|
2 Ladywell Place (12 Park Place 1901 )
Dover
 |
|
Photo above of Wheat Sheaf pre 1890. |
Above photo from the John Gilham collection, circa 1920. |
|
An outlet of Kingsford, which in its time had also obliged George Beer
and Rigden. It stood on the corner, part facing Ladywell. It did not often
make the headlines but we do know of its presence in 1858 from Melville's
Directory of the same year, and also from the passage below, where Thomas
East threatened his father, the landlord, in 1864.
Further research has now turned up a Coroner's inquest held inside
the building in 1846.
|
From the Dover Telegraph and Cinque Ports General Advertiser, Saturday, 18 April, 1846. Price 5d.
DOVER POLICE COURT
Charles Hawkins, 35, carrier, charged with stealing, at St. Mary's,
Dover, one barrow, the property of James Bray, the contractor of the
harbour improvements. The prosecution was conducted by Mr. Addison, and
Mr. Horne defended the prisoner.
William Firth: I am in the employ of Mr. Bray, and recollect barrows
being missed since Michaelmas last: the barrow produced is marked as the
one lost was. The barrows were marked “J.B.” three years since.
Cross-examined by Mr. Horne: I have been a year and half in the employ
of Mr. Bray, and have seen Hawkins carrying stones and bricks; have seen
him at work for Mr. Bray. I know nothing of a sale of barrows; there are
150 at work, and all about of the same make. I don't know if prisoner
lives in Dover. Mr. Dakin is the foreman of the works, and has the
management of the whole. I know nothing of any disagreement between Mr.
Dakin and the prisoner. I cannot swear that I made the barrow produced,
or that I saw it before it was brought into court; nor can I say that I
ever mended it; all I can say is, “it is Mr. James Bray's barrow.”
By Mr. Addison: I am the only one that has been employed in making and
mending barrows since Michaelmas. The mark on the wheel of the barrow
produced is the right mark; another mark is scratched off on the side.
James Marsh, Policeman: I got the barrow at Mr. Eastes, of the “Wheat
Sheaf,” on the 6th of March. It has been in his possession ever since.
William Eastes, landlord of the “Wheat Sheaf”: I bought the barrow off
Hawkins for 4s. he brought it to my house himself . I obtained it under
the following circumstances: Whilst speaking to a carpenter about making
me a barrow, Hawkins, who was present, said he would lend me one. When
he brought it in he offered to sell it, saying he did not require it
himself. He was gone an hour to fetch it; he lives about a mile from my
house.
Cross-examined by Mr. Horne: It was in the forenoon; he was bringing
some flints for a job I was doing. I cannot say whether he brought it
from his house or from a stable. I have known him four years, but know
nothing prejudicial to his character.
Mr. Horn then rose, and addresses the Jury at considerable length on
behalf of the prisoner, at the conclusion of which the following
witnesses were called:-
John Eldridge, cordwainer: I have known the prisoner 20 years; he has
always born a good character, and I have never heard of his being
convicted.
William Charrison, plasterer: I know the prisoner, and recollect him
having a lodger. Prisoner wished me to whitewash the room which his
lodger had left. Such a barrow as the one produced would be required for
his work. Cannot say how long the prisoner's lodger lived in his house.
– This witness was afterwards cross-examined, but nothing further of
importance was elicited.
Mr. Addison, on the part of the prosecution, called Mr. A. O. Hendrey,
who stated that he had seen the prisoner three times before the
Magistrates.
The learned Recorder, in summing up, observed that Juries were often
misled by statements of unblemished character. He wished them to
understand that the prisoner was without a character; he had been in the
employ of Mr. Bray, and the barrow was found in his possession.
Not Guilty.
A second indictment, of a similar character, was then presented against
the prisoner. Several witnesses were examined on the part of the
prosecution, and the proceeding eventually terminated in the acquittal
of the prisoner.
|
|
From the Dover Telegraph and Cinque Ports General Advertiser, Saturday, 9 May, 1846. Price 5d.
CORONERS INQUEST
Another inquest was held on Monday, before the same Coroner, at the “Wheatsheaf,”
Ladywell, on the body of Susannah Ratcliff, a child aged three years.
From the evidence of the mother it appeared that, after dinner on Sunday
afternoon, she went up stairs to dress, and left deceased in the room
below. She was absent about a quarter of an hour, during which time she
heard deceased singing. When she came down, not finding the child in the
room, she became alarmed, and called her husband, who, with a man named
John Belsey, searched the river, and the body was found about two hours
after in the river at the back of Mr. Jarvis' house. The door of the
passage, leading to the garden, was left open, from whence it is
supposed the child fell into the river.
Verdict, “Accidental Death.”
|
|
From the Dover Express and East Kent Intelligencer, 22
October, 1864.
THREATENING A PARENT
John Thomas East, a young man of about 20 years of age, was charged
with threatening the life of his father, Mr. William East, landlord of
the "Wheatsheaf" public-house, Ladywell.
Defendant's father did not appear, and he was therefore discharged,
the Mayor informing him that if he was brought before them again on a
like charge, his father would be compelled to appear, and then in all
probability the Bench would send him to gaol for three months.
|
|
From the Dover Express and East Kent Intelligencer, 17
August, 1877. Price 1d.
PUBLIC HOUSE LICENSES
To the editor of the "Dover Express."
Sir, Monday next is fixed as a Special Sessions for the transfer of
licenses. There are 17 applications, among which are the following:-
The "Wheatsheaf," empty house, in which Mr. Cottenham Kingsford
(brewer) wishes to retail beer, &c......
Six brewers' houses empty! Will any of the six gentlemen who are
applying for these licenses live on the premises to conduct the houses
themselves? and, if not, should the magistrate grant the transfers?
Yours &c.,
COMMON SENSE.
|
|
From the Dover Express and East Kent Intelligencer,
5 October, 1877. Price 1d.
PERMISSION TO DRAW
Permission was given to Mary Ann Ladd to draw at the "Wheatsheaf"
public-house.
|
|
From the Dover Express and East Kent Intelligencer, 33 January, 1880. Price 1d.
STEALING A CAKE
Abraham Vaughan, a private in the 84th Regiment, was charged with others
not in custody with stealing one cake, value 1s. 6d., the property of
Mr. Fox, of 2, Park Place.
Mary Flaherty said: I live at Mr. Cadman's public-house, the “Wheatsheaf,”
which is directly opposite Mr. Flynn's shop. I was in the sitting-room
on the first floor of our house on Saturday night about half-past eight
when I saw three soldiers standing outside Mr. Fox's shop. One of them
went inside and the other walked along Park Street. I saw the one in the
shop, which I believe to be the prisoner, take a cake from the window
and place it under his overcoat, and then run off after his companions.
I immediately went across and told Mr. Fox what had happened and he
followed them.
By the Bench: The shops were lit up so I could see plainly. They all
three had their overcoats on.
William Fox, baker, carrying on business at 2, Park Place, said: Between
eight and nine o'clock on Saturday night the last witness came into my
shop and from what she told me I went after the three prisoners who had
gone along Park Street. I came up close to them in the Maison Dieu Road,
but when they saw they were followed the prisoner handed something over
to the other two who ran off. I followed them a little way, but finding
they out-distanced me I came back and took hold of the prisoner who was
walking along. I accused him of stealing the cake, and he answered that
he had not got the cake but the other two had. I asked him what he had
got under his coat and he said a loaf, which he at once produced, saying
that he had bought it. I took his as far as St. Mary's Church, where I
handed him over to a Police-constable.
The value of the cake is 1s, 6d. The loaf the prisoner had was not mine.
By the Prisoner: The other two soldiers, who had their overcoats on,
belonged to the 84th Regt.
By the Bench: I ran after the two not in custody about 30 yards, but
returned on finding I could not catch them.
The prisoner pleaded “Not Guilty,” and said one of the others stole it.
The Military Sergeant said the prisoners enlisted on the 24th December
last, and had borne a good character since.
The bench sentenced the prisoner to one day's imprisonment, so that he
was dismissed at once.
|
|
From the Whitstable Times and Herne Bay Herald, Saturday 15 September, 1883.
WINGHAM. PETTY SESSIONS. THURSDAY.
Before J. Henderson, (chairman), Matthew Bell, F. Philips, and C. J.
Plumptre, Esqs., Sir Walter James, Bart, and Major Lawes.
THEFT BY BOYS.
Edward Garlingc and Albert Folwell, lads, were charged on remand, with
stealing a rubber and drinking glass, the property of William Spinner,
of Guston, on the 19th August.
Prosecutor said he was a labourer in the employ of Mr. E. P. Robinson,
of Buckland, and had been cutting oats on the 18th ult., with a man
named James Talbot. When they finished work they hid the articles
mentioned under a shock of corn. On Monday the things were gone. James
Talbot also identified the articles as those lost.
P.C. Pack deposed that he received information of the thief, and found
Garlinge in the "Wheat Sheaf," Dover. He immediately gave up the glass
when asked about it and Folwell’s mother handed him the rubber.
Prisoners said they found the things in a field close to the road and
had no intention of stealing them.
A fine of 1s. was inflicted in each case.
|
|
From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday 30 August, 1889.
LADYWELL IMPROVEMENTS
A decided step towards improving the important thoroughfare of Lady well
is about to be taken by cutting a slice off the south side, which will
remove a projection and place the Town Hall in line with the “Wheat
Sheaf Inn” in Park Place. The opening leading up to this improvement has
been made by the Corporation purchasing from the estate of the late Mr.
Steriker Finnis, the Maison Dieu yard at the rear of the Town Hall,
which is represented in the adjoining sketch plan.
The dotted line
leading from the Town Hall to the "Wheat Sheaf" represents the proposed
new frontage. The whole area from the Town Hall up to and including the
workshops abutting on the river is in the occupation of Mr. W. J.
Adcock, contractor, who held from the late owner a lease which expires
in 1898. beyond the workshop is the river Dour, which is included in the
Corporation's purchase, and also a slip of land on the further side,
giving them the complete control of the stream; but on the street
frontage, adjoining the “Wheat Sheaf,” there is built over the river a
building which has for years been known as the Ragged School, and is now
called the Union Hall. This belongs to another owner, and it is proposed
to make arrangements with them to take down the projection to the new
line of frontage, and to add on a piece at the back to where the dark
line crosses the river, so that the building shall be the same size as
now. It is expected that terms to be made with the proprietor of the
Union Hall will amount to the cost of making good that building. In our
report of the Town Council will be found a proposal from Mr. Adcock for
dealing with the Maison Dieu yard. He proposes to give up to the
Corporation the area and buildings lying between the dotted line marked
“proposed wall” and the Town Hall, and to retain the other portion,
except the part required for widening the street, stipulating that the
Corporation should rebuild his office, rebuild the boundary walls, and
sanction his building a timber shed, &c., on the retained premises. He
proposes to surrender the remainder of his lease and to take a new one
for 21 years at £70 per year, the present rental for the whole yard
being £135. These details of course the Council will have to consider,
and also the general policy as to dealing with their newly acquired
property, but in the interest of the general public it is desirable that
the opportunity for effecting this public improvement should not be
lost.
|
|
From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 16 January, 1891. Price 1d.
HARBOURING A POLICEMAN
W. E. Shaw was summoned under section 16 sub-section 2 of the Act of
1872, with supplying Police-constable Norman Fogg with liquor at
midnight, on the 4th of January, at the “Wheatsheaf Inn,” Ladywell.
Mr. Vernon Knocker appeared for the prosecution.
Police-sergeant Nash said: On Sunday morning, the 4th of January, at ten
minutes past twelve (midnight), I was standing in Ladywell Place, and I
heard the door of the “Wheatsheaf” public-house open, and saw
Police-constable Norman Fogg come out. The Landlord came to the door and
stood there talking with constable Fogg. I went to them, and Fogg
reported “all right,” to me. I said to him “is there anything wrong
inside.” He said “no.” I said “what were you doing in there?” he said,
“I was passing by, the landlord was standing at the door; he called me
over, and asked me if I would call him up in the morning,” I said “there
was no occasion for you to go in for that.” Fogg replied “he asked me to
have a glass, and I went in and had one,” I said it was a poor excuse,
and if he would make the Superintendent believe it, well and good. The
landlord said it was quite true what the constable said, as it was his
fault for asking him in. I then said, “then you take the
responsibility?”
Mr. Shave said he was ignorant of the law, and did not know what he was
doing. He did not ask the constable in.
The Superintendent of the police said that the defendant had kept the
“wheatsheaf” twelve months, and the house had been well conducted during
the time.
The Mayor said it was a serious case to harbour a Police-constable, but
they took into consideration that this was the first time he had kept a
public house, and would not deal harshly with him. He would be fined £1
and 8s. 6d. costs, and his license would not be endorsed.
|
|
From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 28 August, 1891. Price 1d.
DOVER LICENSING SESSIONS
THE WHEATSHEAF
The occupier of this house, who had been fined during the year for
serving a policeman with liquor, while on duty, was called up and
cautioned.
|
|
From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday 26 April, 1907. Price 1d.
WATER WITHOUT BRANDY
A lively scene was witnessed in Pencester Road on Tuesday afternoon,
when a soldier who had attempted to steal a bottle of brandy at the “Wheatsheaf,”
in Ladywell, was chased by two Policemen down Biggin Street. Entering
the timber yard he took to the river, and the two Constables had a
lively time before they secured their prisoner.
At the Dover police Court on Wednesday, before Messrs. M. Pepper, J. W.
Bussey, and E. Chitty, the man, whose name is Charles Phillis, a gunner
in the 107th Company Royal Garrison Artillery, was charged with stealing
from the bar of the “Wheatsheaf,” Ladywell, a bottle of brandy, the
property of Walter Ernest Shave.
Mrs. Emily Shave, wife of the prosecutor, who keeps the “Wheatsheaf,”
Ladywell, said: Yesterday afternoon, at 20 past 4, the prisoner came
into the bar alone. He was quite sober. He called for a pint of beer,
and I served him. He paid for it, and sat down in the bar, I went back
to the smoking room, and left him alone. I could see into the bar,
however, after a few minutes he went along and looked at a picture, and
then went back and had another drink. Then he went back to the corner of
the bar where the shelves are, and suddenly put his arm up and took this
bottle, and then he made for the door. I ran into the bar instantly,
lifted the flap, and caught him at the door. He had the bottle in his
hand. I said, catching hold of his arm, “You are stealing a bottle of
brandy.” He said, “Yes, I know I am.” I said, “Give it back to me at
once.” He did so. I said, “I've a very good mind to give you in charge;
if I could see a Policeman I would.” Then he tore himself away and went
outside the door, I put the bottle down and followed. I saw a Policeman
close by, and the man stared running up the street towards the Town
Hall. I told the Policeman what had happened, and he ran after him.
Afterwards he came back and told me that he had caught the man after a
lot of trouble. I went to the police Station, and charged him with
theft. The brandy is value 4/6.
The prisoner said that he had not got to the door when the last witness
rushed out and told him to stop. He handed over the bottle, and advised
her to watch her goods better.
The Chairman said it was difficult to understand the language of the
prisoner because of his brogue. He had no business with the bottle at
all, however.
Police Constable A Kingsmill said. The last witness, yesterday at 4.30,
called me, and pointed out a soldier running up the street, who had
stolen a bottle of brandy. I ran after him and caught him. All he said
was that he took the brandy down to see it if it was Irish.
Mr. Waller: Irish brandy?
Witness: I don't know whether it was Irish brandy or whisky.
The prisoner pleaded guilty, and elected to be tried by the Magistrates.
The Chairman: You intended to have a drink of that brandy but were
disappointed.
The prisoner said he had had several drinks the night before, and was a
bit “tiddly.”
The Bench inflicted a fine of 20/-, which would be stopped out of his
pay. His officer did not give him a good character.
|
|
From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 11 September, 1914. Price 1d.
DRUNKENNESS IN DOVER
At the Dover Police Court on Thursday, before Messrs. F. G. Wright and
H. F. Edwin.
Stephen Ratcliff was charged with being drunk whilst in charge of a
horse and trolley in ladywell.
Police Constable Smith said at 3.30 on Monday afternoon he was in
Ladywell, and saw the defendant driving a horse and trolley laden with
timber. Opposite the “Wheatsheaf” he fell off into the road. He was very
drunk, and witness took him into custody.
The defendant said that he was very sorry that it had happened.
The Magistrates said that at this time of national danger they regretted
seeing the defendant charged with such an offence. The officers of the
Borough had all their work cut out. He would be fined £1.
The Chairman added that the Bench was sorry to see so many charged with
drunkenness in the town lately. It did not speak well for the decorum of
the citizens of Dover.
|
|
From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 18
July, 1924. Price 1½d.
LICENSING
Mr. Hall, of the "Wheatsheaf Inn," Dover, was granted an occasional
licence for the Stanlee Sports at Kearsney on July 26th.
|
|
|
From the Dover Express and East Kent News. 11 February, 1938. Price 1½d.
ANNUAL LICENSING MEETING
OBJECTION TO RENEWAL OF LICENCE
The Town Clerk (Mr. S. R. H. Loxton) objected to the renewal of the
licence of the “Wheatsheaf” public house in Ladywell and asked that
consideration of the renewal of the licence should be adjourned until
the adjourned annual licensing meeting. that was not the place to argue
the merits of his application, but the position was that the Corporation
had powers to acquire the property compulsorily and a price had been
provisionally agreed with the owners. When the property was acquired it
would be demolished and the Corporation did not desire it particularly,
if it could be avoided, to apply for the removal of the licence. It was
to the benefit of the trade that the number of licences should be
reduced and it was unfair that the Corporation, representing the
ratepayers, should, on purchasing the property, have to lose entirely
the money they had paid for the goodwill of the business. He accordingly
asked that consideration of the renewal of the licence might be deferred
until the adjourned meeting when he proposed to ask the Magistrates to
refer the matter to the compensation authority so that the Corporation
might receive some compensation in respect of the amount they had paid
for the licence. This was not a new procedure; it had been done
elsewhere and he submitted that in the circumstances it was a fair and
reasonable request.
The Bench agreed and adjourned consideration of the renewal of the
licence until the adjourned sessions at Dover on March 7th.
|
|
From the Dover Express and East Kent
News. 18 February, 1938. Price 1½d.
CORPORATION AND A LICENCE
An application was made by the Town Clerk (Mr. S. R. H. Loxton) for
the licence of the “Wheatsheaf Inn,” Ladywell, which was being acquired
by the Dover Corporation under a Compulsory Purchase Order, to be
referred to the Compensation Authority.
Mr. Harold Tuffee (of Harold Tuffee and Smith, Gravesend), appeared
on behalf of Kent Brewers' Union to object.
The Town Clerk said that the position with regard to the house was
that the Corporation, some little time ago, made a Compulsory Purchase
Order for the acquisition of that house the “Wheatsheaf,” Ladywell, and
certain other properties, as they desired to erect a new Police Station
on the site. All the properties, except the “Wheatsheaf” and one other,
had now been acquired by the Corporation as the Compulsory Purchase
Order had been confirmed. As regards the “Wheatsheaf,” a price had been
agreed with the owners for the acquisition of the property, and the
draft contract was in course of preparation. Notice to treat had been
served and the Corporation could serve notice of entry, which would
enable them to take possession within 21 days. That had not been done
yet, but he could tell them the reason why. The agreed price included
the full value of the licence attached to it, and, when the purchase was
completed, the Corporation would own not only the “Wheatsheaf” but the
licence and all the rights and privileges which by law were attached to
licensed property, but as they were going to demolish it for Police
Station purposes the licence was not of very much use to them. The
Corporation would, accordingly be in possession of a valuable asset, for
which they had paid full value, and not been able to use it for their
own benefit. Under those circumstances it was the duty of the
Corporation to co all they could to recover for the ratepayers such
money as possible in order to reimburse the ratepayers for what they had
spent in acquiring the house. The Corporation, as trustees of the
ratepayers, would not be justified nor would they be carrying out their
duty if they allowed the licence to lapse and made no effort to recover
any part of the cost. Really, the purchase price could be split into two
parts, one in respect of property and the other in respect of the
licence. There were two ways in which the Corporation then could recover
part of the cost which they paid in the acquisition of the licence. One
was by applying for the removal of the licence. The Corporation would,
without doubt, be at liberty to apply for a special removal and the
grounds for refusing were very limited. They were limited to the
£structural unsuitability of the premises to which the licence was to be
transferred or the unsuitability of the character or otherwise of the
proposed licence holder and then, of course, the licence would be void.
However, one of the objects of the Licensing Consolidation Act, 1910,
had been to reduce, so far as practicable, the number of licences and
the number of licensed premises. The Corporation bearing that in mind,
had decided that would be the better course for them to adopt than for
them to apply to the Magistrates for the removal of the licence.
Therefore, he asked the Magistrates to refer the house to the
Compensation Authority, who would then consider whether the licence was
or was not to be renewed, and if the Compensation Authorities decided
the licence was not to be renewed the Corporation would be entitled to
receive compensation from the Compensation Fund. The Notice of Objection
which had been served in that case contained two grounds of objection.
The first was that the Mayor, Alderman and Burgesses having under the
Ladywell Place Compulsory Purchase Order, power to acquire these
premises and the licence, had resolved to exercise that power and
demolish the house for a new Police Station, and accordingly the renewal
of the licence was unnecessary and undesirable, and not in the interest
of the public. That was his first and main ground of objection. His
second ground was that, having regard to the character of the
neighbourhood, the number of licences there and in the immediate
vicinity, was excessive, and the licence was unnecessary. He did not for
one moment suggest that the house was redundant in the usually accepted
sense of the word.. He understood that the trade of the house was good,
and on the trade question he admitted there would be no grounds for
asking the Magistrates to refer it to the Compensation Authority on the
grounds of redundancy. It could be argued, and he submitted with some
force, that the house might be regarded as redundant on account of the
proximity of other licensed houses. There were seven fully licensed
houses within two hundred yards – two extremely close, more or less on
the other side of the road – five more within three hundred yards and
nine more within a distance of 400 yards. There was little doubt that,
at any rate, the two nearer houses would be in a position adequately to
carry such a trade as the “Wheatsheaf” carried, when the property was
demolished. Moreover, it was reasonable to anticipate that the trade at
the “Wheatsheaf” might be, in the future, slightly less than it was at
the moment, or had been recently on account of the demolition of
properties in Ladywell and the re-housing of tenants elsewhere. His main
ground was that the property was to be demolished and that the
Corporation were going to use the site as a Police Station, and
accordingly the renewal was unnecessary and undesirable, and not in the
public interest. The Licensing Act of 1910 set6 out the grounds on which
the Justices could refuse to renew a licence and without a doubt,
Justices had power legally to refer the “Wheatsheaf” to the Compensation
Authority on any grounds they saw fit. They had complete discretion in
every manner, and did not have to prove in law that it was redundant
before they referred it to the Compensation Authority. It was perfectly
clear in law that Justices were entitled to accept his first objection
as being sound and refer the licence to the Compensation Authorities on
the grounds that it was to be demolished and the renewal of the licence
was unnecessary and undesirable. That was what he was asking them to do.
Of course, the argument might be put forward that it was unfair that the
Corporation should seek to benefit from the Compensation Fund as they
had not, in fact, contributed to it. In reply to that he would suggest
that the Town Council – that was the ratepayers of the town – had
purchased these licensed premises, and purchased with them the licence,
and if that were surrendered without any compensation it would be the
grossest possible injustice to the ratepayers. The surrender of the
licence would be a direct gain to other licensees, and it would be most
unfair to allow the benefits which accrued from the surrender of the
licence to go to other licensed houses in the district without payment
of compensation. In asking the Justices to refer the matter, he would
point out that it was not for them to decide whether the licence should
be ultimately removed. If they referred it to the Compensation Authority
the whole matter would be considered by those who might, in that
instant, be regarded as a higher authority. He suggested that if the
Justices declined to refer that house for compensation they would be
taking the matter out of the hands of the higher authority without
giving them a chance to adjudicate on it. Having regard to the
circumstances he suggested that the Corporation's case was by no means
unreasonable. In conclusion, he would like to give the reasons for that
application being made then. The Corporation, as he had said, desired to
demolish the building and desired to demolish it soon. Although the
Corporation had not actually purchased they were in a position to obtain
possession at any time within twenty-one days, and if they waited until
they actually acquired the property before they made the application it
would, in effect, mean waiting until this time next year, and it was
hoped that by this time next year, unless something went wrong, that
house would not be in existence. He understood that Messrs. George Beer
and Rigden, the owners, and whose representative was also the licensee,
were not offering any objection to his application in the matter.
Inspector Saddleton gave formal evidence in regard top the number of
licensed houses in the vicinity, as detailed by the Town Clerk.
In reply to Mr. Tuffee, witness said that there were twenty-one
licensed houses within a radius of four hundred yards of the “Wheatsheaf.”
He thought there were sufficient houses for that area, and he was of the
opinion that one or perhaps more could be dispensed with. He understood
that the weekly takings of the “Wheatsheaf” were about £30.
Mr. Tuffee said that his objection was on behalf of the East Kent
Brewers' Union which comprised the whole of the brewers in Kent with two
exceptions. He did not think it was necessary for him to refer to the
Town Clerk's second ground for objection, because he had no confidence
in it himself. The Town Clerk said that the trade of the house was
satisfactory, and the only thing was that it was near the other licensed
premises, but, of course, it was no nearer to the other houses than they
were to it, and there was no reason why this one should be regarded as
redundant as opposed to the others. The town Clerk spoke about the
Corporation's duty to the ratepayers, to whom they were trustees, but,
surely, it was not the duty of the Corporation to dip their fingers into
a fund which was raised for an entirely different purpose. The
Corporation were going to buy the property and licence, and pay for it,
and said, “We can get some of that back, if we are lucky!” But why
should they choose to come on the Compensation Fund to recoup themselves
when they could easily be recouped by applying for a special removal of
the licence? He was going to say straight away that it was not a proper
thing to refer this licence to the Compensation Authority. The
Compensation Fund was raised or invented to compensate the owners and
licensees of premises where the licence was declared and found to be
redundant, and it was contributed to by the whole body of licensees and
brewers and everybody connected with the trade. He knew he would be
referred to another case, the Leeds Corporation v. Rider, of 1907, where
the Lord Chancellor said that he saw no objection to arrangements being
made between the owners of public houses and the members of the
Licensing Committee, with a view to the suppression of licences, under
Section 1 of the Act of 1904, and that he regarded that as an obvious
and legitimate means of carrying out the intentions of the Act. But it
had been held in various ways that that was not necessarily what should
be done in every particular case. If they referred to the Housing Act of
1936, that contained special provisions for cases where land purchased
by the local authority for slum clearance, re-development areas or
improvement areas included licensed premises. The provision stated that
if the local authority intimated to the Licensing justices that they
were willing to surrender the licence, the Licensing Justices might
refer the matter to the Compensation Authority, who on being satisfied
that if the licence had hot been surrendered it might properly have been
dealt with as redundant, they should contribute out of the Compensation
Fund. The Town Clerk would say that that was nothing to do with the case
in point. But was that not the law as it stood relating to the reasons
for referring a licence which was not redundant, and why it was passed
if they could have gone under some other provision? But if the Town
Clerk should convince them that they had authority to refer the licence
to the Compensation Authority he suggested that that was an authority
which they should not exercise. The Corporation had bought an article
which was worth money, and why should they not pay for it? What member
of the public could properly object to paying a proper price for an
article which they required and were empowered to have? He asked the
bench to renew the licence unconditionally. That would give the Town
Clerk and the Corporation an opportunity to come before them if they
thought fit and ask for a special removal of the licence, or, perhaps
what they should do, surrender it.
The Town Clerk said that the fact that there might have been some
doubt cast on the ruling of the Lord Chancellor in the Leeds Corporation
case, did not overrule the decision, and if it was not amended by
subsequent statutory enactment, whatever doubts there may be, must
remain as doubts only. With regard to the Housing Act, this was not a
housing matter at all, and because the Housing Act made special
provisions, it did not mean that the ordinary commonsense ruling of the
Licensing Consolidation Act could not be relied upon.
The Magistrates, after they had retired announced that the licence
would be referred to the Compensation Authority.
|
|
From the Dover Express and East Kent News, 11 March, 1938.
DOVER LICENSING SESSIONS
Corporation and a License.
An application was made by the Town Clerk (Mr. S. R. H. Loxton) for
the license of the "Wheatsheaf" Inn, Ladywell, which was being acquired
by the Dover Corporation under a Compulsory Purchase Order, to be
referred to the Compensation Authority.
Mr. Harold Tuffee, (of Harold Tuffee and Smith, Gravesend), appeared
on behalf of the Kent Brewers' Union to object.
The Town Clerk said that the position with regard to the house was
that the Corporation, some little time ago, made a Compulsory Purchase
Order for the acquisition of the house, the "Wheatsheaf," Ladywell, and
certain other properties, as they desired to erect a new Police Station
on the site. All the properties except the "Wheatsheaf" and one other,
had now been acquired by the Corporation, as the Compulsory Purchase
Order had been confirmed. As regard the "Wheatsheaf," a price had been
agreed with the owners for the acquisition of the property, and the
draft contract was in course of preparation. Notice to treat had been
served and the Corporation could serve notice of entry, which would
enable them to take possession within 21 days. That had not been done
yet, but he could tell them the reason why. The agreed price included
the full value of the licence attached to it, and, when the purchase was
completed, the Corporation would own not only the "Wheatsheaf" but the
license and all the rights and privileges which by law were attached to
licenses property, but as they were going to demolish it for police
station purposes the licence was not of very much use to them. The
Corporation would, accordingly be in possession of a valuable asset, for
which they had paid full value, and not be able to use it for their own
benefit. Under those circumstances it was the duty of the Corporation to
do all they could to recover for the ratepayers such money as possible
in order to reimburse the ratepayers for what they had spent in
acquiring the licence. The Corporation as trustees of the ratepayers,
would not be justified nor would hey be carrying out their duty if they
allowed the licence to lapse and made no effort to recover any part of
the cost. Really, the purchase price could be split into two parts, one
in respect of the property and the other in respect of the licence.
There were to ways in which the Corporation could recover the cost which
they paid in the acquisition of the licence. One was by applying for the
removal of the licence. The Corporation would, without doubt, be at
liberty to apply for a special removal and the grounds for refusing were
very limited. They were limited to the structural unsuitability of the
premises to which the licence was to be transferred or the unsuitability
of the character or otherwise of the proposed licence holder, and then
of course, the licence would be void. However, one of the objectives of
the Licensing Consolidation Act, 1910, had been to reduce, so far as
practical, the number of licences and the number of licensed premises.
The Corporation, bearing that in mind, had decided that would be the
better course for them to adopt than for them to apply to the
magistrates for the removal of the licence. Therefore, he asked the
magistrates to refer the house to the Compensation Authority, who would
then consider whether the licence was or was not to be renewed, and if
the Corporation Authority decided that the licence was not to be renewed
the Corporation would be entitled to receive compensation from the
Compensation Fund. The Notice of Objection which had been served in that
case contained two grounds of objection. The first was that Mayor,
Alderman and Burgesses having under the Ladywell Place Compulsory
Purchase Order, power to acquire these premises and the licence, had
resolved to exercise the power and demolish the house for a new police
station, and accordingly the renewal of the licence was unnecessary and
undesirable, and not in the interests of the public. That was his first
and main ground of objection. His second ground was that, having regard
to the character of the neighbourhood, the number of licences there and
in the immediate vicinity, was excessive, and the licence was
unnecessary. He did not for one moment suggest that the house was
redundant in the usual accepted sense of the word. He understood that
the trade of the house was good, and on the trade question, he admitted
there would be no grounds for asking the magistrates to refer it to the
Compensation Authority on the grounds of redundancy. It could be argued,
and he submitted with some force, that the house might be regarded as
redundant on account of other licensed houses. There were seven fully
licensed houses within two-hundred yards - two extremely close, more or
less on the other side of the road - five within three hundred yards and
nine or more within a distance of 400 yards. There was little doubt
that, at any rate, the two nearer houses would be in a position
adequately to carry such trade as the "Wheatsheaf" carried, when the
property was demolished. Moreover, it was reasonable to anticipate that
the trade at the "Wheatsheaf" might be, in the future, slightly less
than it was at the moment, or had been recently on account of the
demolition of property in Ladywell and the re-housing of the tenants
elsewhere. His main ground was that the property was to be demolished
and the Corporation were going to use the site as a police station, and
according to the renewal was unnecessary and undesirable, and not in the
public interest. The Licensing Act of 1910 set out the grounds on which
Justices could refuse to renew a licence and, without a doubt, Justices
had power legally to refer the "Wheatsheaf" to the Compensation
Authority on any ground they saw fit. They had complete discretion in
every manner, and did not have to prove in law that it was redundant
before they referred it to the Compensation Authority. It was perfectly
clear in law that the Justices were entitled to accept his first
objection as being sound and refer the licence to the Compensation
Authority on the grounds that it was to be demolished and the renewal of
the licence was unnecessary and undesirable. That was what he was asking
them to do. Of course, the argument might be put forward that it was
unfair that the Corporation should seek to benefit from the Compensation
Fund, as they had not, in fact, contributed to it. In reply to that he
would suggest that the Town Council - that was the ratepayers of the
town - had purchased these licensed premises, and purchased them with
the licence, and if that were surrendered without any compensation it
would be the grossest possible injustice to the ratepayers. The
surrender of the licence would be a direct gain to other licensees, and
it would be most unfair to allow the benefits which occurred from the
surrender of the licence to go to other licensed house in the district
without payment or compensation. In asking the Justices to refer this
matter, he would point out that it was not for them to decide whether
the licence should be ultimately renewed. If they referred it to the
Compensation Authority the whole matter would be considered by hose who
might, in that instance, be regarded as a higher authority. He suggested
that if the Justices declined to refer the house for compensation they
would be taking the matter out of the hands of the higher authority
without giving them a chance to adjudicate on it. Having regard to the
circumstances he suggested that the Corporation's case was by no means
unreasonable. In conclusion, he would like to give the reasons for that
application being made. The Corporation, as he had said, desired to
demolish the building and desired to demolish it soon. Although the
Corporation had not actually purchased they were is a position to obtain
possession at any time within twenty-one days and if they waited until
they actually acquired the property before they made the application it
would, in effect, mean waiting until this time next year, and it was
hoped that by this time next year, unless something went wrong, the
house would not be in existence. He understood that Messrs. George Beer
and Rigden, the owners, and whose representative was also the licensee,
were not offering any objections to his application in the matter.
Inspector Saddleton gave formal evidence in regard to the number of
licensed houses in the vicinity, as detailed by the Town Clerk.
In replying to Mr. Tuffee, witness said that there were twenty-one
licensed houses within the radius of four hundred yards of the "Wheatsheaf."
He thought there were sufficient houses for that area, and he was of the
opinion that one or perhaps more could be dispersed with. He understood
that the weekly takings at the "Wheatsheaf" were about £30.
Mr Tuffee said that his objections were on behalf of the Kent
Brewers' Union, which comprised the whole of the brewers in Kent, with
two exceptions. He did not think it was necessary for him to refer to
the Town Clerk's second ground of objection, because he had no
confidence in it himself. The Town Clerk said that the trade of the
house was satisfactory, and the only thing was that it was near other
licensed premises, but of course, it was no nearer to the other houses
than they were to it, and there was no reason why this one should be
regarded as redundant as opposed to the others. The Town Clerk spoke
about the Corporation's duty to the ratepayers, to whom they were
trustees, but, surely, it was not the duty of the Corporation to dip
their fingers into a fund which was raised for an entirely different
purpose. The Corporation were going to buy the property and licence, and
pay for it and said, "We can get some of that back, if we are lucky!"
But why should they choose to come on the Compensation Fund to recoup
themselves when they could easily be recouped by applying for a special
removal of the licence? He was going to say straight away that it was
not a proper thing to refer this licence to the Compensation Authority.
The Compensation Fund was raised or invented to compensate the owners
and licensees where the licence was declared and found to be redundant,
and it was contributed to by the whole business of licensees and brewers
and everyone connected with the trade. He knew he would be referred to
another case, the Leeds Corporation v. Rider, of 1907, where the Lord
Chancellor said that he saw no objection to arrangements being made
between the owners of public houses and the members of the Licensing
Committee, with a view to the suppression of licences, under Section 1
of the Act of 1904, and that he regarded that as an obvious and
legitimate means of carrying out the intentions of the Act. But it had
been held in various ways that that was not necessarily what should be
done in every particular case. If they referred to the housing Act of
1936, that contained special provisions for cases where land purchases
by the local authority for slum clearance, to development areas or
improvement areas is included licensed premises. The provisions stated
that if the local authority intimated to the Licensing Justices that
they were wishing to surrender the licence, the Licensing Justices might
refer the matter to the Compensation Authority, who on being satisfied
that if the licence had not been surrendered it might properly have been
dealt with as redundant, they should contribute out of the Compensation
Fund. The Town Clerk would say that that was nothing to do with the case
in point. But was not the law as it stood relating to reasons for
referring a licence which was not redundant and why was it passed if
they could have gone under some other provision? But if the Town Clerk
should convince them that they had authority to refer the licence to the
Compensation Authority he suggested that was an authority which they
should not exercise. The Corporation had bought an article which was
worth money, and why should they not pay for it? What member of the
public could properly object to paying a proper price for an article
which they required and were empowered to have? He asked the Bench to
renew the license unconditionally. That would give the Town Council and
the Corporation an opportunity to come before them if they thought fit
and ask for a special removal of the licence, or, perhaps what they
should do, surrender it.
The Town Clerk said that the fact that there might have been some
doubt cast on the ruling of the Lord Chancellor in the Leeds Corporation
case, did not override the decision, and if it was not amended by
subsequent statutory enactment, whatever doubts there may be, must
remain as doubts only. With regards to the Housing Act, this was not a
housing matter at all, and because the Housing Act made special
provisions, it did not mean that the ordinary common sense ruling of the
Licensing Consolidation Act could not be relied upon.
The Magistrates, after they had retired, announced that the licence
would be referred to the Compensation Authority.
|
|
From the Dover Express and East Kent News, 17 June, 1938.
CLOSING DOWN PUBLIC HOUSES
APPEAL THREAT IN "WHEATSHEAF" CASE
The East Kent Licensing Authority met at Canterbury on Friday last,
when the four Dover houses referred to by the licensing Justices came
up.
THE "WHEATSHEAF"
In the "Wheatsheaf" case, Mr. B. H. Waddy appeared on behalf of the
Renewal Authority and the Dover Corporation. Mr. Tuffee appeared for the
East Kent Brewers' Union, Messrs. Truman, Fremlin, Shephard Neame, Cobb
an Co., Charrington, etc.
Mr. Waddy said that the Corporation obtained power for the compulsory
acquisition of the "Wheatsheaf," and agreed to a figure for the purchase
of the premises and the licence as well. Of course the problem arose
where licensed premises were to be pulled down as to what was to happen
to the licence, which was a valuable asset. There were various ways of
dealing with it, and one was the way that the Corporation had adopted. Hey had said to the Licensing Justices, "We object to the renewal of
this licence, and ask you to refer it to the Compensation Authority with
a view to its being extinguished, because the "Wheatsheaf" is no longer
required by the public. There are other houses in the vicinity, and it
is in the public interest that the licence should be entirely
extinguished as the premises are going to be pulled down and turned into
a police station." Another way to deal with the matter was to go before
the Licensing Justices for a special removal of the licence to other
premises. There could have been anywhere - even next door to another
public house - providing they were proper premises. The Corporation
could then have carried on the licensed business themselves, as other
Corporations did, or they could have sold their house with the licence
to some person in the trade. What the Corporation said was that the
licence was not required, and there should be recovered for the
ratepayers as much as the Compensation Authority should pay having
agreed to the value of the licence. Opposition to the scheme did not
come from any Dover people at all. It had been suggested that it was an
improper arrangement for the Corporation to acquire licensed premises
which they were going to pull down and go to the Licensing Authority to
ask for compensation. In answer to that, he quoted a similar case, in
which Leeds Corporation acquired licensed premises.
Mr. S. R. H. Loxton, Town Clerk of Dover, gave evidence in support of
Mt. Waddy's statements.
In answer to Mr. Tuffee's cross-examination, Mr. Loxton said that the
price had been fixed at £4,000. He did not know ho much for the licence.
Mr. Tuffee: You do not contend that these premises are redundant in
the usual sense of the word?
Mr. Loxton: No, I do not think I can.
Mr. Tuffee: The only reason for asking for this house to be referred
to the Compensation Authority is because the Corporation have bought it
and do not want to continue it? - Yes.
Cross-examined by Mr. Tuffee, Inspector Saddleton, who gave evidence
as to the neighbourhood, said that the "Wheatsheaf" was not included in
the Chief Constable's annual report as a house to be referred.
Mr. Tuffee said that neither he nor his clients were making any
suggestions that the Justices acted improperly in anything they did in
referring that matter. One of the strong points made in the Leeds case,
which went to the House of Lords, was that the Magistrates had acted
improperly and had not exercised any judicial discretion in the way it
should be done. He did not challenge hat the Magistrates had a right in
this case to refer it to the Compensation Authority, but he did not
think that it was proper. What right had the Corporation to assume the
duties of the Licensing Authority? They must come there with their
tongue in their cheek when they said, "We consider it an unnecessary
license." The only reason they could suggest was that they had to pay
for it. The Authority had to consider whether the licence could be said
to be redundant; and that had to be considered on the evidence. There
was not one jot of tittle or evidence before them that it was redundant.
It had been suggested my Mr. Waddy that the trade would go elsewhere,
but he suggested that the reason the matter was not brought forward as a
"Special removal" was because it was not brought up on time. The
Corporation were keeping the premises open merely for the purpose of
getting some of the compensation money. What the Corporation were saying
was, "We have bound ourselves to a sum of £4,000. Here is a chance of
getting someone else to pay for it."
Following a retirement, the Chairman announced that a renewal of the
licence would be refused.
Mr. Tuffee: Subject to compensation?
The Chairman: Yes.
Mr. Tuffee: I shall ask you in due course to state a case.
|
|
From the Dover Express and East Kent News, 10 February 1939.
The Union Hall, the "Wheatsheaf Inn," and the shop adjoining which is
about to be demolished in connection with the widening of Ladywell where
it will abut on the new Police Station. The Union Hall (recently used
for A.R.P. purposes has had its contents removed to Woodlands
Factory in Bridge Street, which the Town bought. A sale of effects at
the "Wheatsheaf" took place on Tuesday.
|
|
From the Dover Express and East Kent News. 24 February 1939.
THE END OF THE "WHEATSHEAF" INN.
Demolishing the remaining properties in Ladywell adjoining the site
of the new Police Station. The shop formally on the corner of Ladywell
Place, the "Wheatsheaf" Inn, and the Union Hall are involved, the
intention being to improve the alignment of the road.
|
|
From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 17
November, 1939.
Their many friends in Dover will congratulate Mr. and Mrs. W. E. Shave,
of Reading, who celebrated their golden wedding on Monday. Mr. "Dollar"
Shave was formerly at the "Wheatsheaf," Ladywell, and later had a
tobacconist's business in High Street.
|
The whole of Ladywell Place was compulsory purchased by Dover Corporation
in 1936. Notices to quit the house had already been issued by September that
year and the purchase was confirmed by the Ministry of Health in February
1938.
On 20th November 1939 Mr. and Mrs. Shave, then of Reading, celebrated
their Golden Wedding the Dover Express reported and stated that they later
had a tobacconist's business in High Street.
The price of the "Wheatsheaf", including the licence, was £4,000. An
agreed compensation figure of £2,300 was also mentioned and may have formed
part of the larger figure. I do not know.
In an effort to recover some part of the ratepayers money, the Council
resolved to declare the pub redundant and have it referred. The Kent Brewers
Association took exception to that and objected to the fund being so abused.
Right or wrong, the Bench did agree it was surplus to requirements in
March 1938. Seven fully licensed houses were within two hundred yards and
twenty one within a four hundred yard radius. The renewal was refused in
June 1938 which then made it eligible for compensation.
The end of the story never came my way. It did go on. Perhaps the figure
of £2,300 mentioned earlier was the result. I do not know. Although ready
for demolition, it must have still stood in February 1939 when a provisional
licence covered. It must have disappeared shortly after that because a new
police station had opened on the site by September 1940. Just in time to be
partially wrecked by a bomb two months later.
|
THE END
 |
LICENSEE LIST
EAST Richard William 1858-May/76
(age 54 in 1861)
 
STOKES Harry Jones May/1876+
 (of
Canterbury)
MITCHELL H 1877
KINGSFORD 1877
LADD Mary Ann Oct/1877-May/79
GODDARD John May/1879-Nov/79
CADMAN Thomas Frederick Nov/1879-82+
JONES Ann to Jan/1888
AUSTIN James Jan/1888+
(Late
gentleman of Islington)
SHAVE WaIter Ernest 1891-1913+ (age 22 in 1891)
      
SANDERS William Harrison 1913-Sept/1918
HALL Thomas R senior Sept/1918-20
HALL William Edwin junior 1920-Aug/25
 
DANE Edward Alfred Aug/1925-27 end
STEVENS Robert Clark 1927-28 dec'd
BECKETT Edward Albert 1928-Dec/30
TWIGG Seth Layton Dec/1930-37 end
MARTIN Wilfred 1938
The Dover Express reported that Mr. T. R. Hall was at the time the
licence was transferred in 1918 was employed as manager to a firm of
grocers, but said "as soon as the firm can release me, I will leave that
position and devote all my time to the "Wheatsheaf."
The Dover Express reported that Seth Layton Twigg had previously been at
the "Lamb and Lion Inn," Lower Boro Walls, Bath.
From Melville's Directory 1858
From the Post Office Directory 1874
From the Post Office Directory 1882
From the Post Office Directory 1891
From Pikes Dover Blue Book 1895
From the Kelly's Directory 1899
From the Post Office Directory 1901
From the Post Office Directory 1903
From the Kelly's Directory 1903
From the Post Office Directory 1913
From the Post Office Directory 1922
From Pikes Dover Blue Book 1924
From the Post Office Directory 1930
From Pikes Dover Blue Book 1932-33
From the Post Office Directory 1938
From the Dover Express
|
