From the Whitstable Times, 20 August, 1870.

Beer v. Bateman.

This was a claim for £8 2s 0d. for wine supplied by the plaintiff, a wine and spirit merchant of Canterbury, to the defendant, formerly a plumber and glazier in this city and now the landlord of the “Fleur-de-Lis” at New Brompton. Mr. Delasaux appeared for the plaintiff; Mr. Fielding for defendant. Mr. Delasaux opened the case by remarking that on the 29th July defendant went to the plaintiff's house in Monastery street for the purpose of ordering some wine, and being a publican and having no license, he requested that the wine might be sent to Mrs. Caphurd at the “Fleur de Lis,” Brompton. Carrying out these instructions his client directed the goods to that lady, and now defendant sought to shift the liability from his to her shoulders. He might state that Mrs. Caphurd had since been married to Mr. Edmeades, and that they had both left Brompton. Attempts had been to arrange the matter by the plaintiff writing to the parties, and Mr. Edmeades, admitting the injustice to which he (Mr. Beer) was subjected, had even offered to liquidate half the debt if Mr. Bateman would do likewise. The account however still remained unpaid.

On being questioned, plaintiff said defendant called upon him on the 29th July, 1869, and said he wanted some “stuff” for a wedding that was coming off at his house, and he might just as well have a “house warming” at the same time. If the goods had been directed to him, he must have had a permit, and therefore at his request they were forwarded to Mrs. Caphurd at the “Fleur de Lis.”

By Mr. Fielding:- He was invited to take part in the wedding festivities, but was unable to do so. Would swear he was not invited as an intimate friend of Mr. and Mrs. Edmeades, who had since departed for India. He knew nothing of Mrs. Caphurd in the transaction; Mr. Bateman was the only one concerned as far as he knew.

A young man named Drew, in the plaintiff’s employ, gave evidence to the effect that Mr. Bateman ordered the wine for a marriage, saying he might have a house warming as well, and that he would pay Mr. Beer when the affair was over. He (witness) was not invited to the dinner or the evening party. Mr. Fielding, in stating the defendant's case, said that the evidence of the defendant would show that the wine was for and was ordered by Mrs. Caphurd. Mr. Delasaux had drawn attention to the invitation circular for the dinner, but he asked what did it show. It simply solicited the pleasure of the company of —— at a recognition dinner, but what the recognition dinner was he knew not, and he had no doubt Mr. Bateman had dinners at his house several times a week. Mr. Bateman was then called as a witness. He said Mrs. Caphurd, a widow, was his barmaid, and a gentleman named Edmeades fell in love with her and they were married. He would swear Mr. Beer was given to understand that the wine was for her; indeed he had nothing whatever to do with the order himself. He took a letter from Mrs. Caphurd to Mr. Beer, containing the order, and this was all he had to do with it. Neither the dinner nor the evening party were affairs of his, but were given by Mr. and Mrs. Edmeades. He had received no payment from them for the wine. What Mr. Beer had said about his giving a verbal order for the wine was false.

Mrs. Bateman having been called. Mr. Delasaux commenced his address to the judge when His Honour interposed by asking Mr. Beer whether he had received any letter or written order from Mrs. Caphurd.

Plaintiff:- Decidedly not, your Honour. Had I thought for one moment the wine was for her I would not have supplied it. I had the order direct from defendant himself.

His Honour: After this answer I will not trouble you, Mr. Delasaux to reply. I shall give a verdict for the plaintiff.