From the Sussex Advertiser, Tuesday 5 October 1858.
Alleged manslaughter. The Kentish Tap Affair.
Mr. Trustram said he again appeared before the bench in consequence
of receiving a note from the clerk to the magistrates, stating that
at this setting the magistrates would proceed to make a full
investigation on oath of the circumstances attending the death of
the man young at the "Kentish Tap."
Mr. Deane said he was aware of the note being written, but he
understood that Mr. Trustram was to appoint the day of the hearing.
Mr. Cripps, on behalf of Mr. Haines, was understood to say that
there would be some difficulty in the case being investigated today.
Mr. Trustram must beg leave to say (referring to Mr. Deane's remark)
that he was not a public prosecutor nor a private informer. As the
medical gentleman connected with the case thought it right that the
facts should be made known, and he made them known, and in
consequence of that information, which was bona fide and for the
public good, he had had sent to him a letter from the lawyer of a
gentleman who thought himself aggrieved by this information. He must
say that for a lawyer's letter it was a very courteous one. He
acknowledged the very patient hearing which was given him last
Monday, when, as a public man and a medical man, he affirmed his
strong conviction that the man Young would have been alive at the
present moment if he had had that accommodation which he (Mr.
Trustram), in his simplicity thought could be demanded when a person
was taken ill at a public house. He left the court last Monday with
the impression that the bench had decided to procure an inquest into
the case. He was willing, ready, and anxious to depose on public
oath all the facts with which he was acquainted. Last Monday the
father-in-law of the deceased told them the friends of the deceased,
who were in attendance upon him, and express themselves satisfied
with the accommodation; but he (Mr. Trustram) had been informed that
morning by his partner, Mr. Satchel, who was with the man at the
time of his death, and he had Mr. Satchels permission to affirm it
in connection with his name, that the friend of the deceased at the
time made a great noise about the accommodation. He (Mr. Trustram)
was here to take any steps their worships as the custodes of the
rights of the public might advise.
Mr. Deane said it was very true that the bench last Monday determine
to write for an inquest, for ten minutes after they came to that
decision they learned that the deceased was buried, and in order to
have an inquest it would be necessary to go through the process of
getting an order from a Secretary of State for the exhumation of the
body, and under no circumstances they thought it was not worthwhile
to have an inquest, especially as the father-in-law of the deceased
said the deceased have been very ill for several years past. He (Mr.
Deane) didn't believe that the person in charge of the "Kentish Tap"
acted improperly wilfully. It didn't appear to him that the man
asked for a bed on his first going into the tap, not until he fell
ill. He was taken so ill that they were obliged to bring down the
mattress to lay upon him upon. He (Mr. Dean) really could not charge
anyone with doing anything wilfully. If the magistrates found that
publicans must be provided with beds for the accommodation of
customers, then at the next licensing day they must tell the
publicans so. People in the deceased's position of life generally
slept at lodging houses.
Mr. Trustram said Mr. Deane was wrongly informed altogether. The
deceased came to his surgery, and was told that he must go to bed
directly. He went immediately to the "Kentish Tap" and ask for a
bed. He sat there till five o'clock when he (Mr. Trustram) went and
saw him. At three, as they heard from a father-in-law he was so much
better that they thought of taking him on to Tudeley. This confirmed
his belief that if he had had a warm bed as he requested that he
might have, his life would have been saved. If he (Mr. Trustram) was
told that out of 50 or 60 beds that the "Kentish Hotel" contained,
they couldn't spare one for a dying man he couldn't understand it.
In the tap part of the building there was not a bed which the man
could have, and on that point Mr. Prudence (the person conducting
the tap) stood absolved from blame; and if the magistrate said that
public houses were not bound to provide beds there was no blame at
all.
Mr. Deane:- I didn't say that.
Mr. Trustram:- The man's wife came to me with tears in her eyes, and
said, "Will you write a letter that I can demand a bed," and I told
her that she could legally demand a bed.
The Chairman said there was some difficulty in the magistrates
taking any steps in the matter, as Mr. Trustram must be perfectly
well aware. He thought the magistrates could not on a legal point of
view separate the "Kentish Hotel" from the "Kentish Tap." There was
but one licence granted for the whole; in the eye of the law
therefore, and with reference to every responsibility attached to
that licence, the tap must be considered as a part of the hotel. If
then there was proper accommodation in the hotel that was all that
the bench of require in granting the licence. He very much doubted
that they could bring an action against the holder of the licence
for violating the tenor of it, the house being properly supplied
with beds. It appeared to him that if this was not an offence
against the tenor of the license, it must be an offence such as any
person committed who did not do what he was going to do. In this
view of the matter the offence appeared to be manslaughter or
nothing. If a person who was bound to do a certain thing, would not
do it, and that's caused a person's death, supposing there was no
malice in it, that was in the eye of the law manslaughter. If Mr. Trustram, as a medical man, could give evidence in support of a
charge of manslaughter, the accused could be summoned before them,
or the house might be indicted at assizes. This bench would not show
anything for the protection of the poor - the rich could take care
of themselves - if the case was brought before, them. Mr. Trustram
could put the matter into the hands of the constabulary, or he could
communicate with the clerk. It would not be right for the bench to
initiate proceedings, and afterwards to sit as judges. Magistrates
could not keep too much room from the initiative.
Mr. Deane asked, did anybody suppose that they could commit Mr.
Prudence or Mr. Haines on a charge of manslaughter on such evidence
as they had heard? It was utterly impossible.
Mr. Trustram said if the deceased was sacrificed on the altar of
improvement in these houses the case would be somewhat ameliorated.
Certainly the man was sacrificed to a want of accommodation.
Mr. Deane:- People who drink in taps rarely go into hotels to sleep.
Mr Cripps said, on the part of Mr. Haines, he was really glad of the
way in which the chairman had put the matter. Mr. Trustram had now
the option of bringing a charge against Mr. Haines or of explaining
his conduct.
Mr. Trustram (warmly) what have I to explain?
Mr. Deane:- We are satisfied with what has been said. Let it drop.
Mr. Cripps said Mr. Haines would be prejudiced if the statements
made went forth uncontraverted. What Mr. Trustram had stated as
facts were no facts. A medical gentlemen of this town had told him
(Mr. Cripps) that Mr. Trustram was altogether controvertible - that
he was wrong in his opinion of the man being in a state of collapse.
At the same time their worships had put the case just where it
should be.
Mr. Trustram said Mr. Cripps have been misinformed. If he (Mr.
Cripps) or his medical friend was a better doctor than him (Mr.
Trustram) he (Mr. Trustram) had nothing more to say. But as he had
attended 50 patients daily for many years it seemed that some people
thought his opinions worth something. He thought he was a little
accused of giving wrong opinions as any medical man. If Mr. Cripps,
or his medical friend, who did not see the deceased, knew better
than him (Mr. Tristram) he should be glad for an inquest to be held
simply to get a little medical information (a laugh).
The Chairman said this was a very unsatisfactory states for the
matter to be left in. These facts did amount to a very serious
charge and it was a very painful thing for such to be made in the
presence of the magistrates without their issuing a warrant.
Supposing Mr. Trustram had been upon oath, he did not see how he
could sit there as Chairman of the Bench without putting the matter
in the hands of the police. The statements made mounted to a very
serious charge of crime, which had been made in such a form that it
could not be rebutted. He didn't not like, as a magistrate, to sit
there and hear such statements made without doing something.
Mr. Deane justified the course Mr. Trustram had taken.
Mr. Cripps said unfortunately Mr. Trustram and Mr. Haines had not
been good friends for some time past.
Mr. Deane:- I do not believe anything has been done wilfully. There
has been no wilful intention in this case, and therefore I do not
see how we can take it.
Mr. Trustram warmly rebutted the insinuation that he had been
activated by personal feelings in the present proceedings. As a
public man he challenged anyone to come there and show that he had
ever been actuated by personal feelings and his public conduct. That
legal touch of personality was not worthy of Mr. Cripps or anyone
else.
The chairman thought it was due to Mr. Trustram to state that when
he mentioned the subject to him at the onset, he never mentioned Mr.
Haines name or blamed any one. He simply mentioned to him, that at
the licensing day Mr. Onslow might be asked if the deceased had
proper accommodation.
Mr. Cripps, to put himself right with Mr. Trustram, said that he had
acted bona fide in the matter, as there had been some desperate
quarrel between them.
Mr. Trustram said there had been no such thing. Mr. Cripps was
talking about what he didn't know.
Mr. Trustram then thanked the bench for its attention, and withdrew.
|