Sydenham Times, 22 July 1862.

BROMLEY. A Serious Case Agaianst A Publican,

Furber v. Davison.

This was an assault case, the damages being laid at £3.

Mr. Gibson, was for the plaintiff, and Mr. Child, from London, was the defence.

Mr. Gibson, in opening the case, said that the plaintiff was a young man who was at present living in Bromley, and the defendant was the landlord of the "Rose and Crown Inn" in the town. He theft detailed briefly the circumstances connected with the present action, which will be best seen from the evidence.

The plaintiff deposed that he formerly lodged at the defendants house. On Sunday evening, the 15th of June last, he came home at about eight o'clock and went upstairs into the club-room. The defendant, asked him to join a game at “buzz." He consented to do so and several played. By the end of the game he found he had lost 8 1/2d. or 9d. He then wished to leave the room and go down stairs for his supper. Defendant however, persuaded him to stay and play at another game called "Thumbs up" and he consented to do so. Defendant also played at this for a short time, but was called down stairs to attend to his business. After this game had finished it was about 20 minutes to eleven, and he then went down stairs and asked Miss Long, the sister-in-law of Mr. Davison, for some supper. She replied that she would ask the defendant about it. He However, said that he (plaintiff) should not have any as it was late, and asked him why he did not come down before. To this he replied that he had remained upstairs to oblige him. The defendant then said, "Say that again if you dare." He replied that he would do so as it was the truth. The defendant then struck him in the mouth and knocked him down. He in return took up a quart pot, but before he could use it, to defend himself, it was taken out of his hand by a young woman who was behind the bar. The defendant then knocked him down on to the stairs and dragged him into the yard, making use of very bad language. He did nothing to aggravate the defendant any more than had been stated.

Cross examined by Mr. Child:— He did not pay Mr. Davidson so much a week for his board and lodging, but merely paid for his meals as he had them. Mr. Davison had complained in the early part of the day that he was two familiar with the servant, and then it was only because he left his bedroom door open about an inch.
Sarah Punter, the person who took the quart pot out of the plaintiff's hands, corroborated entirely the statement made by him. In cross-examination, she admitted that she was very intimate with the plaintiff, but denied that there was grounds for the complaint that they were upon too familiar terms.

Mr. Child for the defence, said that this was a matter of great importance to his client as an innkeeper holding a license upon the conditions of properly conducting his house. As he was instructed, the case of the plaintiff had been greatly exaggerated. Shortly before eleven, as the defendant was shutting up, the plaintiff asked for his supper, and his client feeling that it was too late refused to let him have any. The plaintiff, thereupon, turned round and swore at him, and commenced making a disturbance. His client then, to avoid any noise put the plaintiff out, using as little violence as possible. This he was justified in doing, to carry out the provisions under which he was licensed. With respect to the gambling, although strictly speaking the defendant ought not to have allowed the game to have taken place in his house, yet it was not gambling of such a nature as to call for any severe remarks from the Court.

Mr. Davison stated that the plaintiff was staying at his house, and his attorney was about putting a question as to the terms upon which plaintiff was staying there, when His Honour interfered, remarking that this young man should not be considered a lodger, yet he was clearly of the opinion that he was, and, therefore, the defendant would have no right to turn him out before closing his house.

The examination of the defendant was continued, and he denied that he asked plaintiff to join in a game of "buzz" When the plaintiff was told he could not have any supper, he made use of very bad language. He then told the plaintiff he would have no disturbance, and put his hand upon his shoulder, telling him he could either go out or go to bed. The plaintiff then turned round and struck at him, afterwards taking up a quart pot to throw at him. He then put him out of the house, using as little violence as possible.

A witness named Woodall was called for the defence, who really corroborated the statement of the plaintiff.

His Honour, after remarking that in his long experience he had never heard the statement of a plaintiff more corroborated, gave judgement for the full amount claimed. As a magistrate of the county. His Honour also requested Mr. Latter to bring the facts of the case before the licensing justices, stating that if necessary he would furnish them with a copy of his notes of the evidence on the trial.