From the Dover Express and East Kent Intelligencer, 10 February, 1866.

JUVENILE DEPRAVITY

John Gittens and Arthur Williams, two urchins, aged 12 and 14, who have on several occasions been convicted of felony and other offences, were charged with stealing from the till of the "Providence Tavern," Council-house Street, a portmonnaie (purse) containing a half-sovereign and a bag with about 20s. in silver in it.

Henry Ripsher, proprietor of the "Providence," said he saw the portmonnaie and canvas bag safe in his till at half-past two o'clock on Sunday afternoon, and missed them about half-an-hour afterwards. The portmonnaie contained a half-sovereign, and was in the canvas bag with about £1 worth of silver. He identified the portmonnaie produced as his property, and said the canvas bag produced was like that stolen from his till. The piece of stick produced was standing behind the counter when he discovered the loss. It was not there when he saw the money safe. The front entrance was locked between the times stated: therefore the boys must have got in by the side door and crept along below the counter, which accounted for their not being seen. The prisoner Williams had been in the habit of coming to his house to ask for different things; recently he came in and begged a little water.

Joseph Bennett, a boy twelve years of age, living in Hartley Street, deposed that on the preceding afternoon, about three o'clock, he saw the prisoners in a stable near St. Mary's Cemetery. Williams had the purse, which he was tearing up, and Gittens had the bag. Gittens went down into the garden, and fetched a lot of money, which he said they had stolen at Buckland. Williams said they had 23s., but had spent a lot if it.

Police-sergeant Bailey said that from information he received, he went at half-past eight on Saturday night to an outhouse near St. Mary's Cemetery, where he found Williams sleeping on some straw. Under him he found the purse produced, and near the place the bag, containing a half-crown and a six-pence.

Police-constable Smith said Gittens acknowledged that he and Williams stole the money, and that the stick produced by the prosecutor belonged to Williams. This was said the same morning at the police station.

Police-constable Geddes apprehended Gittens in the street, having heard of the robbery, and seeing the boy with a lot of others, who ran away directly they caught a glimpse of him.

Mr. Mowll inquired whether the parents of the boys were in court?

Supt. Coram replied that one of them was; but the parents could do nothing with the boys, who were quite incorrigible.

Mr. Mowll felt bound to remark that he disbelieved parents when they said they could not control their children.

The mother of the prisoner Williams said, in reply to the Bench, that she had done her utmost to keep her boy out of the company of Gittens, who had been turned out-doors by his parents for his bad conduct; but she could not succeed, for the more his father beat him, the more he stayed away from home. She hoped the Bench would send her son to a Reformatory, for there was no hope of reclaiming him all the while he remained here.

The prisoner pleaded guilty to the charge, and desired to be dealt with by the Magistrates.

Superintendent Coram remarked that there were as many as six other robberies which these boys were suspected of having committed lately. They were also corrupting a lot of other boys who associated with them.

Dr. Astley said the sentence of the Bench was that the boys be committed to prison for a month with hard labour, and at the expiration of that time be sent to a Reformatory for three years.

A woman named Wilson, who changed the stolen half-sovereign for the young thieves, was called in, and questioned by the Bench; but she denied having received any part of the money, save a penny given her to buy some snuff; and the bench administered a significant caution to her.

A PROMISING COUPLE

George Blackman and Richard Monk, two boys about 14 years of age, were brought up and charged with being drunk and disorderly in the streets.

It was stated that the defendants had been with a lot of other boys partaking too freely of beer which had been given them by the prisoners in the last case, Gittens and Williams, who had paid for it with the money stolen from the "Providence."

The mother of Blackman stated that her boy had hitherto borne a good character.

The Magistrates dismissed them with a suitable admonition.

From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 28 February, 1868.

INFRINGEMENT OF LICENSE.

Henry Ripsher, landlord of the "Providence Tap," Council House Street, was charged with having his house open for the sale of drink on Sunday morning last. Mr. Fox appeared on behalf of the defendant. The case was dismissed.

At the conclusion of this case Mr. Fox presented to the Bench from the Dover Licensed Victuallers' Protection Society a memorial on the subject of licenses.

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 5.

A Commodious and old-established Leasehold Hotel, with Tap adjoining, known as the “Providence,” in Council House Street, Dover, near to the Harbour, and railway Stations.

From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 17 March, 1876. 1d

PERMISSION TO DRAW

At the "Providence" was given to William James Brisenden, of the "Ball Hotel," Cranbrook.

From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday 9 March, 1877.

A SERIES OF ASSAULTS – A VIOLENT CHARACTER

Robert Chatham, was charged with being drunk and disorderly in Council House Street, and assaulting the police and others.

Police-constable Stephen Walker said: last night about 7 o'clock, I was fetched to the “Providence Inn” in Council House Street. I went there in company with Police-constable Baker. The prisoner was in the house very drunk. The landlord charged him with breaking a glass tumbler and refusing to pay for it; and also with refusing to leave the house. I asked him to go out, and he refused. I then put him out. He became very abusive and violent. We took him into custody. He then swore that he would not go, and that 12 of us would not take him. He was very violent. We got him on the way, to the police-station, and he attempted to throw us two or three times. He became so violent that we had to throw him and handcuff him. He then kicked us, and kicked me in the eye, and Baker in the back. I then called William Upton to assist, and the prisoner kicked him violently on the legs. He also kicked the landlord of the “Providence Inn.” With the assistance of another man we got him to the Police-station.

The prisoner said the reason why he did not leave the house, was because Mr. Smith had hit him in the eye.

Police-constable Baker said: Last night, about 7 o'clock, I went to the “Providence Inn” with the last witness, and the landlord wanted to give the prisoner into custody for breaking a glass which he refused to pay for. He was violent and abusive. The landlord put him out. The landlord gave him into custody for breaking the glass. The prisoner said we should not take him. I advised him to come quietly, but he became very rough indeed, and we, after a long struggle, were obliged to throw him and put the handcuffs on him. In the struggle, he kicked Walker and me. He afterwards kicked the landlord. We tried to get his boots off, and he begged us not to take them off, and we gave him several chances to walk, but eventually we were obliged to take his boots off. He was very violent then, and we had to threaten him that if he did not walk, we would lash him to a barrow with ropes. He kicked a man in the employ of Mr. Dickeson, whom we called to our aid.

Stephen Smith, landlord of the “Providence Inn,” said: The prisoner came to my house. He had been drinking. He broke a glass; I believe it was accidental. He made a great disturbance, and I had to send for the police. He was very violent; I never saw such a fool of a man before. He kicked me, and I am aching from it now.

By the prisoner: I believe after you kicked me, I did give you a box on the side of the ear; you were not hurt half enough.

The prisoner said he was very sorry for what he had done; he was drunk at the time.

Mr. Finnis said it was impossible to pass over this, and they could not deal with it by a fine. They must protect the police in the execution of their duty, and the prisoner would be imprisoned with hard labour, and he would be further imprisoned for 14 days' for that cowardly kick he gave the landlord.

From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 11 November, 1877. Price 1d.

DRUNK AND DISTRUCTIVE

Two Norwegian seamen were charged with being drunk and breaking a pane of glass in the public-house of Mr. Gordon, the “Providence Inn,” Council House Street. They were fined, including costs, 15s. each.

From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday 10 May, 1878

TRANSFERS

Mr. Fox applied that the license of the “Providence” might be transferred from Charles William Gordon to Edward Henry Mann, permission to draw having already been granted.

The Superintendent stated that there had been complaints about the house in consequence of a disturbance that took place there, and for which it had been put out of bounds to soldiers. The neighbourhood had also complained of the singing that took place there.

In reference to the complaint Mr. Fox called the applicant, who said he had been in the house since February 18th. It was reported that when the piquet came on one occasion a brick bat came out of his room window and knocked one of them down. But it was not so, as he had made enquiries afterwards of the piquet, who told that it was not from his house, and he was going to put it before the Colonel. The fight took place without his permission, and he did his best to repress it. Besides sending for the piquet he put several of the people out himself. With regard to the singing and dancing he would undertake that it should not occur again.

On this understanding the application was granted.