Angel Inn, 51-53 Fore Street

Situated at 51- 53 Fore Street in what is now Mimi Hair Salon and Golden Eagle Chinese Take-away:  The Licence was revoked in 1903


1844James Collings (Listed under Taverns) Pigots
1850William Hill (Listed as Beer House)Whites
1852/3John Hill (Listed as Retailer of Beer)Slaters
Samuel Williams Innkeeper 52
Eliza Williams 46
Jane Williams 24 Draper’s Assistant
Eliza Williams 21 Barmaid
1878/9John Hill – Angel InnWhites
John Hill 30 Bootmaker and Innkeeper
Mary Ann Hill 29
Lucy Hill Daughter 3
William John Broom Son 10 months
Henry John Nethercott Boarder 17 Watch and Clock Maker
John William Bradford Boarder 52 Cabinet Finisher
1889Lester ArcherKellys
1893Lester ArcherKellys
16 July
Licence transferred from Lester Archer to John GardinerWestern Times
10 July
Licence transferred from J Gardiner to F RichardsWestern Times
9 Jan
Licence transferred from F Richards to James RichardsWestern Times
4 July
Licence transferred from executors of J Richards to Mrs Richards (Widow)Western Times
15 Oct
Licence transferred from Mrs Richards to Eli DrewWestern Times
Eli Drew Licensed Victualler and boot maker 40 Cullompton
Mary Ann Drew Wife 31 Cullompton
Lily Drew Daughter 13 Cullompton
Charles Drew Son 11 Cullompton
Frank Drew Son 10 Cullompton
Bertie Drew Son 5 Cullompton
John Richards Stepson 3 Cullompton
Polly Richards Stepdaughter 1 Cullompton
Plus 3 Boarders
1902Eli Drew -Angel Inn and TobacconistKellys
9 Dec
Licence transferred from Eli Drew to W H HeathmanWestern Times
1903One of the objections raised to these premises was that there was no accommodation for horses and traps. The licence was not renewed
William Heathman had for many years carried on The Angel at Cullompton in a manner which gave perfect satisfaction to the public and to the police.  He had invested his capital in the house and reasonably looked forward to remaining in undisturbed possession thereof, as long as he conformed to the law of the land.  But, at the last Licensing Session the renewal of his licence was refused, not through fault of his own but because the Magistrates – who had previously licensed the house in the interests of the public –came to the conclusion that ‘there were too many licences in Cullompton’ so poor Heathman had been driven to the Bankruptcy Court”
However this report may be incorrect, as the licence was only transferred to him in 1901 and, although he had received no convictions, he had been warned by the police on many occasions about keeping a disorderly house.  The house was also described as ‘a small and very badly kept arranged house within 65 yards of four other fully licensed houses’
Licensing World and the Licensing World Review

Western Times – Thursday 24 December 1903


 The “Trade,” in pursuit of its campaign against Licensing Magistrates, is making great capital out of the case of the “Angel Inn.” Cullompton, which was one of the license houses dealt with at the Brewster Sessions held early in this year. Our readers may remember that the Cullompton Bench went into the licensing question of their district very minutely, visiting each house in turn, making personal inspection, and affording every license holder, in open Court, a full opportunity to make out the strongest possible case he could for renewal. Certain licenses were ultimately withheld by the unanimous judgment of a full Bench, and every man, not blinded by prejudice, or jealousy for vested rights, agrees that the Cullompton Magistrates acted judicially, and with an evident desire to act fairly as between the public and the publican. “The Licensing World and Licensed Trade Review,” the official organ of the liquor trade in this country, thinks otherwise, and gives a version of the “Angel Inn” case, which could not conceivably be further removed from the facts. It says: – “William Heathman had for many years carried on “The Angel,” at Cullompton, in a manner which gave perfect satisfaction to the public and the police. He had invested his capital in the house, and reasonably looked forward to remaining in undisturbed possession thereof, as long as he conformed to the law of the land. But at the last Licensing Sessions the renewal of his license was refused, not through any fault of his own, but because the Magistrates — who had previously licensed the house in the interests of the public — came to the conclusion that “there were too many licenses in Cullompton.” So poor Heathman has been driven into the Bankruptcy Court. He is an energetic as well as an honest man, and expressed the desire to pay his creditors in full, if time were given him. Complimenting the unlucky debtor, and at the same time sympathising with his unmerited misfortune, the County Court Judge gave vent to the following pertinent remarks: —’This is one of the outcomes of the Magistrates dealing in the extraordinary way they do with these licenses. Here is a young man, twenty-nine years ago, who has undoubtedly got an increasing family. He has had turn carpenter and wheelwright instead carrying on the more lucrative business of the proprietor of an inn.’ Every thoughtful man and woman will appreciate and heartily endorse his Honour’s remarks —they need no commendation from our pen.” If the circumstances were as related by “The Licensing World,” William Heathman would undoubtedly be an object for sympathy, but what are the facts? From exhaustive inquiries we are able to state that the “Angel Inn” was a small and very badly arranged house, within 65 yards of four other fully-licensed houses. It was at the time the license was withdrawn, and had been for some years, the property of Messrs. Furze, brewers, Uffculme. We believe they were insured with the License Insurance Corporation Guarantee Fund, Ltd. (Newgate-street, London), which would indemnify them against Loss, but we cannot learn that Heathman benefited thereby. The statement that “William Heathman had for many years carried on the “Angel, at Cullompton,” is ludicrously wide of the mark. This is the history of license transfers of the “Angel Inn” recently:— 10th July, 1899, from J. Gardener to F. Richards; 8th January, 1900, from F. Richards to James Richards; 4th July, 1900, from executors of J. Richards to Mrs. Richards (widow); 15th October, 1900, Mrs. Richards to Eli Drew; 9th December, 1901, from Eli Drew to W. H. Heathman. Not by any stretch of imagination can a period from December, 1901, to March, 1903, be construed into “many years.” Heathman’s immediate predecessor, Eli Drew, a shoemaker by trade, gave up the house in consequence of financial difficulties. “The Licensing World” next asserts that Heathman’s management “gave perfect satisfaction to the public and to the police. “This, again, is variance with evidence. No conviction was ever recorded against Heathman, but he was warned by the police more than once as to disorderly conduct in the house, and as to other infractions of the law. The police in evidence on March 3rd described the house as “dirty.” Heathman is a carpenter and wheelwright by trade and worked as such whilst at the “Angel Inn.” He apparently never depended, upon the sale of liquor for his livelihood. The “Licensing World” assumes that the action of Cullompton Magistrates drove Heathman into the Bankruptcy Court, insinuating, of course, that whilst he held the “Angel Inn” he was flourishing, with a fat balance at bank and not a care in the world. Heathman certainly assured the Licensing Justices that he was “doing all right,” but this is neutralised by the record of a judgment made against him at Tiverton County Court on January 23rd, 1903, for the sum of £13.10s. Obviously with the license his finances were not exactly flourishing. The remarks of the Judge in Bankruptcy, quoted with solemn gusto by the ” Licensing World ” merely illustrates the danger of men in judicial positions expressing opinions without being cognisant of the facts. We need hardly say that we have no feeling whatever against Heathman, but he happens to have been the peg upon which the licensed victuallers hang a passionate appeal for justice, and we have been compelled to state the facts bluntly.