.jpg) |
| Section of Powell`s Survey of Folkestone, 1782 |
 |
| C.P. Davis`s index card |
Previously
thought to have been the house of the same name (located on South Street) it
can now be stated with a fair degree of confidence that at some stage in the
1830s this was actually a change of name for the previously existing Royal
George until that house was demolished in 1844. Checking the index cards
compiled by the late C.P. Davies (Reference librarian at Folkestone Library)
shows George Hogben listed (in Pigot`s Directory) at the Victoria, Kingsbridge
Street (former name of the area in which the later Beach Street was included).
Tellingly, the Royal George is NOT listed in Pigot`s Directory. The next entry
on the reference card shows Jeffrey at the same address according to the Rate
Book for the town in 1842. Entry No. 3 on the card has Jeffrey, but the address
is now South Street in 1845. This is after Jeffrey had left the first Victoria
at the time of its demolition. Any lingering doubt that this particular
Victoria was a renaming of the old Royal George should be removed by the
description of the location of the house as given in the evidence at the Kent
Assizes in a damages case Jeffrey took out against the South Eastern Railway
Company – as reported by the Maidstone Journal.
Maidstone Journal
30-7-1844
Jeffrey
v The South Eastern Railway Company
Mr. Sergeant Shee, with Mr. Lush, was for the plaintiff: Mr. Peacock and Mr. Russell for the defendants.
Mr.
Lush having opened the proceedings, Sergeant Shee stated the case to the Jury.
The plaintiff kept the Victoria Inn, at Folkestone, and the defendants were the
South Eastern Railway Company. It appeared that the Victoria Inn was the
property of a family of the name of Marsh, for whom Mr. Gravenor was trustee,
and as such the freehold was vested in him. The premises were rented in 1841 by
a person of the name of Lee, of whom they were taken in 1842 by the plaintiff.
Mr. Jeffrey had carried on the business at the Victoria for some time with great
success, and was daily improving it – the maintenance of himself and family
depending upon it. When common people committed depredations they were punished
for it by the criminal law, but when railway companies destroyed other peoples`
property they were to be treated with indulgence; although if they choose to go
to Parliament, they could obtain all the powers they required to carry their
intentions into effect. But when the trespass of which he complained was
committed they had no such powers, and yet they had made a railroad on a
turnpike road. The principal business of the inn was derived from the parties
who frequented a fish market opposite the plaintiff`s. The company had thought
proper to take the turnpike road and make an embankment upon it, by which means
the custom of the market was for some time entirely lost to the inn. The
company had afterwards made a sort of archway, by which access to the market
was obtained. The plaintiff did not complain of any injury done by the workmen
employed, but of the loss sustained from the circumstance he had mentioned, and
by the company afterwards making a road by which the public road in front of
the plaintiff`s house was reduced to nine feet wide, and his trade had been in
consequence entirely destroyed. The company had not thought it worthwhile to
apply to Parliament, but took the thing into their own hands, thereby depriving
the plaintiff of such fair compensation as he would have been entitled to under
the provisions of an Act of Parliament. If it could be proved to them that at
the time this injury took place the plaintiff had been carrying on a profitable
business, and was suddenly deprived of a good connection, he was entitled to
fair and reasonable damages.
Mr.
Wm. Lee stated that he formerly kept the Victoria, which is in the lower part
of the town of Folkestone. He held it under Mr. Ham Tite, and let it on 2nd
May, 1842 to Mr. Jeffrey, with the consent of Mr. Ham Tite. The plaintiff had
paid him £150 for it - £75 for the goodwill and £75 for fixtures &c. There
was a public road in front of the house, upon which the company had built a
railroad. The house was now down. The railroad was about 5 yards from the
house. There was a fish market about 25 yards in front of the house, and there
were a great many persons continually passing along the road. There were a
great many customers frequented the house, and by passengers calling for
refreshment.
Cross-examined:
He came here with the witnesses in the last cause. Mr. Robertson was attorney
in both cases.
Sarah
Hart stated that she was servant to Mr. Jeffrey at the Victoria Inn. Went to
live there in August, 1843, before the railroad was commenced. There was a very
respectable business carried on in the house. There was a fish market opposite
and a great many persons came from there to the house, as well as persons
walking along the road. They drank principally beer – there was a good company
in the evening. About a week before she left the custom began to fall off. The
dust and dirt was so great that no respectable persons would go there. She used
to get a great many “vales” but the last month she had hardly any. Persons used
to call them down the packets, but in consequence of the dust respectable
persons would not call.
Cross-examined:
When the arches were being built the fish market was removed lower down the
beach. The greater number of the fishing boats were landed opposite the
Victoria – the market had been removed 20 or 30 yards. The principal part of
the custom that fell off were parties that came from the packets – several that
used to attend from the market went to the other house. There were three or
four houses the other side of the road – the Victoria was nearer to the fish
market than the other houses before the road was made. The fish market stood
almost the middle between the North Foreland and the Victoria – if anything it
was a few yards nearer the Victoria.
Re-examined:
The fish market was removed in consequence of the road being made.
Wm.
Morford is a butcher at Folkestone, - he knew the situation of the Victoria.
Previous to the works commencing he had frequently seen people going in there
from the fish market. After that there was an obstruction, which prevented
people from getting there. The embankment is so high that persons on the harbours
where fish are landed cannot see the Victoria. When Mr. Jeffrey took the house
he altered the bedrooms and made it more respectable for the accommodation of
parties. He had supplied the house with meat, but after the works had begun the
trade in steaks and chops had been gone altogether. It was never much of a
house until the Dover railroad began, when the labourers working upon it
frequented the Victoria.
Cross-examined: Mr. Jeffery had left the house about last May. It had been pulled down about a fortnight ago.
Re-examined:
When the house was altered it was frequented by parties who came by the packets
and visitors from Dover, because there was a beautiful view of the harbour from
it.
Mr.
Hawkins, excise officer, stated that the trade of the Victoria had considerably
fallen off from the time of the tram road had commenced, which he thought was
about the latter end of October.
Mr.
Coomber deposed that the works commenced about September last.
Cross-examined:
Was the plaintiff in the last case and had sent in the plaints which had been
read.
Mr.
Hawkins recalled: The trade had fallen off in spirits 3 or 4 gallons a week in
each sort. He knew nothing about the beer.Persons from the fish market could
get to plaintiff`s house under one or two of the arches.
Re-examined: The falling off in the first place was owing to the labour being taken off the road. The obstruction might have caused a further falling off.
By the Bench: There were not so many pleasure people in October and November as in other seasons.
John Timby deposed to the falling off in the business of the Victoria after the rent had been made.
Mr. Lee re-called: Mr. Ham Tite, the landlord of the Victoria, was a brewer and supplied the house with beer.
Mr. Peacock, in his address to the Jury, remarked upon the fact that neither the brewer nor the spirit merchant had been called, either of whom could have proved more readily the tailing off in the business than the witnesses who had been called.
The Learned Baron, in addressing the Jury, also alluded to that circumstance and said that it was the duty of the plaintiff to furnish them with the best evidence upon the plaint that he could. It would be, however, for them to award him such fair and reasonable compensation as they considered him entitled to for any loss he had sustained by the proceedings of the company.
Verdict for the plaintiff. Damages £125.
Note: No record of William Lee in More Bastions.
Canterbury Weekly
Journal, Dover Chronicle 3-8-1844
Assizes: Nisi Prius Court (Before Mr. Baron Gurney)
Jeffery v The South Eastern Railway Company
Mr. Sergeant Shee (with whom was Mr. Lush) stated that the plaintiff in this case had been a licensed publican at the Victoria Inn, in Folkestone. The plaintiff carried on a most successful business. The railway company wanted communication between their railway and the harbour. When other persons than railway companies chose to break down people`s walls and destroy their trees they were indicted for it criminally, and placed in the dock, but railway companies could do an immense deal without being molested, and were allowed sometimes to do nearly as they pleased.
The ground of the plaintiff`s complaint was that his custom, which had depended very much on the fish market, and the traffic from the packets, was almost wholly cut off by the erection of the tramway, which the Company had executed without an Act of Parliament, and without any more authority than the man on the moon. They had committed a public nuisance, for which they were liable to be indicted, and in doing so they had done an injury to an individual, for which no sum that a jury would be likely to give could be considered an adequate compensation.
Mr. Peacock argued that before the opening of the railway the trade of the house was so bad that it was not worth anyone`s while to keep it open, and that the plaintiff could not prove any substantial damage. He also contended that the falling-off in the plaintiff`s trade arose principally, if not wholly, from visitors, whose attendance had fallen off as the winter approached.
Mr. Baron Gurney, in summing up to the jury, said that when a company obtained an Act of Parliament it was undoubtedly correct that they were enabled to take away men`s property, but they could even then only do so by compensating the parties under the provision of that Act. If they had got no Act they might still take property on agreement with parties. In this case it had not been shown either that the company had had any right to take the property, or that they had entered into agreement for it. The plaintiff in this case had given £75 premium for the house, and there was no question on the evidence that a very large portion of his trade had been cut off by the erection of the tramway in front of his house. It was for the jury to say to what compensation he was entitled.
The jury found for the plaintiff – damages £125.
Dover Telegraph 3-8-1844
Assizes: Nisi Prius Court
Jeffery v The South Eastern Railway Company
Mr. Sergeant Shee (with whom was Mr. Lush) stated that the plaintiff in this case had been a licensed publican at the Victoria Inn, in Folkestone. The plaintiff carried on a most successful business. The railway company wanted communication between their railway and the harbour. When other persons than railway companies chose to break down people`s walls and destroy their trees they were indicted for it criminally, and placed in the dock, but railway companies could do an immense deal without being molested, and were allowed sometimes to do nearly whatever they wanted.
The ground of the plaintiff`s complaint was that his custom, which had depended very much on the fish market, and the traffic from the packets, was almost wholly cut off by the erection of the tramway, which the Company had executed without an Act of Parliament, and without any more authority than the man on the moon. They had committed a public nuisance, for which they were liable to be indicted, and in doing so they had done an injury to an individual, for which no sum that a jury would be likely to give could be considered an adequate compensation.
The jury found for the plaintiff – damages £125.
West Kent Guardian
3-8-1844
Assizes: Jeffery v The South Eastern Railway Company
Mr. Sergeant Shee, with Mr. Lush was for the plaintiff; Mr. Peacock and Mr. Russell for the defendants.
Mr.
Lush having opened the proceedings, Sergeant Shee stated the case to the jury.
The plaintiff kept the Victoria Inn, at Folkestone, and the defendants were the
South Eastern Railway Company. It appeared that the Victoria Inn was the
property of a family of the name of Marsh, for which Mr. Gravenor was the
trustee, and as such the freehold was vested in him. The premises were rented
in 1841 by a person by the name of Lee, of whom they were taken in 1842 by the
plaintiff, and the question would be – had Mr. Lee`s tenancy expired when they
were transferred to the plaintiff?
Mr.
Jeffrey carried on the business at the Victoria for some time with great
success, and was daily improving it – the maintenance of himself and family
depending upon it. When common people committed depredations they were punished
for it by the criminal law, but when railway companies destroyed other peoples`
property they were to be treated with indulgence; although if they choose to go
to Parliament they could obtain all the powers they required to carry their
intentions into effect. But when the trespass of which he complained was
committed they had no such powers, and yet they had made a railway upon a
turnpike road. The principal business of the Inn was derived from the parties
who frequented a fish market opposite the plaintiff`s. The company had thought
proper to take the turnpike road and make an embankment upon it, by which means
the custom of the market was for some time entirely lost to the Inn. The
company had afterwards made a sort of archway, by which access to the market
was obtained. The plaintiff did not complain of any injury done by the workmen
employed, but of the loss sustained from the circumstances he had mentioned,
and by the company afterwards making a road by which the public road in front
of the plaintiff`s house was reduced to nine feet wide, and his trade had been
in consequence entirely destroyed. The company had not thought it worthwhile to
apply to Parliament, but took the thing into their own hands, thereby depriving
the plaintiff of such compensation as he would have been entitled to under the
provisions of an Act of Parliament. If it could be proved to them that at the
time this injury took place the plaintiff had been carrying on a profitable
business, and was suddenly deprived of a good compensation, he was entitled to
fair and reasonable damage.
The learned Sergeant having called witnesses in support of his statement, Mr. Peacock, in reply, argued that before the opening of the railway the trade of the house was so bad that it was not worth anyone`s while to keep it open, and that the plaintiff could not prove any substantial damages. He also contended that the falling off in the plaintiff`s trade arose principally, if not wholly, from visitors, whose attendance had fallen off as the winter approached.
Mr. Baron Gurney, in summing up to the jury, said that when a company obtained an Act of Parliament, it was undoubtedly correct that they were enabled to take away men`s property, but they could even then only do so by compensating the parties under the provisions of that Act. If they had got no Act they might still take property on agreement with parties. In this case it had not been shown either that the company had any right to take the property, or that they had entered into agreement for it. The plaintiff in this case had given £75 premium for the house, and there was no question on the evidence that a very large portion of his trade had been cut off by the erection of the tramway in front of his house. It was for the jury to say to what compensation he was fairly entitled.
The jury found for the plaintiff – damages £125.
Dover Chronicle 31-8-1844
The new hotel, which is building on the site of the “Old Victoria”, or better known as the “Old Royal George”, is getting on rapidly. It will be a splendid building, and will very much improve that part of Folkestone.
Kentish Mercury
31-8-1844
A new hotel upon an extensive scale is building by Messrs. Calvert upon the site of the old Victoria, which house was the subject of the action at the late Assizes, Jeffery v the Railway Company. The site of two adjoining houses is added to it and it will stand in a good situation for business.
Note: Appears to suggest that the Victoria had been demolished and was being rebuilt. “Extensive scale” does not match the description of the house when advertised for auction in 1870.
Dover Chronicle 22-3-1845
The splendid second-rate hotel, built on the site of the late Victoria is yet untenanted, and the tradespeople are complaining sadly owing to want of business, and not, we regret to say, without cause.
West Kent Guardian
29-3-1845
The splendid second-rate hotel, built on the site of the late Victoria is yet tenantless, and the tradespeople are complaining sadly owing to want of business, and not, we regret to say, without cause.
No comments:
Post a Comment