From the Deal, Walmer & Sandwich Mercury, 4 April, 1874.

ALLEGED ASSAULT.

William Carterfield, school-master, was summoned by Daniel George Frederick Simmons, law-clerk, for unlawfully assaulting him at the "Walmer Castle Hotel" on the evening of Good Friday, the 3rd inst.

Mr. M. Martin, jun., appeared for complainant, and Mr. T. C. Hall for defendant.

Defendant pleaded not guilty.

Mr. Martin said the case was a complaint for a common assault, but the circumstances out of which he believed it arose were of a private nature, and such as the present court could not interfere with; and for that reason he did not think it at all necessary to bring them into the case. Mr. Martin then proceeded to inform the Magistrates of the circumstance which occurred at the "Walmer Castle" on the night in question, and his statement was fully borne out by the evidence of complainant and his witness.

D. G. F. Simmons, the complainant, deposed: I am a law-clerk. On Good Friday evening, the 3rd April, I went into the "Walmer Castle Hotel" about ten o'clock. I went into the bar parlour, and there were also present Mr. Hills, Mrs. Hills, Mrs;. Rawlings, and Mr. Egbert Hayward, the latter having accompanied me in. A few moments after I entered defendant and two more gentlemen came in. I then asked Mr. Hill for an explanation of some matter in which myself and defendant were concerned. As soon as I had done so defendant rose from his seat, addressed some observation to me, and appeared to take the matter into his hands. I told him that I did not recognise him or anything like him in the matter, whereupon he immediately struck me a blow in the face between the eyes. I was sitting in a low chair at the time, and was leaning back. He struck me with his closed fist. It was a pretty violent blow, and the mark thereof showed for a day or tow afterwards. I did not attempt to return the blow, and I appealed to those present, and said, "You see what has taken place." He then seemed to try to draw me into a quarrel with him so as to cause me to strike him back, and he heaped abuse on me. An altercation took place between us, during which he called me several names, and said I was the son of a carpenter, and I told him my family connections would bear investigation as well as his would, and that I was not in the town under as assumed name. He then collared me by the throat, dragged me into the passage, tore my neck-tie, and half strangled me. When there he threw me down, and struck me several times whilst I was down, and ultimately some one from the kitchen came and took him from me. I then got up and left. I did not strike defendant at all. I had been to supper at Mr. Hayward's, and left there about ten o'clock. I went straight there to the "Walmer Castle," and I arrived home a few minutes after half-past ten.

Cross-examined by Mr. Hall: I had not been imbibing very freely that night, and I will swear that I was not drunk. To the best of my recollection I had only been in the "Walmer Castle" once before that day, and that was in the morning. After I had taken a seat in the bar parlour some conversation took place between me and Mrs. Hills, but I don't know who commenced it. When defendant and his companions came in, I asked Mrs. Hills to use her mediation in this private matter which had previously been mentioned, but she shook her head. I did not hear her say that it was not a matter for a public bar. I did not insist on having the matter explained. Carterfield came on me suddenly and almost dumfounded me. He struck me as Mrs. Hills was speaking to me. I believe he made some observation, but I did not hear what it was. I don't know if he said "Mrs. Hills says it is private." When defendant spoke I did not say, "Don't take any notice of that thing." I used the words I have said. I did not insinuate that defendant's real name was not Carterfield until the first blow was struck. I have not sought opportunities of insulting defendant, nor have I said that if ever I met him in public, that I would expose him. Defendant did not say that if I repeated the annoyance he would turn me out of the room. I will swear that he struck me a violent blow with his fist in the first instance. I went into the "Walmer Castle" with Egbert Hayward. He is a companion of mine. I made no observation when Carterfield took hold of my collar to put me out, nor am I aware that Hayward said "That will do, Simmons; that's just what he wanted." I won't swear that Hayward did not say that, or that I did not reply "Yes, that will do." I will swear that I did not hold up my fist to defendant. I remained sitting in the chair after Carterfield struck me, and he then commenced heaping insults on me, calling me a carpenter's son. I did not continue to insult Carterfield, but after he had insulted me I did tell him that his name was not Carterfield. I did not call him an impostor. I said my family affairs would bear investigation as well as his, and that I was not in the town under an assumed name. I did not offer to strike Carterfield, but I protected myself as well as I could because he was using very rough means. He struck me after I was down in the passage, I did not strike him then. Nobody requested me to leave the room, nor was Hayward asked to take me out, as I was drunk.

Egbert Hayward deposed; I was in company of the complainant the whole of Good Friday evening. He had tea and supper with me that day at my house, and I accompanied him to the "Walmer Castle" about ten o'clock. I went into the bar parlour. Mr. and Mrs. Hills and Mrs. Rawlings were there, and Mr. Hall and Mr. Stubbs came down from the billiard room. A short time after that in came Mr. Carterfield, Mr. Abram, and Mr. Browne. Mr. Simmons talked to Mrs. Hills about a private affair, and after defendant came in I heard complainant ask Mrs. Hills to explain something of what had been said. She refused to do so, and said she did not want to know anything about it, or words to that effect. After that Carterfield made an observation to complainant, but I could not hear the words, and then complainant said to him, "I don't recognise you. You are a thing." Carterfield then got up, put his arms round complainant's neck, and struck him in the face. He struck Simmons two or three times whilst the latter was sitting in the chair. Simmons did not get up from the chair, and I heard him appeal to Mr. Hall, I think it was, but he did not reply. I said to Simmons, "You have got the law in your own hands, and you can do what you like." An altercation took place between them, and Carterfield got up again, put his arms around Simmons' neck, and struck him in the face, as hard as he could I should say. The blows caused Simmons' face to swell. Carterfield then dragged him into the passage, where Simmons fell down, and then Carterfield shook him. Simmons was quite sober.

Cross-examined: I will swear that Simmons was not drunk. I was not asked to take him home because he was intoxicated. I had been to the "Walmer Castle" several times that day. There was no anxiety on our part to meet these parties. We did want to meet defendant and others. Both Simmons and I have said that if we ever caught them in a private room we would expose them. Complainant sat in a chair, and did insist that Mrs. Hills should introduce a certain subject, but she said she did not want to know anything about it. I did not hear anyone say it was a private matter and aught not to be discussed in public. Simmons said to Carterfield "I don't want to have anything to do with a thing like you." Carterfield said "If you call me a thing again I will put you out of the room." He continued to call him a "thing." I heard no such expression as "He's drunk, and aught to be put out." I will swear that I saw Carterfield strike a blow. I did not see complainant hold up his hand to Chesterfield. I will swear that Simmons was not drunk.

By the Bench: I can't be certain, but I don't think complainant had been into the "Walmer Castle" that day but once before with me.

Mr. Hall, before calling witnesses on behalf of his client, said that, according to his instructions, the complainant was the worse for liquor on the night in question, and was so excessively disagreeable and insulting that it was the general impression amongst those present that he ought to be put out. Scornful and opprobrious names having been addressed by complainant to his client in particular, the latter considered himself justified, both on his own account and on behalf of the company generally, in putting  complainant out of the room. There could be no doubt, according to his instructions, that the insult offered to his client was a premeditated one, for both complainant and his witness had been repeatedly heard to threaten an exposure, whatever that might mean, and they had from time to time gone into this hotel for the purpose of meeting the defendant.

After some further observations, Mr. Hall called Mr. Hills, who deposed: I was present at the bar of the "Walmer Castle" on the evening of Good Friaday, the 3rd. I saw the complainant and defendant there, and the latter spoke to my wife about some scandal, but she objected to talk of the subject as it was not a matter to be brought up in a public room. Simmons almost demanded my wife to mention the matter. From his manner I do not consider that he was sober at the time. Finding that Simmons did not desist from his mandatory manner Carterfield said he thought my wife was quite right, and drew complainant's attention to what my wife said. Simmons then said to my wife, pointing to Carterfield, "Don't listen to that thing. He has nothing to do with it." Carterfield took hold of complainant and shook him. I did not see any blows struck. Carterfield went back to his chair, and Simmons again referred to him and continued his annoyance, when Carterfield said that if he did not leave off he would put him out, and after more annoyance from Simmons he did get up and put him out. I heard someone advise Hayward to take Simmons away as they thought he was drunk. Simmons' conduct was gross and abusive, and most decidedly calculated to provoke and irritate Carterfield. It was my opinion that he ought to be removed. I have several time heard complainant and Hayward say that the first time they met Mr. Abram they would make him explain certain private matters. Carterfield and Abram are relations, I believe, and are mixed up in this private matter.

Cross-examined by Mr. Martin: I was present when Simmons entered the bar, and he was quiet until this affair between himself and Carterfield. I consider he was drunk from the fact that he could not sit properly in his chair - he sat on the arm first and fell from that into the chair, and afterwards kept sliding out of that. Also when he was talking to Carterfield his speech was imperfect. I was in a position to see whether Carterfield struck or shook Simmons. I will say positively that he did not strike him, but I am pretty sure that he did not. I saw no blow struck. Carterfield took it upon himself to put Simmons out of the room.

Mrs. Rawlings was the next witness called, but as the Magistrates hinted they did not require any further evidence, Mr. Hall said he would merely question her as to the condition of complainant. Witness then said: He was decidedly tipsy. I saw him come in, and was there all the time. He was not steady in his walk, and not very so in his seat. He also looked rather silly.

Cross-examined: he had a little brandy to drink in the "Walmer Castle." It is not usual to serve a drunken person, but he was not so bad that he could not walk.

By the Court: I heard some one ask Hayward to take Simmons away.

Mr. hall: did they say why?

Witness; because there would be a row, and he was tipsy.

By Mr. Martin: That was after the shaking or striking.

The magistrates then retired, but were only absent for a moment or two. On their return the Mayor said they had very little hesitations in coming to a decision, as the case was very plain and simple. It would be dismissed with costs; and it aught never to have been brought before them.

From the East Kent Mercury 11th February, 1975, kindly supplied by Deal library.

Above left, new sign, right landlord Bill and Min Chaffey

A new sign makes its appearance in the centre of Deal in the next few days. It will be swinging high on the wall of the "Walmer Castle" public house in South Street, where Bill and Min Chaffey dispense the hospitalities. The inn-sign is the work of the talented Bass-Charrington artist Bill Pierce, and depicts the ill-fated Walmer lugger, Walmer Castle, lost with all hands off the Isle of Wight in 1892.

From the East Kent Mercury 12th November, 1980.

WALMER CASTLE REOPENS.

An old public house with a brand new look opened its doors in Deal last night (Wednesday). After six weeks of rebuilding the "Walmer Castle," in South Street is back in business in a big way. Licensee Tommy Bradley and his wife Brenda, are pleased with their new bars and they hope customers will find the changes to their liking too.

The total cost of the refurbishment of the historic hostelry is more than £50,000. Charrington the brewers have spent some £40,000 while Tommy has invested over £11,000 in the facelift.

Tommy and Brenda, who have been at the "Walmer Castle" for two years, say: "We have confidence in Deal as a town for the future and especially in the "Walmer Castle" as a public house.

But it is Tommy and Brenda's warm and pleasing personalities which will attract people to the new-look pub.

Tommy comes from Londonderry an has all the charm of those from the Emerald Isles. On top of this he has a lifetime of hotel and public house experience. His father was a hotelier and Tommy has been in the business since he came out of school at the age of 14.

In the business, that is, with the exception of six years he spent in the Army, much of it with the Devonshire Regiment active against the terrorists in Malaya.

Those who recall the "Walmer Castle" as it was should look in without delay. They will not know where they they are... the bars have been transformed and enlarged. There is a completely new decor and furnishings and there's little doubt the pub is now one of the most comfortable in the area.

There is going to be a number of misses busses now. Those dropping in for a few minutes to escape the wind and the rain that bears down South Street will find time playing tricks with them - it could be Tommy's pet leprechaun - and five minutes will multiply into 50 in no time at all.

The origins of the "Walmer Castle" are lost in time but it is believed to have been one of Deal's first coaching inns and doing a smart business accommodating ship masters, pilots, Royal Navy officers and civil servants visiting the Naval Dockyard at the hotel's back.

The hotel was completely destroyed by fire in the early hours of October 22, 1867. In those days Deal had no fire brigade so fire appliances from the barracks were called out.

But their hoses would not fit the mains and the fire soon had a complete hold on the building. So it was not long before adjoining premises were burning too.

In the end troops did put out the blaze but the heat was so intense windows on the opposite side of the road cracked.

The present structure dates from 1897 and is named after an ill-fated Walmer lugger Walmer Castle and not the Henry V fortress which is now a home of the Queen Mother as Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports.

The floundering of the Walmer Castle off Ventnor, Isle of Wight, on March 15, 1892, was one of the great local sea tragedies of the last century.

The lugger had first been named Petrel and was missing for six weeks before being found full of water off Brixham. Four Walmer boats were lost in the unexplained disaster.

The lugger was brought back to Walmer and refitted. And she was renamed Walmer Castle.

At the time of the second tragedy, the lugger had cruised down Channel - "gone to the west'ard" said local folk - in search of ships needing a pilot.

In storm conditions the lugger was trying to find shelter when she was over-whelmed by a huge sea only a few hundred yards from safety.

Among those drowned in the Walmer Castle was the skipper and owner, Henry Axon, who had missed the Petrel disaster having left the lugger to act as pilot to a ship going up Channel.

The swinging inn sign outside the "Walmer Castle" depicts the doomed lugger in all her glory on the beach at what was then called Walmer Road.

It is the work of Charrington artist Bill Pierce, and recalls something of Deal and Walmer's maritime past.

The inn sign may well recall the past but inside the "Walmer Castle" the atmosphere is very much of the present. The "Walmer Castle" is now part of the 1980s.

Tony Arnold.