From the Borough of Greenwich Free Press, 9 August, 1862.

Beer-shop Keepers and the "Traveller" question.

An Act of Parliament in disguise.

On Saturday last, John Bond, landlord of the "Little Wonder" beer-shop, Roan Street, Greenwich, appeared to a summons, issued by order of the Commissioners of Police, charging him with having his house open for the sale of liquor during prohibited hours on the morning of Sunday, the 27th ult. Mr. Cockle, solicitor, appeared for the defendant.

From the evidence of Holmes and Odd, two plain-clothes constables, it appeared that on the morning in question they were specially employed to watch the defendant’s house. At eight o’clock they saw thirteen men enter the house by a side door, and after remaining about a quarter of an hour they came out, when six other men entered. The constables followed this latter party, and gained admittance into the house, when four of the men wero served with a quart and the other two men with a pint of beer by defendant’s wife, the defendant being present and taking the money. Two women and another man were also subsequently served with beer at a later hour in the morning, and on the constables telling the defendant who they were and what they had witnessed, he remarked that he supposed they were "a---- act of Parliament in disguise" (loud laughter.) Mr. Cockle cross-examined the witnesses, who denied being served with drink or representing themselves as travellers; but they admitted that on entering the house and seeing some ham on a plate they asked defendant’s wife if there was any chance of a rasher for breakfast (laughter). when she told them to take their dirty hands off the ham, for her husband was half drunk, and if he saw them touch it he would kick them out of the house (roars of laughter). The defendant’s wife, who had repeatedly interrupted the proceedings and been ordered to sit down, here rose, and with great warmth, declared she could sit still no longer when everything being said was false (laughter). The defendant said the men he served were travellers, and that he was bound by his license to serve them. Mr. Maude said the defendant being only a beer—shop-keeper and not a licensed victualler, was not privileged to serve persons bonafide travellers. The defendant said his license, which he produced, required him to provide a feed of corn for a horse and a pint of ale for a traveller. Mr. Maude examined the license and said there were no such words as those mentioned. The defendant: Then all I can say is, that there ought to be (laughter).

Mr. Maude:- Your license, I suppose, is another act of Parliament in disguise (renewed laughter).

Inspector Ellis proved a previous conviction for a similar offence, and Mr. Maude imposed a fine of £5 and costs.