Click here to return to the main site entry page
Click here to return to the previous page

New Inn
Later the Railway Inn and Hotel

Colin Bryant Collection - Courtesy of Rushden Museum
c1894 Thomas Perkins kept the New Inn 1891-1902, and was
succeeded by his wife Abigail
Rebuilt as the Railway Inn c1895
Stonehurst was built in 1896 replacing far thatched building.
Thomas Perkins was born at Rushton, and kept the New Inn from around 1891. He died in 1900 and was buried in Rushden Cemetery in grave B 606/7 - In loving memory of Thomas the dearly loved husband of Abigail Perkins born July 16th 1826 died April 9th 1900. Also of Abigail the dearly loved wife of the above born August 8th 1841 died April 11th 1919. Lost awhile our treasured love, gained forever safe above.

New Inn
The Railway Inn centre of picture.
The cottages to the left of it were pulled down when Duck Street was widened.
The Railway Inn - just beyond the little tree.
The cottages to the right of it were pulled down
when Stonehurst was built in 1896.

The New Inn was renamed The Railway Inn when passenger services began in 1894. The large building to the right is Stonehurst, built in 1896 by the brewery as a wine store. During WWI Belgian Refugees were housed there and it was known afterwards as the Belgian house.
The Railway Inn & Stonehurst c1902

Wellingborough News, 27th September 1879, transcribed by Kay Collins

RUSHDEN—LUNCHEONSOn Tuesday, the respected landlord of the Waggon and Horses Inn, entertained his friends to luncheon. The company numbered 140. A very superior luncheon was provided, and, under the presidency of Mr. Pantling, a thoroughly enjoyable afternoon and evening were spent. The vice-chair was filled by Mr. T. Childs. The health of the landlord (Mr. J. Wood) was proposed and drunk with enthusiasm.—On Wednesday, Mr. E. Cox, landlord of the New Inn, provided a similar entertainment for his friends, numbering about a hundred. Mr. Stanton presided, and Mr. E. Clarke officiated as vice-chairman. The National School Band played at intervals during the day. Note: The New Inn was later renamed the Railway Inn

Wellingborough & Kettering News, August 7th, 1880, transcribed by Kay Collins

To the Overseers of the Poor of the Parish of Rushden, in the County of Northampton, and the Superintendent of Police for the Division of Wellingborough, in the said County of Northampton, and to all whom it may concern.

I EBENEZER COX, now residing at "The New Inn," High-street, in the Parish of Rushden, in the County of Northampton, Beerhouse Keeper and Dealer, do hereby give Notice, that it is my intention to apply at the General Annual Licensing Meeting, to be holden at the Police Station in Wellingborough, in the Division of Wellingborough, in the said County, on the 30th day of August next ensuing, for a Certificate to sell by retail, Spirits and Wine, to be consumed on the Premises, at a House in my own occupation, known as "The New Inn," situate in High-street, in the Parish of Rushden, in the County of Northampton, and being within the said Division.

Given under my Hand this 30th day of July, One Thousand Eight Hundred and Eighty.


Wellingborough & Kettering News, September 4th, 1880, transcribed by Kay Collins

Annual Licensing Session
The annual Licensing Session for the Division of Wellingborough was held on Monday, August 30th, at the Police-court, Wellingborough, the magistrates present being H. M. Stockdale, Esq., R. Arkwright, Esq., and Spencer Pratt, Esq.

Out-Door Licenses for Rushden
Mr. Jackson applied for out-door licenses for Joseph Robinson and James Warren, of Rushden.

The applications were granted.

Application for a Wine and Spirit License for Rushden

Mr. Hensman, barrister, instructed by Mr. Heygate, applied for a wine and spirit license for Ebenezer Cox, landlord of the New Inn, Rushden.

Mr. Jackson opposed the application.

Mr. Hensman said the New Inn had been a beerhouse for 20 years, and Cox had had it 7 years. About 30 years ago there were four fully licensed houses in Rushden, and now there were exactly the same number; not one new license for the sale of wine and spirits had been granted for 30 years, although during that time the population had doubled in extent, and the trade and influence of the place had at least quadrupled. There were four building estates in Rushden, and at the present time 25 houses were being built, 11 of which were close to the New Inn. This house for which he was now asking for a wine and spirit license had been re-built; it was now three storeys high, and contained 10 rooms, one or two of which were of considerable size, and stabling accommodation for six horses. The applicant himself kept a horse and trap, and was in the habit of driving travellers not only to and from the London and North Western Railway Station, but also to different places in the neighbourhood. The New Inn was on the high road to Higham Ferrers, and it was the first house for refreshment which a traveller reached coming from the direction of Higham Ferrers; and there was no house in the same way available for accommodation nearer than the Wheatsheaf, which was about 700 yards away. The New Inn was admirably adapted for the purposes of a fully licensed house, it was rented at £25 a year, and rated at the same amount, and a memorial had been signed by a number of the principal people of the village in favour of the license being granted. He might here point out that several of the leading manufacturers of Rushden were teetotalers, and the granting of Cox's application would be opposed by the teetotalers, and the magistrates would know how to regard their op-position. Teetotalers, of course, had a right to their opinions, but they had no right to thrust their opinions upon the community at large. The memorial in favour of the license being granted was signed by all the adjoining owners of land, one overseer, two churchwardens, nine farmers, three shoe manufacturers, two curriers, and eighteen tradesmen. A number of commercial travellers visited Rushden on business, and he hoped the Bench would be of opinion, bearing in mind the large increase that had taken place in the population of Rushden, that an ample case had been made out why this house should be fully licensed. In conclusion, he would point to this one fact—in asking for this license he was not asking for any increase in the number of public houses in Rushden; he was simply asking that a house adapted for a respectable class of travellers should have that accommodation which travellers needed, and if the house were fully licensed it would be frequented by a better class of customers, and the character of the house would be raised. With regard to the memorial in favour of Cox's application, he should say that it had not been attempted to get the signature of anyone below a tradesman or a commercial traveller, because it was thought it would be more respectful to the Bench that the signatures should be confined to a particular class of the community.

Mr. Ebenezer Cox was then examined, and confirmed the statements contained in Mr. Hensman's opening address.

The applicant was subjected to a severe cross-examination by Mr. Jackson. He admitted that in December, 1877, Frederick Cox broke his leg in his house, whilst playing with a man, and that, in 1879, Thomas Litchfield hurt his leg, whilst he was in the New Inn. Witness was not aware that in consequence of the injury he met with Fredk. Cox was on the parish for twelve months, and he did not know that bad women had frequented his house. About three weeks ago a man, named Henry Burgess, had an attack of delirium tremens in the yard of the New Inn. Witness was not in the habit of taking articles of wearing apparel from persons in payment of drink supplied; he once bought a coat of Wm. Abrahams for 8s., but after the purchase, Abrahams, being reluctant to part with the garment, walked off with it. On the 25th July, last year, witness was convicted of allowing drunken¬ness on his premises, and fined £1 and 14s. 6d. costs. On one occasion the policeman cautioned him about the use of "the bull in the ring," which he had in his house, and he at once did away with it; he had not received any general caution as to the way in which he had conducted his house.

Mr. Stuart Mason said he was a farmer, and had lived at Rushden all his life. It was nearly 40 years since a full license was granted at Rushden, and during that time the population had doubled. Forty years ago he did not believe there were any shoe manufacturers in the parish; now there were or ten or eleven. With regard to commercial travellers none visited Rushden, that he knew of, 40 years ago, and now they were continually going up and down, every day, and every hour, almost. Witness lived about 120 or 130 yards from Cox's house, and he thought if it were fully licensed it would be a great convenience to many people, especially in cases of illness, and afford accommodation to travellers who frequented the town.

Mr. George F. Bearn, surveyor, of Wellingborough, said he had prepared a plan of the applicant's property. He thought it was worth about £25 a year. The "Rose and Crown," the next licensed house, was a bakehouse really, and the rooms were very small.

Mr. Hensman: I hope the bedrooms are not over the bakehouse. (Laughter)

Witness thought if the New Inn were fully licensed it would be convenient for travellers and others whose business brought them into the neighbourhood.

Mr. Jackson, in addressing the Bench in opposition to the application being granted, said that he stood his ground-that no necessity had been shown for the license now asked for. The parish of Rushden contained four fully licensed houses, three houses licensed to sell beer upon the premises, and five houses with out-door licenses. A fifth house licensed for the sale of wines and spirits was not required, and he had a memorial signed by no less than 141 residents of Rushden asking the magis¬trates not to grant the license. The memorialists against the application being granted included four members of the School Board, one of the overseers, and the two Guardians of the parish. The latter had good cause to sign the memorial, because they knew that owing to the poverty of the man whose leg was broken at the New Inn he had to be maintained at a cost to the ratepayers of £30, and that amount the parish would probably have been saved if the man had kept away from Cox's house. There was a very strong feeling in the parish against the granting of an additional wine and spirit license for Rushden, and the magistrates would have some idea of the importance of the opposition memorial when he said that it represented a rateable value of no less than £2547. The population of Rushden was about 3000, and more than one fourth of the people were teetotalers. The ranks of the teetotalers, too, were rapidly increasing, and in the existing licensed houses in Rushden there was ample accommodation for all who cared to frequent public-houses. In support of his statement that the license sought by Cox was not required by the parish, he should now call Mr. Denton, who was a large employer of labour, and one of the leading inhabitants of Rushden.

Mr. Geo. Denton said: I am a native of Rushden, and have lived there 30 years. I have occupied the position of Chairman of the School Board, and am now vice-chairman, and also one of the Guardians of the parish. I carry on the business of a shoe manufacturer, and employ between 300 and 400 hands. I live about 70 or 80 yards from the New Inn, and have had constant opportunities of observing how that house is conducted. It is simply a tipling house, and is used for drinking purposes by what I should term the lower classes of society. There were frequent disturbances in the house at night.

Mr. Hensman objected to this sort of evidence being given, unless Mr. Denton was going to speak to what he had seen in the house himself.

Mr. Jackson: What is your opinion, Mr. Denton, as one of the leading men of Rushden, as to the necessity of this license.

Mr. Denton: I think there is no need for it at all.

I suppose you and your co-manufacturers would strongly oppose the granting of it?—Yes, sir.

What sort of a house is the "Rose and Crown?"—An old, respectably conducted inn.

Cross-examined by Mr. Hensman: I do not ask you the question offensively, but I believe you are a teetotaler?

Witness: Yes, sir.

And the principal persons who have signed the memorial against this license being granted are also teetotalers?—I cannot say.

Which are not? (The opposition memorial was here handed to the witness, and he was asked to pick out some of those who had signed it who are not teetotalers).—Henry Dykes; I do not think he is a teetotaler. There are many names of men here who are not members of the Temperance Society.

You have a Temperance Society, then at Rushden?—Certainly, sir.

And a great many persons who signed the opposition memorial are members of that body?—I should say about 40.

I suppose there is no such thing as temperance without total abstinence in your mind?—Not from a bad thing there is not. There are several societies at Rushden; there is the Church of England Temperance Society, which admits non-abstainers as members.

Mr. Hensman: I do not want to know the details of these various societies. In your judgment all going to places to drink is tippling?

Witness: No, sir.

You object to any new license being granted?—I should object to any new license being granted for the parish of Rushden.

In your judgment the parish would be better if there were no public-houses in it at all?—I should say it would.

Are you going to build a Temperance Hotel?—A Coffee House.

I won't call it an opposition shop—I should not like to do that—but how far will this coffee shop be from Cox's house?—About 700 yards.

Your principles, at present, have not extended to the class known as commercial travellers?—I know there are a good many commercial travellers who are total abstainers.

And you know many who are not?—I do, sir.

Your objection and that of the other opposition memorialists is lodged against this application because it is for a new license?—Our objection is that another fully licensed house is not required in the neighbourhood.

Nor any of the other licensed houses?—I should not be prepared to say there is no need for them; I suppose there must be such places: but I think Rushden would be better without them.

Re-examined by Mr. Jackson: Although you are a teetotaler you are not so bigoted as not to allow those who do not abstain to have suitable accommodation at Rushden?

Witness: Exactly, Sir.

Are you of opinion that such persons are possessed of sufficient accommodation already?—I am, Sir.

And that travellers have sufficient accommodation?—Yes, Sir. The “Coach and Horses," and the "Wheatsheaf " have first-class stabling accommodation.

A great many commercial travellers come to transact business with you, and you think they have sufficient accommodation?—They tell me so.

Between the ''Rose and Crown" and Cox's house there is another house?—Yes, the "Feathers."

How's the "Feathers" conducted?—I cannot say much about that.

Mr. Sarjeant said he was a shoe finisher living at Rushden. The opposition memorial was signed by fourteen out of fifteen shoe manufacturers of Rushden, and in his opinion the license now applied for was not at all necessary, and ought not to be granted.

Cross-examined by Mr. Hensman: Are not all the shoe manufacturers who have signed the memorial teetotalers?

Witness: I cannot say, Sir; many of them do not belong to the society.

I do not know what they practise when they are at home, but are not the great bulk of the persons who have signed this opposition memorial supposed to be teetotalers?—There are a great many of them who do not profess to be teetotalers.

Are not the bulk of them real or professed teetotalers?—I should think they are, but I do not mean it to be thought that I think any of them drink on the sly.

There are a good many travellers who do not hold your principles?—I really do not know, Sir.

You object to a man having a glass of wine, or a glass of spirits?—I do not mind so long as he does not have it at my expense; what I object to is a man breaking his leg, and my having to keep him.

Is the cause of your animosity, or feeling, against this house the fact that a man's leg was broken in 1877?—One cause is that he came on the parish for relief.

Perhaps if his leg had not been broken we should not have seen you here to-day?—I have greater causes than that for coming here.

You think that every public-house is one too many?—I think men ought to have their beer at home if they want it.

The great majority of people are not of that opinion in Rushden, at present?—No, the majority are not.

Do not your principles cause you to give this view of yours as to this license not being wanted?—No, Sir, not my total abstinence principles altogether; I do not think it is requisite that a spirit license should be granted to Cox's house; the house is frequented by a low class of people.

Have you heard of the character of a house being improved upon its obtaining a spirit license?—I do not know that I have.

Re-examined by Mr. Jackson: In your judgment is there a low class of people attending Cox's house? —In my judgment there is.

And in your judgment would that class of people be improved if this house had a spirit license?—I am afraid they would be made worse.

Supt. Bailie said he had had no complaint about Cox since he was summoned for permitting drunkenness in his house; since that time the report of his house had been very favourable, and he had conducted his business very well indeed.

Mr. Hensman, in his address to the Bench in reply to the opposition brought forward to the application that was now being made to the magistrates, commented upon the fact that Cox was away from home when the complaint was made of drunkenness being permitted upon his premises, and said no man ought to be prejudiced by a thing that happened in 1879; indeed, he thought they would have heard nothing about the broken leg if his friend's (Mr. Jackson) eloquence had not been stimulated by a body of teetotalers. His friend seemed to have forgotten that other people had rights as well as teetotalers, and that it was still lawful in this country for men to drink beer, and wine, and spirits. An attempt had been made to injure Cox's character by the assertion that bad women frequented his house, but he would remind his friend that if a well known prostitute went into a public house for refreshment the landlord of that house would be liable to be fined if he refused to serve her; a prostitute might go into the best conducted hotel in London and ask to be supplied with drink, so that it was manifestly unfair to try and damage a beerhouse keeper's character by the report that women of bad character had been seen upon his premises. The teetotalers who had given evidence against this application being granted shown themselves to be prejudiced individuals, and they were not the sort of persons to give an opinion as to whether an additional fully licensed house was required in Rushden, or not. Under all the circumstances he hoped the magistrates would grant this application.

The Chairman said the Bench did not think that a sufficient case had been made out for the granting of this license.

Wellingborough & Kettering News, September 11th, 1880, transcribed by Kay Collins

FIREOn Friday afternoon last, a stack containing about 6 tons of Hay, belonging to Mr. E. Cox, of the New Inn, was discovered to be on fire. The Stack stood in a yard at the back of Mr. Cox's house. Some people who were on the spot rendered assistance, but it was not thought necessary to fetch the fire engine as there appeared no chance of saving the hay and there was no fear of anything else catching. It is supposed the stack was set on fire by children playing with matches as it could not have fired itself, it being two years old.

Wellingborough & Kettering News, September 4th, 1880, transcribed by Kay Collins

The Teetotalers of Rushden.

SIR —In your notice of the successful opposition of the teetotalers and others to the application for a new spirit license for Rushden your remarks imply that the action of the total abstinence party was at variance with the interests of the inhabitants. I think that your full report of the evidence adduced before the magistrates proves the contrary to be the case. It is the innkeeper who applies for increased powers for the sale of drink whose interests are opposed to those of the public. I am warranted in arriving at this conclusion because while there was a numerously signed petition against the application being granted, there was none in its favour. If the inhabitants of Rushden were of opinion that provision for the sale of drink was insufficient why did they not so signify it. That there was no legitimate demand for increased accommodation on the part of the public is conclusively proved by the fact that the solicitor who represented the publicans fell back upon the hypothetical necessities of commercial travellers, and not the requirements of the inhabitants. In nearly all these attempts to increase the liquor traffic the publican represents himself only while his opponents represent the interests of the ratepayers, who are mulcted to pay for the pauperism and crime arising from drunkenness; they are representative of the wives and families of the working class, who are the greatest sufferers from the increased facilities for drink, and they plead for unborn generations who inherit the curse handed down by the parents. Teetotalers may be intemperate in the advocacy of their principles, but they have no sordid interests to advance; their opposition to the drink traffic is at least unselfish; it is as philanthropists and lovers of their country that they engage in a contest which brings upon them much odium and persistent misrepresentation without any benefit except the satisfaction that they have tried to serve their generation.


[A petition was presented to the magistrates in favour of the license being granted.— ED]

Wellingborough & Kettering News, October 2nd, 1880, transcribed by Kay Collins

The New Inn, Rushden.

Sir, —We play football a good deal at Rushden and good fun it is, but I doubt whether the football if it had feeling, would find it so. I have been “thinking” that I am like a football which has been kicked on all sides, and the process is not agreeable. For some years I have been seeking to earn an honest livelihood at Rushden, in a calling which the law permits and my neighbours patronise. I wish to improve my business, and provide for a more extensive and perhaps better class of customers. To enable me to do so, I apply for a license to sell spirits, and make my house an hotel, and become a licensed victualler. Immediately I do so I am, as it appears to me, a football for everybody to kick. Teetotalers on every side have a go at me. My house is "simply a tippling house." Pray, Sir, what is a tippling house? "The lower classes of society” alone use my house. "There are frequent disturbances at it”. Are these fair kicks, when the Superintendent of Police says my “business has of late been conducted very well indeed”. The license I applied for is refused. But my troubles do not end. “An Onlooker” must have a go in at me with a laboured effort to prove that my wish to extend and raise my business is at variance with the interest of the inhabitants. Then "A Moderate Drinker" snatches me up and runs with me so fast and far that I can't quite make out where I am; but he drops me with the cold comfort that some day I may get my license and improve my business. No sooner am I in the field again than Mr George Denton has a series of savage kicks at me for fear the "less intelligent reader'' should be deceived about me. I have "orders to make the people drunk in the quietest and inoffensive manner”; almost compelled to employ the most ''lawless, debasing, and questionable means” to dispose liquor! I am kindly advised "to escape for my life." Now, Sir, in the name of justice and common sense, is this fair play? I don't know what my landlord thinks of the above quotation, but were I in his place I should bring an action for libel against their author. For myself, I won't condescend to deny them. I only ask an intelligent public to judge whether a tradesman who tries to raise, extend and improve his business should be kicked as I have been kicked by a neighbour who, by the accident of success in another business, happens to be a little better off than myself.

I am, yours faithfully,
New Inn, Rushden,
Sept. 29th, 1880.

Wellingborough & Kettering News, December 4th, 1880, transcribed by Kay Collins

Alleged Indecent Assault by a Police-Constable at Rushden

John Tack, police-constable, stationed at Rushden, was charged with indecently assaulting Elizabeth Cox, wife of Ebenezer Cox, landlord of the New Inn, Rushden.

Mr. Heygate appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. Jackson for the defendant.

Elizabeth Cox said: On Monday morning, the 22nd Nov., my husband left home at 20 minutes past 1; with four other men; the defendant knew that he was going out. When my husband got into the cart he called to me to come and fasten the front door, and when I went to do so I saw the defendant standing about ten yards away. When he saw me he came back to the door and followed me into the house. I then had some brandy, and asked Mr. Tack to take some, which he did, and we stood talking together for about five minutes. He then put his arms round me and kissed me several times. I pushed him on one side and opened the front door, hoping he would go out, but he "pulled me about worse still," unbuttoning his coat, and interfering with my clothing. I told him to be quiet several times, as my daughter would hear him, and as he was going away he told me not to go to bed, and if the man returned with the trap before he (Tack) came back not to keep him in the house. I made no reply, and he went away. I secured all the doors in the house, but did not go to bed, as I did not consider it safe to do so. About 40 minutes afterwards I heard someone rattling at the front door, and then at the back door, and in two or three minutes afterwards I heard someone on the stairs. I was very frightened and woke my two daughters, and talked to them very loudly. A quarter-of-an-hour afterwards the man with the trap returned, and I asked him to come into the house. I complained to him of the way in which I had been treated, and asked him to stay with me until the morning. About a quarter past 6 in the morning the defendant came to the house and remained about a quarter of an hour. As soon as my husband returned home I told him what had occurred. The defendant had been in the habit of coming to the New Inn daily, but he never insulted me before, and no improper conversation has ever taken place between us. On the night of the assault two Italians slept at the house.

Cross-examined by Mr. Jackson: I am 33 years old, and have had eight children. I do not remember making a similar charge to that I make against Mr. Tack against Mr. Sargent, and I swear I did not make a similar charge against one of Dr. Starling's assistants. My husband has been convicted in this court on the complaint of the defendant. Mr. Tack and I both drank brandy out of the same glass. The assault upon me occupied about two minutes. I "kept master of him," or I should have called out for assistance. I did not call to the Italians to help me, because I could not make them understand, and I did not complain to my children that Mr. Tack had insulted me. When Tack came to the house in the morning I spoke to him in a friendly way; I thought I would be guided by my husband as to the proceedings I should take against him. My mother is in the asylum.

Re-examined by Mr. Heygate: If I was to die this moment I have never made a charge of this sort against any other man.

John Whitehead said: I am a shoemaker, living at Rushden. On the morning of the 22nd Nov. I went with Mr. Cox, and four others, to the Midland Railway Station, at Wellingborough. The defendant was in the New Inn just before I left at half-past one; I returned at a quarter-past three, and saw Mrs. Cox leaning out of the bed-room window. She told me to come into the house as quickly as I could, and when I got inside I noticed that her hair was ruffled, and that she appeared to be frightened. In consequence of what she said, I remained with her until the morning.

Naomi Cox having been examined, Ebenezer Cox, her father, the landlord of the New Inn, was called. He stated; that in consequence of the statement his wife made to him he gave information to the police. This being the case for the prosecution.

Mr. Jackson addressed the Bench in the defendant's behalf observing that he was instructed to deny the charge in toto; it had been trumped up by the complainant out of a feeling of revenge she entertained towards the defendant, and was false from beginning to end.

Supt. Bailie was called and gave Tack an excellent character.

The magistrates retired to consider their decision, and upon returning into court the Chairman said the Bench had decided to commit the defendant to take his trial at the next Quarter Sessions. The justices felt that they would be consulting the cause of real justice by taking that course, because if his innocence were established at Quarter Sessions it would be so much more satisfactory to the defendant, than it would be to him to have the case dismissed at this court.

Bail was accepted for the defendant's appearance, himself in £10, and two sureties of £5 each.

Wellingborough & Kettering News, August 6th, 1881, transcribed by Kay Collins

To the Overseers of the Poor for the Parish of Rushden, in the County of Northampton, and the Superintendent of Police for the Division of Wellingborough, in the said County of Northampton, and to all whom it may concern.

I EBENEZER COX, now residing at the New Inn, High-street, in the parish of Rushden, in the County of Northampton, beerhousekeeper and dealer, do hereby give notice, that it is my intention to apply at the General Annual Licensing Meeting, to be holden at the Police Station in Wellingborough, in the Division of Wellingborough, in the said County, on the 29th day of August next ensuing, for a Certificate to sell by retail, spirits and wine, to be consumed on the premises, at a house in my own occupation, known as The New Inn, situate in High-street, in the parish of Rushden, in the County of Northampton, and being within the said Division.

Given under my hand this Thirtieth day of July, One Thousand Eight Hundred and Eighty One,


This application was refused - see Liquor Licencing Sept 3rd for report.

Wellingborough & Kettering News, December 10th, 1881, transcribed by Kay Collins

Accident-On Wednesday evening Mr. Ebenezer Cox, of the New Inn, Rushden, and his brother of the Strode-road, in this town, were riding in a trap, when the horse bolted and in turning the corner of Winstanley-road, near Mr. Davidson’s shop, an upset occurred, resulting in both men being thrown out with considerable violence. We regret to state that Mr. E. Cox was rather seriously injured.

Wellingborough & Kettering News, December 31st, 1881, transcribed by Kay Collins

CLUB FEASTSOn Monday the Compass Inn Club sat down to a capital dinner, when, there were 21 members present. The club had paid £6 10s. as sick pay, and had a dividend of 7s. 9d. each.—The Club at the New Inn dined on Tuesday, when 56 sat down. The club had paid £6 10s., and had a dividend of 7s. 9d. each.

Wellingborough News, 12th August 1882, transcribed by Kay Collins

COX'S ELEVEN v. ETTE'S ELEVEN—On Saturday last a match was played in Mr. Skinner's Mill Close (kindly lent for the purpose), between eleven chosen by Mr. E. Cox, of the New Inn, and eleven by Mr. Ette, of the Feathers Inn. Cox's team won by 56 runs. Scores: Cox's team, first innings 55, second 42; Ette's, first innings 19, second 22.

Wellingborough News, 21st October 1882, transcribed by Kay Collins

Opening of A Forester's Court At Rushden
On Saturday evening the Court "Alexandria" was opened at the New Inn by the officers of Court 4,105.
click here to read full report

Wellingborough News, 30th December 1882, transcribed by Kay Collins

AUXILIARY BENEFIT CLUBS—The "Friend in Need," held at the Feathers Inn, celebrated their club feast on Tuesday, when 29 members sat down to a good dinner, provided by Mrs. Ette. This club had a drawback of 9s. 11d. each member.—The club held at the New Inn also had their feast on the same day, when 62 members sat down. The income for the year was £31 8s. 3d., £5 18s. had been paid away for sick pay, and a dividend of 10s. 3½d. each was declared.

Wellingborough News, 17th November 1883, transcribed by Kay Collins
Foresters' Supper—On Saturday evening the Court Alexandra, 6968, celebrated their first anniversary, at the New Inn.... for full report
extension applied for but refused - see Court report ]
Wellingborough News, 10th May 1884, transcribed by Kay Collins

The Bankruptcy Act, 1884. — Re Ebenezer Cox. — The New Inn, Rushden.
Sale of HOUSEHOLD FURNITURE, TRADE UTENSILS, Spring Cart, Boots and Shoes, Cut Leather, &c.

Messrs. Pendered and Son
ARE instructed by the Official Receiver, under the above Bankruptcy, to SELL BY AUCTION, on Thursday, 15th May, 1884, upon the premises of the New Inn, Rushden, the whole of the Effects, viz.:
OUT-DOORS—Spring cart, set of harness, chaff cutter, tubs, pails, forks, hampers, forms, boxes, wood, water butt, &c.
LEATHER STOCK 170 lbs. split Blucher backs, 90 odd uppers, 54 odd boots and shoes, 2 dozen satin calf, 6½lbs. boot legs, rough split pieces, linings, elastic, 1cwt. studs and rivets, sundry odd leather, 5 sewing machines, lot of sole knives, steelyards, &c., &c.
FURNITURE —2 eight-day clocks, eight-day dial, 2 American clocks, large oil paintings, 6 engravings (framed), chimney glass, 18 Windsor chairs, elbow chair, high chair, glass case, 4 seta of drawers, tables, 2 copper kettles, fenders and tire-irons, brass kettle, warming pan, 2 long tables, 4 mahogany tables, mahogany Arabian bedstead and furniture, 4 iron bedsteads, spring mattress, 6 cane-seated chairs, mahogany couch, washstands, dressing tables, chamber services, toilet glasses, 2 clothes baskets, wash tray, and the bar utensils.
Also the whole of the Trade Fixtures, including a four-pull Counter Beer Engine (unless otherwise disposed of).

Wellingborough News, 28th June 1884, transcribed by Kay Collins

Wellingborough Police Court.
Friday, June 27th.—Before Mr. Charles J. K. Woolston (in the chair), and Mr. N. P. Sharman.

TRANSFER— The license of the New Inn, Rushden, was on the application of Mr. Willan Jackson, transferred from Ebenezer Cox to Thomas Perkins.

Click here to return to the main index of features
Click here to return to the History index
Click here to e-mail us