Southeastern Gazette, 15 February 1853.

PETTY SESSIONS.

Monday. (Before C. Spencer, Esq., chairman, E. Ticknor, and M. Troughton, Esqrs)

Ingram Gunn, of the "Rose and Crown," Windmill-street, was informed against by the police, and charged with allowing gambling with skittle playing for money on his premises.

John Dyke, the complainant, said he went into defendant’s house at about two o’clock on Saturday afternoon, the 29th January, with two other men, and had some drink at the bar, when the defendant proposed to play a game at skittles with him. They played tor 5s. a game first, 10s. afterwards, and 20s. afterwards, defendant giving him four and five skittles. He had played with defendant till he had lost £6, after which they formed sides, and he lost £2 more, when, as he had not won one game, he refused to play more. Defendant said there was eight shillings to pay for beer, that was four shillings each, but as he (witness) had lost so much he would not charge that.

Cross-examined by a clerk from the office of Messrs. Hillder and Arnold, who appeared for defendant:— He was quite sober when he went to defendant’s; he had been at the "New Inn" in the morning and had some porter there; he did not have three glasses of grog there also; he did not go into the "Mitre" that morning, but was perfectly sober when he left the "New Inn." He did not challenge any one to play for champagne at Gunn's; he returned after nine o’clock that night to defendant’s, with two watermen, whom he did not know. He then left the money he had remaining, about £2, with defendant; was to have slept there, but did not that night. The money was given to him the next morning.

Henry Parker, cook at the "New Inn," was called by defendant, and said complainant had with others some beer and three or four glasses of brandy and water, on the morning in question. He counted ten pounds whilst there. He was not sober when he came in. He saw him directly afterwards in the "Mitre," in company with Lodge, who was committed on Friday, and Hobson.

Wm. Lidwell Scoones, landlord of the "Three Crowns," West-street, said he went into defendant’s house about a quarter-past twelve o’clock on the day in question. Mr. Gunn was then in the parlour, and a message was brought that there was a refusal to pay for a glass of spirits, when defendant went hobbling out and returned with the skittle ball under his arm. Dyke followed him and offered to toss witness for a bottle of sherry; he was then very drunk.

Richard Beaston, shoemaker, said the complainant came to the bar of defendant between ten and eleven that night, being then very drunk, and he left some money with defendant.

The defence was a denial in toto of the truth of complainant’s statement, and as will be seen by the evidence, an attempt to show that the man was so drunk as to be incapable of knowing what he was about, and the probability that he had been with other parties who had eased him of his money.

The Bench, however, took another view of the case, and fined defendant 40s. and costs.

Two other charges were made by the same complainant; one was for serving him the next morning (Sunday) with beer, when he went for his money; the other was for keeping his house open for the sale of beer and spirits. Dyke said he had a pint of porter himself, and saw a female leaving the house; whilst there another female came in with a bottle, when he heard the barmaid say "If she wants beer I will not serve her," and he saw that some spirits, either rum or brandy, was delivered, but he saw no money pass.

The defence was a denial of serving any one but complainant, who said he was going to London and was served as a traveller.

The Bench considered the case proved, and fined defendant 5s. in each case.