Licensees : |
|
|
WILLIAM BARWICK |
1869 - 1870 |
Fined 5s with 16s 6d costs for permitting disorderly conduct at his
house at quarter to one o'clock on the morning of Saturday 28th August
1869 |
Fines totalling £2 10s
August 1870 - See opposite |
Licence refused at
licensing session held during the week ending Saturday 3rd September
1870. |
GEORGE ARCHER |
1871 |
Monday 27th March 1871 - Summoned for
harbouring prostitutes on the night of Thursday 16th March. His first
offence, fined £1 and 7s costs. |
Monday 1st May 1871 - Fine of £2 and
10s costs for allowing 13 prostitutes to assemble in his house. (Amongst
the assembly were 5 girls and 2 married women from the country. Another
married lady, Lucy Lamb stated she was delivering laundry.) It was heard
that Mrs. Southgate, in the employ of Mr. Archer, had the job of
ordering the girls out of the house every 10 minutes. |
Monday 28th August 1871 - Licence
renewal refused on the grounds that the landlord was
unfit to hold the licence. |
Friday 22nd September 1871 - Having
been convicted of harbouring prostitutes, licence renewal of Mr. Archer,
refused. |
25th September 1871 - Licence
NOT renewed upon the magistrates being informed that Mr. Archer had been
given three week's notice to quit. |
Monday 16th October 1871 - George
Archer having given up the licence, an application for licence to be
granted to Archibald Irving refused upon the Superintendent claiming
that Irving was "utterly incapable of managing the house, and that his
wife and sister were disreputable persons". |
THOMAS WHILEY
See opposite |
by 1872 |
Monday 25th November 1878 - Summoned by
the Lynn Board of Guardians for refusing to pay 2s a week towards the
upkeep of his father. The Bench granted the order for the payments to be
made. |
Convicted
3rd August 1882 of permitting drunkenness - Fine £5 |
Monday 23rd July 1883 - Fine of £1 and
7s costs for having house open at 11:40 on Sunday 8th July. |
SAMUEL FLEY |
18.05.1885 |
Convicted
28.10.1889 of harbouring prostitutes - £5 fine and costs, with
licence endorsed. |
EDGAR PHILIP PIPE |
09.04.1900 |
On 28th October it was heard that Samuel Fley had been in the navy
for 30 years and hade an "exemplary character"
The police advised that the house was the habitual resort of
prostitutes and that Fley had been previously warned regarding the
character of his customers.
Fley said that in the four years he had been there he had allowed
women of all classes in and out. He was unaware that he was breaking
the law and had never been cautioned.
|
Became the TOWER
TAVERN 19 Tower Street, 1869
and then the CROWN by 1903 (Closed c1915)
On Monday 22nd August 1870 William Barwick was summoned before the
magistrates by Superintendent Ware of on Thursday 11th August, suffer
two common prostitutes to assemble in his house, contrary to the King's
Lynn Waterworks Borough Improvement Act 1859.
Prostitute Rose Barker said that she had lived at the
TOWER for about a month,
paying 1s a week for lodging. Sarah Ann Beavis said she was not an
unfortunate, but also resided at the house paying 1s a week. Both ladies
admitted that they took men upstairs and paid for the use of the room
when they came down.
The Superintendent said that house was used very little for the sale of
beer, it was simply a brothel.
In spite of Mr. Barwick saying he had turned out the two ladies, the
Bench decided to fine him £1 and costs of £1 10s, which was paid.
|
On Monday, 4th June 1877, lighterman
Thomas Smith was fined 5s and 9s 6d costs for refusing to leave
the house of Thomas Whiley, the
RED LAMP, Tower Street. |
|
|
On Monday, 15th October 1877, Elizabeth
Fisher, a married woman paid costs of 9s having been accused of
refusing to quit the house of Thomas Whiley, the
TOWER TAVERN,
Tower Street. |
|
On Monday 8th September 1884, Thomas Whiley was summoned to show why he
should not contribute to the support of his mother. Mrs. Whiley was in
receipt of 2s 6d per week from the fund of the Lynn Union and although
she had several sons, Thomas Whiley was the only one in a position to
contribute to her support.
Whiley said that he had contributed till recently, but claimed inability
to contribute anything since he was hardly making a living.
An order was made for payment of 1s 6d a week.
~
|