NEW ROYAL GEORGE INN #
260 (later 154) North Road
*
MINE HOSTS:
1854 - 64 George Albert
1869 - 70 John Shaw
1870 - 73 James Thomas Harrison - 12.2.1871, to pay court costs for breaching the Sunday Act.
James STONE, the owner, 1871
James STONE, the owner, 1871
1873 Henry Hoyle
1875 Eliza Bradshaw
1875 Eliza Bradshaw
1875 Alice Brayshaw - has to be synonymous with previous name.
1879 Mr. Kay
1879 David Tomlinson
1879 William Clarkson
1879 William Clarkson
1881 Matthew Woods
1882 - 87 John Smith
1887 - 89 William Hopkins
1889 - 90 John Lucas
1890 - 91 John Eccles
1891 - 92 James Crozier
1892 William Madders
1892 - 93 John Holland
1893 - 98 Mary Newton
1898 Simon Whiplaw
1898 - 99 Mary Sullivan
1899 Walter George Day
1899 Walter George Day
1904 NO MENTION. It would seem, from an article below, that the beerhouse was
discontinued in December 1899, following a series of complaints.
discontinued in December 1899, following a series of complaints.
The licence was refused on the 7th December 1899 at the Sessions. On the 23rd August 1899, Mary Sullivan had been found guilty of permitting drunkenness on the premises.
*
*
Preston Chronicle 21st May 1881
*
Valuable Beerhouse in North Road, Preston.
To be sold by Auction, by
Messrs. J. B. Jones and Sons.
Lot 1. All that well-accustomed INN or BEERHOUSE called the New Royal George Inn"
154, North Road, Preston, in the occupation of Mrs. Cardwell and her under-tenant, Mr. Crozier, together with the Messuage adjoining thereto, and number 13, Dewhurst Street, and occupied in connection with the said beerhouse.
Further particulars from
Mr. Jas Clarke, Solicitor, 2, Lune Street, Preston.
Preston Herald 20th February 1892
*
THE NEW ROYAL GEORGE, PRESTON.
MR. DUCKER'S EVIDENCE.
The hearing of the appeal of Walter George Day, tenant, and Messrs. H. and B. Boyd, Limited, the owners of the New Royal George beerhouse, North Road, Preston, against the decision of the Preston justices in refusing to renew the licence, was commenced after lunch yesterday afternoon.
Mr.McKeand and Mr. Mellor appeared for the appellants, and Mr. Sutton and Mr. McNab for the respondents.
Mr. Sutton, after opening, called Mr. George T. Ducker, retired schoolmaster, St. Ignatius' Square, who described the conduct of the New Royal George during the past three years as bad. There had been drunkenness, immorality, bad language, with the screaming and yelling of women. In reply to Mr. McKeand, the witness said he never made any complaint to the tenant, but he had spoken to the police about the house two years ago. He was only approached with respect to the appeal a few days ago, when two detectives called upon him. "Did anyone call before?" he was asked, and he replied, "No." "Paul Walmsley?" he was asked. "I don't even know him," he said. "What?" asked Mr. McKeand, and he replied, "No, I did not until yesterday." "Nobody from the Vigilance Society?" and he replied, "No."
"You will swear that?", and Ducker replied, "I will swear anything against the Vigilance Association." Laughter in court.
Wilfred Parkinson, a chemist, whose shop is next do or to the beerhouse, said the disturbances had been more frequent since Mary Sullivan had held the licence during the past twelve months. He had complained to policemen about the house on half-a-dozen occasions, but he did not recognise the officers.
Mrs. Barnet, 150, North Road, said that in consequence of the misconduct at the place she intended to leave her house. She had complained to the police, and they had been to watch. There had been a change for the better since Day had become the tenant, but as a matter of fact hardly anyone went to the house now.
Thomas Elliot, a retired watchmaker, living at 2, St. Ignatius' Square, said that up to August last, the house was badly conducted. He had seen cabs full of drunken people go to the place.
Stephen Ogden, 152, North Road, had seen frequent drunken brawls amongst people who had come out of the Royal George. He lived 15 yards away. Mr. Paul Walmsley had seen him about the house.
John Rawsthorn, provision dealer, 146, North Road, spoke to young girls and soldiers frequenting the house. He had heard rows and seen fights in the street by people who had come out of the house. He had seen the police clear them away. He had spoken to Mr. Simcock, the owner's representative, about the tenant harbouring young girls, and the reply he received was that the house was conducted in the way it always had been.
Mr. McKeand said, "The house had been quietly conducted under the new landlord."
Warrant Sergeant Clayton deposed that he had known the house for 12 years, and during that time it had been visited by low working class and women of loose character, but during the past 18 months the house had been much worse conducted. He proved two convictions against the house, information of which was given to the owners. The last tenant disappeared without paying a fine of 40s and costs. Her sister said she had "gone for a holiday," and she had taken all the furniture, but had not returned. All the stock she left was a dozen bottles of ginger beer. (laughter)
In reply to the Chairman, he said the girls who visited the house were those who worked sometimes, and at other times lived by prostitution.
At this point the appeal was adjourned until 10 o'clock the next day.
Preston Herald 2nd December 1899
*
The Royal George Appeal...….continued.
The appeal against the refusal of the renewal of the licence of the New Royal George, Preston, was resumed yesterday.
PC Bridge said he had known the house about 6 years and knew it to be a resort of loose women and a low class of workmen. In cross-examination by Mr. McKeand, the officer said that he had cautioned the landlady on different occasions, but I never saw anything to justify my making a report to my superior officer. In point of fact I have not made any complaint. I was told to watch the house, but saw nothing that would justify me in making a report, only to caution the landlady.
To the Chairman: I would not report anything less than would justify a charge. I understand that my duty is only to report such circumstances as would justify a charge of some kind. I was to watch the house to see whether that would justify a charge.
Mr. McKeand said, "Well, then you never saw anything there to justify a charge?" "No." was the reply.
When re-examined, PC Bridge said, "Special instructions were given sometimes as to watching a house. The Chief Constable gave instructions to watch this house, the charge which led to the conviction. When I cautioned her, the landlady said she tried to do the best she could with them. I cautioned her against young women being in the house."
PC Cardwell spoke to seeing girls go into the house with soldiers. He saw girls go in and out with different soldiers. He saw four girls in particular. In cross-examination he added that complaints were made about soldiers and girls coming out of the house hugging one another, and standing on the pavement. It was very rowdy when the militia were up.
PC James Hull was called. The magistrates were heard to say that there was a good deal of repetition about the evidence, and the Chairman remarked to Mr. Sutton about the number of police officers called, and asked if he was going into their evidence in detail.
Mr. Sutton replied that he thought he ought to call them, and the Chairman replied, "Well, call them of course, but is it necessary to go into detail? These people say they made complaints about the house. They have seen rows there, and they have given scandalous instances of disorder."
Mr. Sutton responded, "There are one or two points that I ought to bring out," and the Chairman replied, "Of course, if they were new point they should be brought out, but I think that repetition should be avoided."
Mr. Sutton went on to say that this evidence has been suggested by the police themselves. They desired that it should be brought before the magistrates pretty fully. The Chairman said, "I don't see what you wish to establish. It has been shown that the police have been very active in regard to this and other houses, and they have carried out their instructions to the best of their ability."
Mr. Sutton said, "We want to show that the landlady had some knowledge of the character of the people who were going into the house," and after an interjection from the Chairman, continued, "You are not aware perhaps as we are that a number of police officers were called by the defendant."
Mr. Sutton was then allowed to continued to question PC Hull, who said that on the 11th January this year he had occasion to go into the New Royal George. He saw the landlady stand against the counter in the bar and she was drunk. He made a report upon it, and in consequence of that report, he believed an official caution was sent to the landlady. In cross-examination the officer said that he was rarely on duty in the area of that beerhouse, but on this occasion he was only passing, but was called in.
Detective Sergeant Coupe spoke to having known the house for 20 years. He mentioned different occasions when he had seen prostitutes and men who were thieves come out of the house. He saw one woman who was the worst in the town, a dangerous thief. He had called the landlady's attention to the fact
PC Wardley gave corroborative evidence. He was once called in by a bully named Jolly, who said he had been stabbed by a woman. The landlady said there had been a bit of a row, and he got cut by a broken glass.
Another police officer was called, and Mr. Sutton said that after this he would relieve the Bench of any further evidence.
The Chairman remarked that Mr. Sutton had to prove that the house was of a disorderly character. They had already got the strongest evidence of that, and that evidence was not going to be disputed. Mr. Sutton said he would not go any further.
Mr. McKeand addressed the Bench for the appellants. He submitted that the fact that one or two or three thieves had been seen in the house, or some women of loose character had visited it was not sufficient to constitute a disorderly house. There must be some evidence of the habitual resort to the house of thieves and bad women. The whole question was one of degree.
PS. Sheerhogg, PS. Lambourne, and PC. Cunliffe spoke to having visited and passed the house, and they never saw anything wrong there, never saw thieves or women of bad character there. The persons whom they saw in the house were mostly of the working class. The girls were mill girl ranging from 17 to 21 years of age.
Walter George Day said he was the tenant of the house now. His rent was £25 PA. He applied for the renewal of his licence. He had kept other licensed houses. He had so far done a fair business there, and was now in the third barrel a week beside bottled ales. He thought he should be able to conduct the house respectably.
The Chairman, after a moment's consultation, said, "We are unanimously of the opinion that this appeal must be dismissed."
The appeal was accordingly dismissed, and it was agreed that the taxation of costs should remain until the question raised is settled. It was further arranged that the question should be dismissed on December 27th.
This concluded the business of the Sessions.
Preston Herald 6th December 1899
*
HOW TO PREVENT DRINKING DURING
PROHIBITED HOURS.
George Albert, landlord of the Royal George Inn, North Road, was charged with selling drink during prohibited hours. The offence was proved to have been committed, but under singular circumstances, and Mr. Watson then address the Bench on the defendant's behalf.
In the course of his observations, he stated that the method adopted by the police to put down Sunday drinking was not one which would succeed. It was undoubtedly true that the landlord, who was alone generally summoned, did not send for persons to come and get the drink during the hours of prohibition, but that the persons went to the public-houses and beerhouses, and tempted the landlords to commit an offence.
If the police would only summons the parties that participated in the offence, then they might put down the practice without any great amount of difficulty. Hitherto they have allowed the public to throw temptations into the way of the landlord, and so long as they allowed the participtors in the offence to go free, so long would they have cases like the present one coming before them; whereas if they summoned those participators, he had not the slightest doubt that, as in other towns, the practice would be put down in Preston.
He concluded by submitting that although the offence was proved, it did not call for any aggravated fine. It was stated that the defendant had kept the house for ten years without a complaint made against it, and the Bench dismissed the case on the payment of costs.
Preston Herald 12th March 1864*
*
Valuable Beerhouse in North Road, Preston.
To be sold by Auction, by
Messrs. J. B. Jones and Sons.
Lot 1. All that well-accustomed INN or BEERHOUSE called the New Royal George Inn"
154, North Road, Preston, in the occupation of Mrs. Cardwell and her under-tenant, Mr. Crozier, together with the Messuage adjoining thereto, and number 13, Dewhurst Street, and occupied in connection with the said beerhouse.
Further particulars from
Mr. Jas Clarke, Solicitor, 2, Lune Street, Preston.
Preston Herald 20th February 1892
*
THE NEW ROYAL GEORGE, PRESTON.
MR. DUCKER'S EVIDENCE.
The hearing of the appeal of Walter George Day, tenant, and Messrs. H. and B. Boyd, Limited, the owners of the New Royal George beerhouse, North Road, Preston, against the decision of the Preston justices in refusing to renew the licence, was commenced after lunch yesterday afternoon.
Mr.McKeand and Mr. Mellor appeared for the appellants, and Mr. Sutton and Mr. McNab for the respondents.
Mr. Sutton, after opening, called Mr. George T. Ducker, retired schoolmaster, St. Ignatius' Square, who described the conduct of the New Royal George during the past three years as bad. There had been drunkenness, immorality, bad language, with the screaming and yelling of women. In reply to Mr. McKeand, the witness said he never made any complaint to the tenant, but he had spoken to the police about the house two years ago. He was only approached with respect to the appeal a few days ago, when two detectives called upon him. "Did anyone call before?" he was asked, and he replied, "No." "Paul Walmsley?" he was asked. "I don't even know him," he said. "What?" asked Mr. McKeand, and he replied, "No, I did not until yesterday." "Nobody from the Vigilance Society?" and he replied, "No."
"You will swear that?", and Ducker replied, "I will swear anything against the Vigilance Association." Laughter in court.
Wilfred Parkinson, a chemist, whose shop is next do or to the beerhouse, said the disturbances had been more frequent since Mary Sullivan had held the licence during the past twelve months. He had complained to policemen about the house on half-a-dozen occasions, but he did not recognise the officers.
Mrs. Barnet, 150, North Road, said that in consequence of the misconduct at the place she intended to leave her house. She had complained to the police, and they had been to watch. There had been a change for the better since Day had become the tenant, but as a matter of fact hardly anyone went to the house now.
Thomas Elliot, a retired watchmaker, living at 2, St. Ignatius' Square, said that up to August last, the house was badly conducted. He had seen cabs full of drunken people go to the place.
Stephen Ogden, 152, North Road, had seen frequent drunken brawls amongst people who had come out of the Royal George. He lived 15 yards away. Mr. Paul Walmsley had seen him about the house.
John Rawsthorn, provision dealer, 146, North Road, spoke to young girls and soldiers frequenting the house. He had heard rows and seen fights in the street by people who had come out of the house. He had seen the police clear them away. He had spoken to Mr. Simcock, the owner's representative, about the tenant harbouring young girls, and the reply he received was that the house was conducted in the way it always had been.
Mr. McKeand said, "The house had been quietly conducted under the new landlord."
Warrant Sergeant Clayton deposed that he had known the house for 12 years, and during that time it had been visited by low working class and women of loose character, but during the past 18 months the house had been much worse conducted. He proved two convictions against the house, information of which was given to the owners. The last tenant disappeared without paying a fine of 40s and costs. Her sister said she had "gone for a holiday," and she had taken all the furniture, but had not returned. All the stock she left was a dozen bottles of ginger beer. (laughter)
In reply to the Chairman, he said the girls who visited the house were those who worked sometimes, and at other times lived by prostitution.
At this point the appeal was adjourned until 10 o'clock the next day.
Preston Herald 2nd December 1899
*
The Royal George Appeal...….continued.
The appeal against the refusal of the renewal of the licence of the New Royal George, Preston, was resumed yesterday.
PC Bridge said he had known the house about 6 years and knew it to be a resort of loose women and a low class of workmen. In cross-examination by Mr. McKeand, the officer said that he had cautioned the landlady on different occasions, but I never saw anything to justify my making a report to my superior officer. In point of fact I have not made any complaint. I was told to watch the house, but saw nothing that would justify me in making a report, only to caution the landlady.
To the Chairman: I would not report anything less than would justify a charge. I understand that my duty is only to report such circumstances as would justify a charge of some kind. I was to watch the house to see whether that would justify a charge.
Mr. McKeand said, "Well, then you never saw anything there to justify a charge?" "No." was the reply.
When re-examined, PC Bridge said, "Special instructions were given sometimes as to watching a house. The Chief Constable gave instructions to watch this house, the charge which led to the conviction. When I cautioned her, the landlady said she tried to do the best she could with them. I cautioned her against young women being in the house."
PC Cardwell spoke to seeing girls go into the house with soldiers. He saw girls go in and out with different soldiers. He saw four girls in particular. In cross-examination he added that complaints were made about soldiers and girls coming out of the house hugging one another, and standing on the pavement. It was very rowdy when the militia were up.
PC James Hull was called. The magistrates were heard to say that there was a good deal of repetition about the evidence, and the Chairman remarked to Mr. Sutton about the number of police officers called, and asked if he was going into their evidence in detail.
Mr. Sutton replied that he thought he ought to call them, and the Chairman replied, "Well, call them of course, but is it necessary to go into detail? These people say they made complaints about the house. They have seen rows there, and they have given scandalous instances of disorder."
Mr. Sutton responded, "There are one or two points that I ought to bring out," and the Chairman replied, "Of course, if they were new point they should be brought out, but I think that repetition should be avoided."
Mr. Sutton went on to say that this evidence has been suggested by the police themselves. They desired that it should be brought before the magistrates pretty fully. The Chairman said, "I don't see what you wish to establish. It has been shown that the police have been very active in regard to this and other houses, and they have carried out their instructions to the best of their ability."
Mr. Sutton said, "We want to show that the landlady had some knowledge of the character of the people who were going into the house," and after an interjection from the Chairman, continued, "You are not aware perhaps as we are that a number of police officers were called by the defendant."
Mr. Sutton was then allowed to continued to question PC Hull, who said that on the 11th January this year he had occasion to go into the New Royal George. He saw the landlady stand against the counter in the bar and she was drunk. He made a report upon it, and in consequence of that report, he believed an official caution was sent to the landlady. In cross-examination the officer said that he was rarely on duty in the area of that beerhouse, but on this occasion he was only passing, but was called in.
Detective Sergeant Coupe spoke to having known the house for 20 years. He mentioned different occasions when he had seen prostitutes and men who were thieves come out of the house. He saw one woman who was the worst in the town, a dangerous thief. He had called the landlady's attention to the fact
PC Wardley gave corroborative evidence. He was once called in by a bully named Jolly, who said he had been stabbed by a woman. The landlady said there had been a bit of a row, and he got cut by a broken glass.
Another police officer was called, and Mr. Sutton said that after this he would relieve the Bench of any further evidence.
The Chairman remarked that Mr. Sutton had to prove that the house was of a disorderly character. They had already got the strongest evidence of that, and that evidence was not going to be disputed. Mr. Sutton said he would not go any further.
Mr. McKeand addressed the Bench for the appellants. He submitted that the fact that one or two or three thieves had been seen in the house, or some women of loose character had visited it was not sufficient to constitute a disorderly house. There must be some evidence of the habitual resort to the house of thieves and bad women. The whole question was one of degree.
PS. Sheerhogg, PS. Lambourne, and PC. Cunliffe spoke to having visited and passed the house, and they never saw anything wrong there, never saw thieves or women of bad character there. The persons whom they saw in the house were mostly of the working class. The girls were mill girl ranging from 17 to 21 years of age.
Walter George Day said he was the tenant of the house now. His rent was £25 PA. He applied for the renewal of his licence. He had kept other licensed houses. He had so far done a fair business there, and was now in the third barrel a week beside bottled ales. He thought he should be able to conduct the house respectably.
The Chairman, after a moment's consultation, said, "We are unanimously of the opinion that this appeal must be dismissed."
The appeal was accordingly dismissed, and it was agreed that the taxation of costs should remain until the question raised is settled. It was further arranged that the question should be dismissed on December 27th.
This concluded the business of the Sessions.
Preston Herald 6th December 1899
*
CENSUS RETURNS
1861
George Albert 56 years Beerseller / shoemaker b. Colchester
George Albert 56 years Beerseller / shoemaker b. Colchester
Margaret Albert 55 Wife b. Preston
Charles Albert 33 Son do
Sarah Albert 27 Daughter do
George Albert 12 Son do
Emma Albert 4 Grand-daughter do
1871
Thomas Harrison 45 years Beerhouse Keeper b. Preston
Catherine Harrison 44 Wife do
Elizabeth Harrison 22 Daughter do
Catherine Harrison 18 Daughter do
Mary Harrison 16 Daughter do
James Harrison 13 Son do
Joshua Harrison 11 Son do
Anne Harrison 9 Daughter do
Grace R. H. Harrison 5 Daughter do
1881
Matthew Woods 54 years Beerseller b. Walton-le-dale
Mary Ann Woods 53 Wife do
1891
John Eccles 38 years Beerhouse Keeper b. Preston
Catherine Eccles 42 Wife b. Blackburn
*
