|
33 Hempsted Road
Ashford
Richard Ticknall tell me that this was closed and demolished for the
construction of the Tufton Shopping Centre in 1975.
Also known as simply the "Wellington"
but at present I don't know when the name was shortened.
|
From the Maidstone Journal and Kentish Advertiser, Tuesday 11 December 1855.
THE BILLETING SYSTEM.
A recruiting sergeant for the Royal Artillery summoned Edward Ashurst,
landlord of the "Duke of Wellington," to show cause why he refused to
accept the billet for a recruit which have been drawn on the 20th of
last month. The man had been regularly enlisted on the same day, but had
not been attested, and on this ground the landlord refused to allow him
to remain in his house, as he considered he was not a soldier within the
meaning of the act. The man had deserted and was now about, and the
sergeant believed it was partly through the treatment he received at the
"Duke of Wellington." On reference to the Act of Parliament it was found
that, as the man had taken the shilling, he was deemed to be a soldier,
and that the billet was there for properly drawn.
As the sergeant was in communication with his commanding officer on the
subject, the case was remanded till next bench day. The sergeant in the
meantime expressed themselves satisfied to receive back the shilling and
not press the case further. The landlord said he only wished the
question as to liability settled.
|
|
From the Whitstable Times, 2 March 1867. Price 1d.
SHOCKING CASE OF MANSLAUGHTER.
On Saturday afternoon last, an inquest was held at the “Duke of
Wellington Inn,” Ashford, on the body of Arabella Clarke, a young woman
aged twenty-five years, who died in consequence of injuries received
from one John Tindall, with whom she cohabited. T. T. Delasaux, Esq.,
the County Coroner, presided at the inquest, and the following evidence
was adduced:— John Hornsey, labourer, of Ashford, said:- The deceased was the daughter
of my present wife, and had for some time past been living with John
Tindall in Ashford. Myself and my wife lived in the same house with the
deceased and John Tindall, and on the night of Saturday, the 9th
February, I retired to rest between the hours of eleven and twelve. In
about ten minutes or a quarter of an hour afterwards I heard the
deceased fall, and in consequence went down stairs, and found her lying
on the floor with John Tindall standing near her. I lifted her up, and
she said, “I am very bad.” In about forty minutes I again went to bed,
leaving the deceased, my wife, and John Tindall together there. The
deceased also said, “He” (meaning Tindall) “has knocked me down to which
he did not make any reply. When I went to bed the first time my
daughter-in-law (the deceased) was not in the house nor was my wife. Mrs. Romsey deposed:- I am the wife of John Romsey, labourer, and mother
of the deceased, who was 25 years of age. She had been living with John
Tindall for about 10 years as his wife, but I believe they were not
married. I have lived with them nearly the whole of that period, and
they have generally appeared happy. I believe the deceased was at times
flighty, and scarcely appeared to know what she was about, and this
occurred when she was perfectly sober. On Saturday, the 9th day of
February, I retired, to rest about 12 o'clock. My husband was then in
bed. My daughter was at home the whole evening, but at about twenty
minutes before twelve, she suddenly left the house, my husband and
Tindall being from home. I immediately went in search of her and not
finding her, returned and found her as well as my husband and Tindall.
She was then, standing up, and said to Tindall “You ought not to have
done so.” She had a bruise on her left eye, which she must have received
after leaving the house at 20 minutes to 12, and before I returned. I
asked deceased how she came by that eye, and she said Tindall gave it
her. He at once said “No, I did not—you fell on the chair.” They
afterwards all went to bed, witness taking her daughter with her. For
the first two or three days after the 9th inst. Tindall and the deceased
did not speak, but since then he had been very kind to her. Until within
the last twelve months witness believed that they were married. Mr. William Shepherd, of Ashford, surgeon, was then called, and
described the injuries received by the deceased at length. He was first
sent for on the 12th, and found the deceased in bed suffering from
violent sickness and diarrhoea. There was a severe injury to the left
eye, caused by a blow. Deceased was rather addicted to drink. He gave
her medicine which checked the diarrhoea, but not the sickness, which
continued upwards of a week. From her colour, he was led to the
conclusion that deceased was suffering from some organic disease of the
brain. Deceased gradually got worse, and died on Saturday morning. He
had made a post mortem examination of the deceased externally, and found
a contusion over the left eye and temple, and a bruise over the left
breast, and on removing the scalp, the left temporal muscle was highly
congested, and corresponded with the bruise externally. On opening the
skull, the dura mater was also highly congested, and an effusion of
serum over the whole of the left aide of the brain, and part of the
right. There was also effusion at the base of the skull. The whole of
the brain was also highly congested, but there was no effusion in the
ventricles, and the cause of death was congestion and effusion on the
brain, and the entire internal injuries corresponded with the external,
and such injuries might be, and in all probability were, produced by a
blow. The Coroner having summed up the evidence at some length, the jury
returned a verdict of “Manslaughter” against John Tindall. The Coroner
then made out the usual warrant of commitment, and the proceedings
closed. |
|
Kentish Gazette, 29 March, 1870.
ASHFORD.
Petty Sessions, Tuesday.
Present: Col. Groves, Sir K. Knatchbull, Bart., G. B. Sayer, H. B.
Walker, and W. D. Walker, Esqrs.
Wm, John Barnes appeared to summons, charged with wilfully breaking
a street lamp in North-street between the night of Match 4th and the
morning of March 6th. Mr. Towne, solicitor, prosecuted on behalf of
the Ashford Gas Company, and Mr. Dawes, solicitor, defended. The
court was crowded to hear the case, owing to the highly respectable
position of certain parties supposed to be implicated in the affair.
Mr. Towne staled that for some time past the practice of
extinguishing and breaking the public lamps had been carried on in
Ashford, and the gas company had taken stringent proceedings to stop
it. A ticket collector at the railway station named Knowles was
called, and deposed that between twelve and one o'clock he was going
home from the station when he passed Mr. Barnes, in North street,
and his (witness) head being turned somewhat behind him, as it was a
rough night, and the wind blowing in his face, he saw Mr. Barnes
throw something at the lamp projecting over Mr. Furley's door, and
smash it, and then run off. The next day a brickbat broken in halves
was found on the pavement under the lamp. The lamp beyond had also
been smashed in a similar manner; and upwards of thirty other lamps
extinguished. In cross-examination Knowles said he had only been six
weeks in the town, and had never seen Mr. Barnes before; but he was
quite positive as to his identity. He saw Mr. Barnes on the
following Monday evening at the bar of the "Duke of Wellington Inn,"
and immediately identified him, and gave information to the manager
of the gas works, he did not know at that time that a reward of £5
had been offered for the discovery of the person who broke the
lamps. Mr. Dawes called three respectable witnesses to prove an
alibi.
Mr. Cobb, landlord of the "Swan Inn," proved that the defendant came
to his house at about nine o'clock on the evening of March 4th, and
did not leave until past two o’clock the next morning.
Mr. Manser, coachbuilder, and Mr. Chambers, printer, proved that
they were in Mr. Barnes's company all the evening; they were having
a bottle of wine together, Mr. Barnes being about to leave the town.
The beach dismissed the case, but Col. Groves made some strong
remarks with reference to the conduct of Mr. A. Williams, wine
merchant, whom the witness Knowles alleged had threatened him with
proceedings for perjury.
Mr. Williams said that Knowles had told a lie.
|
LICENSEE LIST
AKHURST Edward 1855-62+ (age 62 in 1861 )
SWAIN Henry 1874+
WHEELER Charles 1881-82+ (age 34 in 1881)
LINK John Alfred 1891+
GURR James 1901-03+ (age 56 in 1901)
SMITH William 1913-30+
SMITH Walter S 1938+
https://pubwiki.co.uk/Wellington.shtml
https://pubwiki.co.uk/Wellington.shtml
http://www.closedpubs.co.uk/wellington.html
Census
|
