I am not yet positive that this picture is of the correct "Red Lion" (possibly not or has it been painted with artistic license?) as I have found several in this area, but this also shows the "Three Tuns" on the left. Is that also a church seen in the background, if so which one?

Above photo, 1952.

From the Borough of Greenwich Free Press, 22 November, 1856.

COURT OF QUEENS BENCH.

(Before Mr. Justice Crompton, and a Common Jury.

Hobbs v. Corbett.

Mr. Serjeant Parry and Mr. Worslev, instructed by Messrs. Bristow, appeared for the plaintiff; and Mr. Serjeant Shee, and Mr. Woods, instructed by Mr. Binns, appeared for the defendant.

The declaration in this cause alleged that the plaintiff being a contractor under the Board of Works for the district of Greenwich, the defendant spoke certain false, scandalous, malicious, and defamatory words, of and concerning the plaintiff in his capacity of contractor.

The defendant pleaded "Not guilty."

It appeared from the statement of the plaintiff's counsel that he was a paving contractor under the Board of Works for the Greenwich district. In the month of August last, some stone, the property of the board, had been stolen; two men in his employment were arrested on suspicion, and taken before the magistrate on the 25th of August. After the examination plaintiff went to the "Red Lion" public-house, in company with a person named Thompson. There were two detective policemen in the room.

Defendant came in the room and said, "It is a b------ shame that the poor men should be in prison and the master out. He could prove that the plaintiff had stolen 100 feet of stone from the parish, and that he had got up at 5 o'clock in the morning and buried it in his yard, and that he could prove it." These words formed the subject of the present action. Plaintiff replied it was a gross accusation, and he would appeal to the magistrate. He immediately went to the police office, but Mr. Traill would not interfere; he then returned to the "Red Lion." In his absence defendant had repeated the charge; the result was that the constables went to plaintiffs yard to make search, but they found nothing except two small pieces of Purbeck stone, which Mr. Hughes, the district inspector had given to plaintiff. The defendant had not since apologized or made any retraction.

The plaintiff, Samuel Hobbs, was then examined. He stated that after he left the police-office he met the inspector, who said "This is a pretty report about you Mr. Hobbs." He then went into the "Red Lion." He was telling Thompson what the inspector had just said, when the defendant came in and said,

"It is a b----- shame that the two poor men should be in and the master out," pointing to him, said, "you I mean." He told him it was a gross accusation; that he had never stolen anything, and would not let it rest. Defendant replied, "He did not care a d---; he could prove everything he said." Thompson said it was time the plaintiff did something. He immediately went to Mr. Traill, who, however, refused to interfere. He returned to the "Red Lion." Defendant was still there. Crouch the detective, informed him that after the charge made by the defendant, he should search his premises. He said he had no objection. He was about to propose it. They all went to the yard. When they entered he pointed out two small pieces of Purbeck-stone which Mr. Hughes had given him, and asked the defendant to show out where the missing stone was. Defendant said he did not know where it was, but the man who had unloaded the cart knew, and that it was the constable’s business to find it out. He then ordered the defendant to leave the yard. Nothing was found in the yard. Defendant is a stonemason at Lewisham.

Cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant Shee:— The men against whom the charge was made were in his employment. The old pavement had been left lying along the road, and Mr. Hughes and he thought some of it had been removed. He did not take any of it, except the two little pieces of Purbeck-stone, which were removed in his cart. He told Thompson that somebody had reported to the inspector that he had stolen the stone. Defendant then used the words charged.

Mr. Hughes, the inspector to the Board of Works at Greenwich, was present at the "Red Lion." The defendant said the men were in prison for taking 100 feet of stone, but their master had the other 100, and nothing done to him. He replied that he did not believe it, but if it was true he would put the matter in the hands of the police. After plaintiff left defendant told the constable that if he did not search plaintiffs yard he would not be doing his duty; he (defendant) could take him there and show the stone. After plaintiff came back they went up to the yard. When he got there defendant said he could not show where the stone was, but the carman knew all about it. They searched the place, but could not find any. He remembered having given the plaintiff the two pieces of Purbeck stone in exchange for a little carting job.

Cross-examined:— He had not since discovered who took the stone.

The two police constables and Thompson, who were all present at the transactions, were then examined. Their account did not vary materially from that given by the other witnesses, but none of them proved the use of the exact words laid in the declaration.

At the close of the plaintiffs case Mr. Serjeant Shee, submitted that there was no proof of the declaration.

After some discussion, His Lordship expressed a hope that an arrangement might be come to.

Mr. Serjeant Shee, on behalf of the defendant expressed his conviction that there was not the slightest foundation for the charge, and that the plaintiff left the court without any imputation on his character.

A verdict was then taken for the plaintiff for 40s. with the understanding that his Lordship should certify for costs.

From the Borough of Greenwich Free Press, 14 June, 1862.

George Goman, address refused, was remanded on a charge of passing counterfeit money at the "Red Lion," Greenwich Road.