|
Copeland Terrace / 8 (16 ) Island Wall / 6 High Street in 1881
Whitstable
Above image from Google maps, March 2009. |
Above photo taken and sent by Steve Glover, August 2017. |
Above photo taken and sent by Steve Glover, August 2017. |
|
|
The "Kings Head" was opposite the "Guinea
Inn," the "King's Head" being a well known centre for divers.
More correctly, the "Old King's Head" is on Island Wall. Believed to have
been built from proceeds of local divers salvage work, it was likely
constructed over an existing cottage built after Island Wall was itself
constructed in 1780.
The pub probably started life as a beer-house in the cottage but is known
to have existed as a public house in 1851. It is recorded that the landlord
was fined 10/- for being open after hours on December 27th of that year. The
"Old Kings' Head" became virtually the headquarters or 'clubhouse' of local
divers.
Closure is believed to have been due to the Survey of 1903 which caused
many small, perhaps poorly patronised, pubs to be closed. The premises are
known to have been a private residence in 1906.
Present day photos of the building still show 'The Old Kings Head' across
the front and the distinctive gargoyle like but decidedly un-King like head
above the front door.
I have heard stories of the "Old King's Head" on Sea Wall where the
cellar occasionally flooding because “that's where the sea used to flow.”
there are also old timers' stories which indicated that perhaps the sea did
once flow through there and also the site of Marine Gap. This would isolate
and form Upper Island from both Lower Island and the mainland.
For anyone interested the 1993 Pike, Page & Cann's book Ales & Tales - Pubs in the
Story of Whitstable (Whitstable Improvement Trust ISBN No: 0951582836)
although not giving complete coverage is the best local pubs read available
to date.
|
Kentish Gazette, 20 January 1852.
ST. AUGUSTINE'S PETTY SESSIONS. Saturday, Jan. 17.
(Before Edward Foss, Esq., G. M. Taswell, Esq., T. H. Mackay, Esq., Wm.
Delmar, Esq., and the Rev. J. Hilton.)
Keeping open a public house after time.
The landlord of the "King's Head," Whitstable, appeared to answer an
information laid by Superintendent Walker, for keeping
his house open after the proper time on the 27th December last.
The defendant stated that there had been a supper party in his house,
but the bar was closed at 11 o'clock.
Fined 10s and 11s. 9d. costs.
|
|
Kentish Gazette, 8 February 1853.
ST. AUGUSTINE'S PETTY SESSIONS.
Saturday, Feb. 5.
Present:— E. Foss, Esq. (chairman), G. M. Taswell, Esq., Wm. Delmar,
Esq., W. Hyder, Esq., T. H. Mackay, Esq., and the Rev. J. Hilton.
KEEPING BEERHOUSES OPEN AFTER TIME.
George Hall, landlord of the "King's Head" beer-shop, Whitstable,
was charged by Superintendent Walker with having his house open for
the sale of beer, after 11 o'clock, on Saturday, Jan. 29. Defendant
pleaded not guilty, and produced two witnesses in his behalf, but
their evidence completely confirmed the case as stated by the
information.
Fined £1 and 15s. 9d. costs; in default, one month's imprisonment.
The Chairman expressed his fears that it was the practice in
Whitstable and Seasalter, to keep the beershops open beyond the time
specified by law, and cautioned those present that if they should be
brought up again under similar circumstances, the full penalties
would be inflicted.
|
|
From the Kentish Chronicle, 1 August, 1863.
CIVIL SIDE.—TUESDAY.
COLLARD v. AMOS.
Mr. Sergeant Shee and Mr. Francis, instructed by Messrs. Furley and
Cullaway, were for the plaintiff, and Mr. Hawkins, Q.C., with Mr. Prentice, Q.C., for the defendant.
Mr. Sergeant Shee stated that the plaintiff, Mr. George Plomer Collard,
was a wine and spirit merchant, carrying on business at Canterbury, and
brought this claim to recover a balance of account to the amount of £24
7s. 6d., from defendant, Mr. William Amos, a shipping agent, for goods
supplied to him while carrying on business at the “King's Head,”
Whitstable. The defendant in 1861 took the house from Messrs. Sheppard
and Wares, brewers of Faversham, who supplied the house with beer. The
defendant's son, a young man now about 22 years of age, was put into the
house, and ordered goods of the plaintiff to the amount of £37 7s. 6d.,
of which £13 was paid, leaving the rest now claimed still remaining due.
There was no doubt that when the goods were ordered Mr. Collard supposed
he was dealing with the son, and he was under this impression up to the
time when the defendant relinquished the business, finding it did not
answer. Plaintiff, however, had since discovered that the son was merely
acting as the agent for his father. This was shown by the fact that the
excise licenses were taken out in defendant's name; that defendant had
himself taken the house from Messrs. Sheppard and Mares, and paid the
whole of the valuation to the outgoing tenant, receiving also the
valuation money from the new tenant when the son went out for the goods
then in the house. It was clear, therefore, that he was liable for the
debt due to the plaintiff.
Mr. G. Collard was called and proved the contraction of the debt. In
answer to Mr. Hawkins Mr. Collard said the goods had always been booked
to the son, and a writ was at first issued against him for the recovery
of that amount.
John Amos, the defendant’s son, deposed in having occupied the “King’s
Arms,” under his father. He was not of age when he went into the house,
but it was understood that when he did come of age the house was to be
transferred to him. He, however, only remained there about 15 months. He
might have had a pound of his own money when he went into the house.
The foreman of the jury here intimated that they were perfectly
satisfied from what they had heard that the verdict ought to be for the
plaintiff.
The Judge:— But, gentlemen, there is a golden rule, “hear the other
side.” You certainly ought to hear both sides before you finally make up
your minds.
The Foreman:— The jury perfectly agree, my Lord: they will hear the
other side. (A laugh.)
Mr. Hawkins, in addressing the jury for the defence, urged that though
Mr. W. Amos had assisted his son in taking the house, with a view of
giving him a start in life, yet that the son carried on the business
wholly and solely for his own benefit. Mr. William Amos, the defendant,
was then called, and deposed that for the last seven years he had been a
shipping agent at Whitstable. In 1861 he was desirous of setting up his
son in business at the “King’s Head,” and asked him if he (the father)
could get the money to do this, he could repay him the principal and
interest. Witness then went to Faversham, and saw Mr. Mares on the
subject. He at first said he should have no objection to take the son,
but afterwards said he could not do so unless the son was married. Mr.
Amos said he would make arrangements so that he should be married. (A
laugh) Mr. Mares said if he were witness he would not let the reins out
of his own hands for a little time, as his son and his “intended” were
so young. Under these circumstances witness agreed to take the house.
The stock and fixtures at the house came to £140. He borrowed £150 to
pay for this. He paid £100, leaving £40 owing to the brewers. There was
no furniture in the house, and witness paid out above £100 in furnishing
it. His son’s name was placed over the door; his (witness's) own name
was never placed there. He would swear the son’s name was on the board
produced. (This board caused a good deal of dispute, as there were more
indistinct marks where the Christian name would appear than would have
been in the name “John.” The point was not cleared up, but it was
suggested the explanation might be, that the marks were the remains of
the name of a previous tenant.) Witness never had anything to do with
the business—it was entirely his son’s. He had never thought of having
any account of the profits. The remainder of the £50, after the excise
licenses had been paid, he kept in consideration of articles he had
bought to enable his son to carry on the business. When the son left,
Mr. Mares told him he thought he was going on very badly, and that
witness had better let him go and gain his livelihood in some other way.
The son had also expressed a desire to leave, and did so. He (the son)
removed a portion of the furniture in the night. The in-coming tenant
(Leggett) paid £172 to the brewers, for the stock, &c., but none was
paid to witness, who had to give a note of hand (or the balance, and
altogether had been about £120 out of pocket with the brewers alone. He
had also made himself responsible for about £120 more. Mr. Collard
afterwards told him of the debt owing by his son. Witness replied, “Then
why don’t you make him pay it?” Mr Collard replied, “Don’t be cross; I
don’t say you owe it.” Witness had not spoken to his son for the last
six months.
Mr. Sergeant Shee, in replying upon the case for the defence, urged that
though the defendant might have had the intention of giving up the
business to his son at some future time, if he deserved it, yet that it
was clear, that up to the time in question, the son was carrying on
business on his father's account.
The Judge in summing up, said that if the business was carried on for
the benefit of the defendant, or if to use his own expression—he kept
the reins in his own hands to the extent that he could have said to his
son at any time. “This place and these goods are mine, you must go,”
then of course, he would be liable for the amount; but if they believed
the defendant had no such contract over the premises, and that it was
carried on by the son for his own benefit, then, of course, the
defendant would be entitled to their verdict.
The jury after a short consultation, returned a verdict for the
plaintiff, for the amount claimed.
His lordship expressed his opinion that it would have been much cheaper
and better for the case to have been decided in the County Court.
|
|
From the Kentish Chronicle, 30 January, 1864.
THE BANKRUPTCY OF MR THOMAS LEGGETT.
In the London bankruptcy Court, on Friday, there was a meeting for the
proof of debts and choice of assignees, under the bankruptcy of Stephen
Leggett, described as “formerly of Whitstable, farmer, then of the
“King’s Head Inn,” Whitstable, innkeeper, and now lodging at the “King’s
Head Inn.” Out of business.”
Mr. E. Doyle, solicitor, Vernlam Buildings, appeared for the Bankrupt,
who filed his petition on the 2nd of January instant, and obtained
protection from arrest. The total amount of his debts is £708 l6s., due
to creditors chiefly residing at Whitstable, Herne Bay, Canterbury,
Waltham, near Canterbury, &c. He attributes his bankruptcy to losses in
carrying on business as a farmer, and want of capital. No proof was
tendered at this sitting, and therefore no trade assignee was appointed,
and the Court fixed the 8th of February next, at 3 o'clock, for the
examination and discharge silting, with renewed protection to the
bankrupt.
|
|
From the Whitstable Times and Herne Bay Herald. 6 July 1867. Price 1d.
UNLAWFULLY SELLING MALT LIQUOR ON THE SABBATH.
Edward Warner, landlord of the “King's Head,” Whitstable, was charged,
at St. Augustine's Petty Sessions on Saturday, with unlawfully retailing
beer on Sunday morning, the 23rd June, at; half-past twelve. The case
was proved by P.C. Bates, who said he was on the Wall early on Sunday
morning, and hearing some persons singing, he went to defendant's house,
and found it shut up. He then went round the back way, and a woman let
him in. He saw the woman draw a pint of beer, and take it to some men
who were sitting round a table in one of the rooms. Witness then told
defendant of what he had seen, and he (defendant) said there had been no
beer drawn since twelve o'clock. It was then about half-past 12, Sunday
morning.
In cross-examination by Mr. Delasaux, for the defendant, the constable
stated that the defendant's house had always been kept in an orderly
manner; that there were five persons in the room; and that there was
nothing on the table to make him think they had been having supper.
Mr. Delasaux said that the men in the defendant's house were travellers
and not lodgers; but the Magistrates took a different view of the case,
and fined defendant 1s. and 9s. costs.
|
|
From the Whitstable Times and Herne Bay Herald. 21 December 1867. Price 1d.
FIGHTING AT A PUBLIC HOUSE.
On Thursday last, Charles Edwin Nicholls and Richard Harman, ware
charged before G. T. Tomlin, Esq., at Canterbury, with being drunk and
fighting at the “King's Head,” Whitstable, on the previous night.
I.C. Bates, K.C.C., said that at about twelve o'clock on Wednesday night he
was called into the “King's Head,” and requested by the landlord to
clear his house. In a back room he found the prisoners fighting. Harman
had his shirt off. He turned them out of the room, and the landlord gave
them into custody.
Mr. Warner, the landlord, stated that the prisoners came to his house
the worse for drink, began fighting, and were so violent that he was
obliged to send for the police. He considered Harman was the aggressor
in the affray.
Nicholls was fined 5s. and 7s. 8d. costs, and Harman 10s. and 7a. 8d.
costs.
|
|
From the Whitstable Times and Herne Bay Herald. 23 March 1901. Price 1d.
ADULTERATED WHISKEY.
James Steggles, landlord of the “King's Head,” Island Wall, Whitstable,
was summoned for selling half-a-pint of whiskey that was 1.76 degrees
below the legal limit. Mr. H. J. Bracher, Maidstone, prosecuted and Mr.
R. M. Mercer defended.
Mr. Bracher opened the facts, stating samples were taken of the
defendant's spirits and that his whiskey was found by the county analyst
to be 73.24 under proof or 1.76 per cent. Under legal strength.
Mr. Mercer took preliminary objection that the analyst's certificate was
not in the form prescribed by the statute. 100 was fixed as a standard,
but of this the law said in cases of spirits it might be reduced to 75
degrees, so that legally there might be 75 per cent of spirits and 25
per cent of added water. In this case, however, Dr. Adams said “I find
only 73.24, therefore you have added too much water, for you have got it
1.76 degrees below the legal strength. His certificate, however, only
showed (1) the degrees (1.76) which defendant over-reduced the spirit,
and (2) that the reduction was by means of added water. The certificate
must go further, it must state the constituent parts of the sample
analysed, and it must also say if the adulteration had been by means of
added water how much water had been added. Dr. Adams' certificate did
not state this, therefore it was bad. To get at the added water one had
to work a sum. Out of 100 the standard 75 per cent, was the legal proof,
but out of what amount would 73.24 be legal proof? The difference
between the unstated amount and the 100 showed the quantity of the
foreign ingredient, so the sum worked out as follows:—As 75 was to 73.24
so was 100 to the answer, which was 97.75. Therefore the difference
between 97.75 and 100, namely 2.25, showed the quantity of the added
water per cent. It should have been specifically stated that the whiskey
was reduced to 1.76 degrees under legal strength by adding 2.25 per
cent, of water.
The Bench, over-ruled the objection.
P.C. Gow deposed that on the 30th January he visited defendant's house
and saw his wife, whom he asked for half-a-pint of whiskey, for which he
paid 1s. 2d. He then told her it was purchased for analysis and Supr.
Jacobs came in and divided the whiskey into three parts.
Cross-examined:— He did not see a notice in the bar “All spirits are
diluted.” They went into a private room to divide the spirit, and a
funnel was brought to the Superintendent.
Supt. Jacobs having deposed to dividing the spirit, Dr. M. A. Adams, the
county analyst, deposed that the whiskey contained 1.76 of added water.
It was not a very great adulteration. If the spirit had passed through a
funnel on which there was water it would effect it.
Mr. Mercer said he was going to call evidence to prove that the funnel
supplied to the Superintendent had recently been washed and not wiped
dry. When the whiskey was poured into the funnel it carried most of the
water into the first bottle and less into the other bottles. It became a
matter of conjecture as to where the bottles went, and he thought the
facts went to prove that Dr. Adams got the first bottle and Mr. S.
Harvey, who analysed defendant's sample, the second. If so it would
account for the difference in the two analyses.
Defendant stated that he broke his own whiskey down to 23 under proof.
On the date in question he handed the Superintendent a funnel which was
dripping wet.
Cross-examined:— He did not see the funnel washed out. When the
Superintendent was using it he remarked to his wife that he ought to
have wiped it dry.
Eliza Elizabeth Staggall, wife of defendant, stated that having just
poured peppermint through the funnel she rinsed it out with water.
Mr. S. Harvey, analyst to the city of Canterbury, stated that he had
made two analyses of the whiskey, which was 4 degrees below the legal
limit. The passing of the whiskey through a wet funnel would account for
a difference in its strength.
The Bench imposed a fine of £1 and 14s. 9d. costs.
|
|
Canterbury Journal, Kentish Times and Farmers' Gazette, Saturday 07 May 1904.
Action to recover part proceeds of evaluation.
Important to Licensed Victuallers.
D. S. Hawkins, Whitstable, v. Mrs. Flint and Co, Canterbury.
Judgement for the plaintiff.
At a sitting of the Canterbury County Court on Tuesday, before his
Honour Judge Sir W. L. Selfe, Dansy Sawkins Hawkins, late tenants of the
"Kings Head," Whitstable, sued Messr's Flint and Company, Limited,
brewers, Canterbury, for £28 6s.
Mr. Stuart Sankey, instructed by Mr. Scripps, of Canterbury and
Whitstable, appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Hayden, instructed by
Messrs. Nicholson, Graham, and Graham, of London, represented the
defendants.
Mr. Sankey said this was an action to recover the part proceeds of a
valuation. The claim was for £28 and referred to a change in the tenancy
of the "Kings Head," Whitstable, and Mrs. Flint and Company, Limited,
where the defendant. As his Honour new upon the change in the tenancy of
a house the Brewers sent a representative to see that nothing passed
from one tenant to another that could probably be claimed by the Brewers
as being any part of their fixtures or otherwise. When on the change of
this property, which took place in October last, the plaintiff, Dansy
Sawkins Hawkins, was exchanging the tenancy of the "Kings Head,"
Whitstable to the incoming tenant named Funnell, who had been accepted
by the Brewers. In the evaluation which was then made were included a
number of fixtures. The agreement was dated 16th October, 1903, between
the plaintiff and Arthur Funnel, who agreed to purchase at a valuation.
The valuation was to be adjusted on between the parties by Mr. Ben
Twyman, who acted between the parties. When the plaintiff took the house
he agreed to buy the household furniture and fixtures on an inventory.
The plaintive took the house on the 28th June, 1903, from Henry Owen
Fleet Cobb. The evaluation was then £243 13s. 1d. Mr. Twyman had, until
just lately, been in the employ of Mrs. Flint and company or their
predecessors, Messrs. Flint and Sons, for a number of years. Mr Ben
Twyman was employed by them not only to collect accounts but to be
present on every change that took place from one tenant to another, and
in that capacity he was present at some 30 changes every year. It was
his particular business to see that nothing passed from an outgoing
tenant to an incoming tenant that was not sanctioned by the defendants.
It was his duty to make an inventory upon such occasions, and the firm
then went through the inventory and struck out anything they thought was
their property and not the property of the outgoing tenant. Mr. Twyman,
whom he would call as a witness, would prove that he was employed with
regards to the "Kings Head" at Whitstable on the least 7 changes which
took place to the tenancy. Mr. Twyman could go back for some years, and
on every occasion he would say the fixtures claimed by the defendants
were passed by Messrs. Flint as being the tenants' fixtures, and with
their sanction they were sold from one tenant to another. On the change
of ownership of Messrs. Flints business the new limited company claimed
that they had bought a number of the landlord's fixtures from the old
firm, and having paid for them thought they ought to have them and that
they should not be considered as the tenants fixtures. If they had
bought them all he (Mr. Sankey,) could say was that they had no right to
do so. The fixtures were valued and they had been paid for by the
incoming tenant, Funnel, but the money had been intercepted by Messrs.
Flint and Co,. who held the amount to await the decision of his Honour
in that action. Originally the defendants hold £45 13s. 6d., but since
they had decided that they had no claim to £17 17s. 6d. of that amount,
and that had been paid over. The claim was now for the difference
between £45 18s. 6d. and £17 7s. 6d., the latter amount having been paid
over by the defendants. That left a balance of £28 which was now claimed
for. He hoped it would not be necessary to go very far back into the
history of the house, but if he could prove that the fixtures in dispute
was sold as the tenants property they would be entitled to judgement for
the amount which Messrs. Flint and Co. were holding in their hands
awaiting the decision of the court.
Plaintiff stated that he was now living at Catford and was a Oyster
merchant and fishmonger. He was formerly tenant of the "Kings Head" at
Whitstable, which he took over in January, 1903, from Mr. Cobb. The
inventory produced was the inventor of the fixtures of the "Kings Head,"
which he took over from Mr. Owen Fleet Cobb. The transfer from Cobb to
witness took place on June 20th, 1903. The inventory included furniture,
ornaments and stock in trade and fixtures and fittings. The whole was
valued at £243 13s. 1d. After deducting the unexpired portion of the
rates he paid that amount. The transfer was made from Cobb to witness.
Mr. Twyman as his valued him in on that occasion. Witness employed Mr.
Twyman as his valuer and he (Mr. Twyman) was also present to check the
inventory on the part of the Brewers. Mr. Twyman took the inventory away
and when it was checked by the brewers it came back to witness. In
October, 1903, witness sold his interest to Arthur Funnel for £224. On
this change in October he handed over the inventory to Mr. Twyman. Mr.
Twyman Took the inventory away and witness had not seen it to that day.
Mr. Twyman told him the money would be handed over in a week or two but
he would be absolutely certain to receive it. Witness received the
valuation less £45 13s. 6. and his solicitor had since received £17 7s.
6d. of that amount. Witness claim claimed the difference between those
two sums.
In cross examination, witness said the stoves in the four bedrooms were
fixed in the in the ordinary way. He had never examined the stoves. He
had never seen the inventory since it had been marked by the defendants.
The thirty-six inch boiler, range, and fixing he paid for. He played Mr.
Tom Porter for it himself.
Mr. Haydon said that was one of the items that defendants had paid for.
Continuing the cross-examination:- Mr. Haydon after plaintive. You tell
us Mr. Twyman took away the inventory. How do you know he showed it to
the firm? Plaintive:- He's a gentleman, and I would take his word before
anybody else's. I did not see him show it to the firm, but I suppose he
did.
Benjamin Twyman stated that he was an auctioneer and valuer, and for a
great many years he had been with Messrs. Flint and Co., and before them
with Messrs. Flint and Sons. He had had the supervision of all the tide
houses of the firm. He conducted all the changes of the licensed houses.
It was his duty to represent the firm and all changes and to submit the
inventory to the firm and particularly to observe that no fixtures, or
fittings, or other articles were allowed to pass from an outgoing into
an ingoing tenant. He was especially engaged by Messrs. Flint and Sons
for that purpose because of the irregularities that had existed
formerly.
Mr Sankey:- You say irregularities. What sort were they?
Witness said tenants had not been notified to attend Courts when it was
necessary to make transfers and for other licensing business.
His Honour:- Nothing to do with the inventories?
Witness:- No, you're Honour.
Continuing, witness said he was generally asked to act on one side or
the other as a valuee either for the incoming or the outgoing tenants.
It had not been an absolute necessity that he should do that. If he did
he was paid by the tenant. On a change he would take the inventory of
the outgoing tenants for the incoming tenant. He would put everything
down that must be sold. If acting for the incoming tenant he would check
the inventory as sent on to him by the outgoing tenant's valuee. In all
cases when a change occurred the inventory was submitted to the firm by
him (witness). If there was anything irregular it was marked by the
firm. The firm would look through the items in the inventory and if
there was a fixture that was being sold that was not the tenants
property they would object. When the change took place on January 23rd,
1890, to Mr. Pettman all the things paid for were contained in the
present inventory. When Mr. Steggall was tenant of the house and new
counter was put and partitions were put up. Steggall was allowed a
certain sum of money for the old counters which had been removed and
then had to pay for the new ones put in. The balance paid to the firm
was something like £23. In March, 1901, Steggall sold to Hayward, and he
sold all the things which were included in the present invention.
Witness took the inventor at that change and acted for Steggall. On
September 19th, 1901, Hayward sold to Visher, and all the items in the
present inventory were transferred and paid for by the incoming tenant.
On November 5th, 1901 Visher sold to Everest, on March 31st, 1902,
Everest sold to Cobb, and on June 20th, 1903, Cobb sold to the
plaintiff. Hawkins purchased all the items in the inventory from Cobb,
including all the items that had been struck out by Messrs. Flint and
Co., Ltd., the defendant's.
Mr. Haydon suggested that Mr. Twyman was only employed as traveller,
gauger, and collector and that he did the work which he was not
appointed to do.
Mr. Twyman said his work was enlarged very soon after he became attached
to the firm. The firm gave him extra power.
Mr. Haydon:- You have gone back to 1891, and you say that it was your
duty to particularly check the inventory. Did you ever point out to Mr.
James Flint that there was no record that certain things have been
erected and paid for by the tenant?
Mr. Twyman:- There was a record.
Mr. Haydon:- In the case of any of the now disputed items been put in
and paid for.
Mr. Twyman:- They were put it in and paid for by previous owner - Mr.
Robert Friend.
Mr. Haydon:- What evidence have you of that?
Mr. Twyman:- Mr. Robert Friend is here.
His Honour:- What is the object of going on with this case?
Mr. Haydon:- It's entirely depends on Mr. Friend's evidence.
Robert Friend stated that he was retired seaman at Whitstable. In 1871
he bought the "Kings Head" at Whitstable as a freehold. He paid £750 for
it and £135 for the fixtures. In 1875 he gave up being the licensee and
he leased the premises to Messrs. Flint for seven years. They then took
it for another 15 years. In 1896 he sold the freehold. When he left the
house in 1875 he sold the fixtures to the incoming tenant.
Mr. Haydon said he did not propose to go on further with a case, but he
should like to say that the clients were unable to trace any record of a
tenant having bought from the landlord any fixtures. They went through
the matter but were unable to find any record as to the disputed items.
To make sure they sent interrogatories, but the plaintiffs did not
answer the questions they asked. Under those circumstances he would
suggest that, while he should not contest the action further, the
defendant's having been put to all that expense, judgement should be
given for the plaintiff without costs.
Mr. Sankey said he could not understand why the action was defended.
His Honour said he entirely agreed with Mr. Sankey. They would be
judgement for the plaintiff with costs.
|
|
Canterbury Journal, Kentish Times and Farmers' Gazette 25 June 1904.
BANKRUPTCY OF A WHITSTABLE.
LICENSED VICTUALLER.
At a sitting of the Canterbury Bankruptcy Court, yesterday (Thursday)
before Mr. Registrar Farley, Arthur Fannell, of the "King's Head Inn,"
Whitstable, attended for his public examination.
The liabilities were returned at £817 14s. 11d., and the assets were
estimated to produce £234 18s., leaving a deficiency of £82 16s, 11d.
Under examination by the Deputy Official Receiver (Mr. A. K. Mowll
debtor stated that he commenced business in 1886 as a butcher, at 42,
Tontine Street, Folkestone, with a capital of £40. That was his own
money. The business was disposed of in 1894 for £55 and he distributed
that amount amongst his creditors. From 1894 to 1902 be was employed as
a Journeyman butcher and during that time his wife carried on business
as a lodging house keeper at 6, Wellington Terrace, Sandgate.
The Deputy Official Receiver:- Was her business a success?
Debtor:- Yes.
Why did you give up being a journeyman butcher?
Because I could not get a job and my wife had been in falling health for
years.
In October, 1902, you took the "Three Ravens" public house at
Tilmanstone?
Yes.
What did you have to pay to take that house?
£165, I think.
How did you find that money?
My wife sold her furniture.
Did it amount to £165?
Yes to £168. Then my wife had a little money which she had saved.
You did not provide any of the capital?
No, I had not a penny piece.
You carried on the "Three Ravens" for a year?
Yes.
Why did you leave the house?
Because it was not paying—I was losing money.
What did the valuation come to when you left the house?
To about £150.
How much did you receive in cash?
£80.
The balance going to the brewers?
To the brewers and for rates and taxes.
What have you been doing since then?
l was out about a month and then took the "King's Head," Whitstable.
How much did you pay to go in there?
£274.
How much cash did you pay?
£80.
And the rest you borrowed?
I borrowed it from Mr. Dean and from Messrs. Morton and Co., the wine
and spirit merchants.
When you went to Mr. Dean I suppose you told him you would buy all your
wines and spirits from him?
No.
Did you make any representation to Messrs, Morton that you would go to
them for everything?
No.
Or to Mr Gwyn?
No.
Did you tell Messrs. Morton that you had already had £145 from Mr. Dean?
No, a friend of mine said he would lend me £40 or £50. I had had a big
loan from Mr, Dean and I did not like to go to him again.
Did you ask Mr. Dean and he refused you?
No.
When you went to Mr. Gwyn did you tell him that you owed Morton and Mr.
Dean?
No.
They all thought you would deal with them?
No, Mr. Deanein said he would not bind me down, but he expected that I
should deal with him.
Have you removed any goods?
Nothing, sir.
Did you not have a valuable parrot?
My wife had one.
Where is it now?
With her at Sandgate.
The Registrar:- Probably the next door neighbour applied for an
injunction?
It is not worth more than 10s.
Do you have a horse and cart?
No.
The Registrar:- Did you own a horse and cart?
No.
The Registrar:- Never?
Oh yes.
The Registrar:- How long ago did you have a horse and cart?
About seven years ago.
Did you not tell Mr. Dean you had a horse and cart?
Yes, and I did have one.
While you were at Whitstable?
No.
You told Mr. Dean you had a horse and cart whereas you had not one?
I told Mr. Dean that I had one.
The Registrars:- Had you one?
No.
The Registrar:- Why then did you tell Mr. Dean that you had a horse and
cart?
I don't know.
The Registrar:- Then it was a lie?
Yes.
You told them so in order that they would wait a little longer?
No, I did not tell them until after I had had the money from them.
You allege that you or your wife lost some money?
My wife did.
When do you allege that your wife lost it?
Last October.
The Registrar:- How much?
About £100.
The Registrar:- How did she lose it?
The money was in notes which she had saved in her business and they were
put in a box for safety. She destroyed some papers that were in the box,
and it is the supposition that the notes were destroyed too.
The Registrar said he did not think there was any need to go into that
for they did not know that the notes ever existed.
The examination was then closed.
|
Edward Appleton was a Mariner's Apprentice in 1851 and living with his
parents and younger brother at Tankerton Hill. The Census of 1861 shows he
is married to Amelia and is the license of the "King's Head." he also shows
up the same in both the 1861 and 1871 census, so perhaps the other's
listed as licensees that appear to overlap were actually operating a
separate business at the premises. The 1881 census puts him as living at 26
Essex Street and is now an oyster dredger. However, his younger brother
William is now found as licensee of the "Sovereign."
LICENSEE LIST
APPLETON Edward 1858-71+
(age 39 in 1871)
AMOS John 1861-62+
LEGGETT Stephen 1863-Sept/64
WARNER Edward 1867+
FREND Robert 1871-75
BATTON Thomas 1881+ (age 41 in 1881)
ROWDEN John G 1881+ (age 35 in 1881)
PETTMAN Frederick W 23/Jan/1890-91+ (also shipwright age 40 in 1891)
STEGGLES James to Mar/1901+
HAYWARD John Mar-19/Sept/1901 (age 42 in 1891)
VISHER Mr 19/Sept-5/Nov/1901
EVEREST Mr 5/Nov/1901-31/Mar/02
COBB Henry 31/Mar/1902-20/June/03
HAWKINS 20/June-Oct/1903
FUNNALL Arthur Oct/1903-June/04
CAMBURN George 1911+ (age 47 in 1911)
https://pubwiki.co.uk/KingsHead.shtml
From the Kelly's Directory 1903
Whitstable Times
and Herne Bay Herald
Census
Kentish
Chronicle
|
