Corpl. Eric Turner C.M.P. also corroborated.

Defendant said there was an argument inside the public house.

Outside, the constable grabbed her arm and would not let her go. Then they dragged her like a dog. She had had a drink, but was not drunk.

The Chairman said that the charges were very serious, but they were taking into account that the defendant had not previously been before the Court.

Fine £2 on each charge, or, in default, one month with hard labour.

 

Dover Express 3rd September 1943.

Dover Police Court 27th August 1943.

Light from a Window.

Madelaine Bateman of the “Prince Louis”, Chapel Lane, was summoned for allowing a light to show from the upper part of the premises at 12.30 a.m. on 10th August. The defendant wrote admitting the offence.

Chief Inspector McLeod said that the light was seen from the top of the premises on two occasions the same night. There was no black-out at the window. Defendant said “I wish you would do your job properly. You are not doing it now”. Defendant wrote that the blind of the window was caught.

“Fined £3”.

 

Dover Express 14th July 1944.

BLACK-OUT OFFENCES.

At the Dover Police Court on Monday before Mr. W. Hollis and Miss Elnor.

Ernest John Bateman “Prince Louis”, Chapel Lane, was summoned for allowing light to show at 1.30 a.m. pm 22nd June.

Defendant pleaded guilty.

Inspector Wilkinson said that the light was showing from the bedroom window.

Defendant said that workmen had taken the black-out and he put a cream coloured blanket over the window, but apparently it was not effective.

Fined £1.

 

Dover Express 16th August 1946.

BROKE PUBLIC HOUSE WINDOWS.

At Dover, on Monday, before Mr. G. Golding presiding.

Mrs. Wilhelmina Nash, aged 77, of 25 Beaconsfield Avenue, pleaded guilty to being drunk and disorderly in Chapel Lane, at three o’clock on Friday afternoon and further to smashing a window of the “Prince Louis” public house.

P. Supt Saddleton said that defendant was seen by PC Maddox outside the public house beating on the window with her stick. She had already smashed the lower pane and was hammering at the top part of the window. Before the policeman could reach her, however, she collapsed in the roadway, striking her head on the ground cutting her eyebrow. An ambulance was summoned and took her to the Police Station, where she was seen by Dr. Richardson and certified drunk. She had a half bottle of gin and a half bottle of brandy in her possession when arrested.

The Chairman, fining defendant 10s on each charge and 16s 6d costs, said she was old enough to know better.

Defendant: I shan’t live long enough to be here again.

 

From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 30 December 1965.

PROBLEM FOR A LICENSEE.

Licensee Charles Collett had a problem on Friday - he couldn't open his bar. He's landlord of the Prince Louis at Chapel Lane.

The trouble was that the wheel of a lorry collapsed through a cellar trap. The lorry was unable to move and the doorway was blocked.

 

 

During the 1960s whilst under the rule of Charlie Collett, who it was said always had a cigar going, the inside was adorned with fishing nets and floats hanging up on the walls and ceiling and also different bank notes of all denominations

 

The removal of the property was considered necessary and when it closed on 28 September 1969 it was reckoned to be about three hundred years old.

 

It belonged to Thompson's Walmer Brewery and as I write in 1989 there is at last signs of the site being utilised once more.

 

Demolition was authorised by the Ministry of Transport in June 1970 and was carried out the following October. The District Valuer allowed compensation of £49 which covered the accountant's bill of £39 and £I0 towards removal expenses.

 

From the Dover Express, 30 October, 1970.

End of an era.

Prince Louis demolished 1970

The "Prince Louis" is no more. The once popular public house  in Chapel Lane is gone... but not forgotten. Where glasses once clinked there is now a pile of smouldering rubble. In the background is the now closed "Criterion" public house in Last Lane, soon to suffer the same fate. One day the much delayed York Street bypass  road will cut through this area at the back of Snargate Street.

 

LICENSEE LIST

PAUL Mrs (Proprietor) 1863 (Prince Louis of Hesse)

PAUL William 1864-65 (Prince Louis of Hesse)

SMITH Henry 1871-74+ Post Office Directory 1874

LANE George 1882 Post Office Directory 1882

PARAMOR Henry J to 1887-Dec/90 Next pub licensee had (Extra history)

SHARP George Jan/1891+ Dover Express

MANSER Thomas 1891-1902 (age 46 in 1891Census) Pikes 1895Post Office Directory 1903

MANSER Mrs Elizabeth Ann Mar/1902 Dover Express

PULLEN Herbert George Mar1902-Jan/06 Post Office Directory 1903Dover Express (Folkestone butcher)

CONE Joseph 1906-Dec/10 Next pub licensee had (Formerly head waiter at the "Pavilion Hotel" at Folkestone.) Dover ExpressPikes 1909

ROTHWELL Henry James Dec/1910-Mar/22 Next pub licensee had (age 35 in 1911Census) Dover ExpressPost Office Directory 1913Post Office Directory 1922

DOLBEAR William John Mar/1922-Apr/27 Next pub licensee had Dover ExpressPikes 1924

JEFFREY George Apr/1927-32+ Dover ExpressPost Office Directory 1930Pikes 1932-33 (From Rochester, assistant storekeeper H.M. Dockyard)

FUNNELL Alfred James 1936-Jan/38 Post Office Directory 1938Pikes 1938-39Dover Express

DREDGE Bertram Charles Jan/1938-Apr/39 Dover Express (Brewers manager, Messrs. Thompson and Sons, Ltd. Walmer)

BATEMAN Ernest John Apr/1939-50 Pikes 48-49Kelly's Directory 1950

COLLETT Charles Sylvester 1951-69 end Kelly's Directory 1953Kelly's Directory 1956

 

Post Office Directory 1874From the Post Office Directory 1874

Post Office Directory 1882From the Post Office Directory 1882

Pikes 1895From Pikes Dover Blue Book 1895

Post Office Directory 1903From the Post Office Directory 1901

Post Office Directory 1903From the Post Office Directory 1903

Pikes 1909From Pikes Dover Blue Book 1909

Post Office Directory 1913From the Post Office Directory 1913

Post Office Directory 1922From the Post Office Directory 1922

Pikes 1924From Pikes Dover Blue Book 1924

Post Office Directory 1930From the Post Office Directory 1930

Pikes 1932-33From Pikes Dover Blue Book 1932-33

Post Office Directory 1938From the Post Office Directory 1938

Pikes 1938-39From Pikes Dover Blue Book 1938-39

Pikes 48-49From Pikes Dover Blue Book 1948-49

Kelly's Directory 1950From the Kelly's Directory 1950

Kelly's Directory 1953From the Kelly's Directory 1953

Kelly's Directory 1956From the Kelly's Directory 1956

Dover ExpressFrom the Dover Express

 

If anyone should have any further information, or indeed any pictures or photographs of the above licensed premises, please email:-

TOP Valid CSS Valid XTHML