Mentioned 1752.
Also appears as the CROWN
Lot no 37 in sale by auction 14th to 17th September 1841 of the
Coltishall Brewery.
Copyhold sold to Sir E. Lacon & Co. for the sum of £500.
Not found in directories after 1904.
On 11th February 1905, it was said that notice would be given to the licence holder,
that the licence would not be renewed, on the grounds of redundancy. By
14th March 1905, the notice had been served but a decision on the matter was
postponed to a later date.
On Friday 23rd June 1905 the Norfolk Compensation Authority again considered the
future of the house. It was heard that it had been selected since police
supervision was more difficult than at the other Ludham houses. It was a
very old house with only one entrance. It occupied one corner of the
cross-roads with the **KING'S
ARMS and the
BAKER'S ARMS. It was argued that the licence was
required since a considerable amount of traffic, of the pleasure
character, was catered for. In the previous year, 136 persons from
Norwich had visited the house.
Messrs. Lacons said that brewers had owned the house since *1828 and only
three occupants had been there since 1858. (Newton, Wilgress and
Slaughter). Proving that the business was viable. If the licence was
lost the spirit trade would go to the **KING'S
ARMS.
Mrs. Slaughter said that she took in lodgers, one of whom was a
clergyman who made regular visits. With general trade, lodgings,
luncheons and teas, the tenant made a good living.
Rent was £10 per year and it was rated at £19.
In 1904 the trade was 104 barrels, in 1895 it was 94 barrels. Spirit
sales in 1904 were two gallons less than in 1895.
The Committee agreed that the licence could be renewed.
* Since the Coltishall Brewery did not sell the
house until 1841 the date of 1828 is confusing. Either Messrs. Lacon
were hiring the house from 1828 or it is a mistaken date given by the
brewery or the newspaper.
However ... Licence renewal refused Tuesday 13th February 1906 and
subject to arguments to be heard at the next Sessions.
At the Licensing Sessions held Thursday
21st June 1906, the house was described as very old with very low
ceilings to the rooms. A property considered by the police to be
impossible to properly supervise, although no complaint had ever been
made against the licensee. The magistrates could not imagine a house so
well devised, by nature, not art, to dodge police supervision.
Sarah Slaughter, the licensee said that, standing on the junction of
three market roads, there was a great deal of traffic and she supplied
meals and sometimes catered for large parties. In the last year she had
sold 84½ barrels of beer, 41½ gallons of spirits
and 180 dozen of bottled ale, and business was increasing.
The Lacons representative conformed that trade had increased by 12½ per
cent and they had plans to carry out repairs to the estimated cost of
£140, but the objections to licence renewal had prevented the works
being done.
(They again stated that they had owned the
house from 1828)
Licence renewal refused.
**news report says QUEEN'S ARMS, but this is apparently
mistaken.
