From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 6 September, 1874. Price 1d.

ANNUAL LICENSING MEETING

Application was made for a spirit license to the tenant of this house, Frederick Henry Butcher. A considerable amount of money had been spent on the house, which contained every requisite accommodation. There was only opposition on the part of two neighbouring publicans, and the Bench would know how to appreciate such an objection. The house had been up till now respectably conducted, and applicant could produce a memorial from the neighbours in support of his request.

Mr. H. E. Wright, the owner, said the house was worth £30 a year.

Mr. Mowll: I see that the house was formerly let for £24 a year, and you have spent £70 on it. Do you think it would bring in £30 a year without the license?

Mr. Wright: I can't say.

Mr. Mowll said he opposed on the part of the “Sir John Falstaff” and “Salutation.” The Act provided that the house must be worth £30 a year if no license were granted in respect of the premises.

Dr. Astley: The house is under the value. Therefore we cannot grant the application.

From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 22 April, 1887. Price 1d.

STEALING GINGER ALE

Emily Mitchell was charged with stealing a bottle of ginger ale from the bar of the “Devonshire Arms,” High Street, on Wednesday evening. They had missed bottles before when the accused had been there, and that caused them to watch. They found a bottle on her.

The accused said that she was going to buy the ale.

Police-constable Dansen (D.29) took the accused into custody, and on arriving at the Station the woman said she did not intend to steal the ginger ale, but was going to buy it.

As this was the first offence, the accused was fined 2s. 6d. and cautioned.

From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday 2 September, 1887. Price 1d.

DOVER LICENSING SESSIONS

The Superintendent of the Police objected to the license of Henry Maggs of the “Devonshire Arms,” on the ground of absence of the license holder, and other causes.

Mr. Martyn Mowll asked on behalf of Mr. Allen, that the case should be adjourned to Broadstairs and that in the mean time Mr. Allen would make arrangements for someone else to take the license.

The Bench concurred.

From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday 16 September, 1887. 1d.

BROADSTAIRS LICENSING SESSIONS

On Wednesday the Dover Licensing Sessions held by adjournment their annual Licensing Sessions at Broadstairs. Only two Dover cases were reserved for consideration there.

THE DEVONSHIRE ARMS

Mr. Worsfold Mowll, on behalf of the Dover Brewery Company applied for the license of the “Devonshitre Arms” to William Horn a native of Devonshire, the late tenant having been objected to by the Superintendent of Police. The license was granted.

From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday 3 January, 1890.

AN AMUSING POLICE CASE

The Dover Police Court was crowded on Monday morning all the corner men of the room having crowded into the gallery to her the celebrated Rooster-Turkey case, which was heard on the return of a summons, before A. Bottle, T. V. Brown, and Matthew Pepper Esqrs.

Joseph Flaherty, was summoned for having on the 21st December, obtained 5s. from Sandford Gurr, by false pretences.

Sandford Gurr said: I keep the “Devonshire Arms” public-house, High Street. On the 21st. instant, about half-past ten o'clock at night, I was in the tap-room when the defendant and another man came in. There were about a dozen people in the room. The defendant had the bird with him and said to me, “Will you buy this turkey?” He wanted 5s. for it, and held it up to me and asked me to feel it and I just caught hold of the legs, and I told him I did not want it. He offered it to other persons in the room, but they refused to buy it, and they then went back to the bar. The man who was with the defendant was Richard Court. After a few minutes I went to the bar, and they were still there, I told him that I would buy the turkey from him, and he gave it me over the bar, and I handed him 5s., and took the bird inside. The defendant and his companion left the house almost directly after he had sold me the bird. On Sunday a young man came into my house, and from what he said I examined the bird, and I then found that it was a fowl with a turkey's head tied on (laughter). The frill of green paper was fastened round its neck and over the string. The next day (Monday) I met Flaherty in Snargate Street, and told him that he had taken me in by selling me a fowl for a turkey, and that I wanted my money back from him. He said he was not aware of that, and that he would go and try to get the money off the people whom he got the bird from. I told him if he sent me the money it would be all right, and told him to come and see me that day or I should summon him. He said he would but did not come near, and I then took out a summons against him. He came into my house on Christmas Day, but he being intoxicated I did not say anything about it to him then. I have not seen him since until now.

In answer to Mr. Vidler, witness said he was sure the defendant said it was a turkey. If he had not thought it was a turkey he would not have given 5s. for it.

The Chairman: Was he sober at the time?

Witness: I thought so.

The Chairman: Is Flaherty in the habit of using your house?

Witness: No sir; he has been in about once before since I have kept the house.

By Defendant: There was no raffling in the room when you came in. You did say you should raffle the turkey off in my house if you could get enough members. I heard you say it did not belong to you. You did say after I had bought it that I need not be frightened about it, for it was won for you by Mr. Wright in a draw.

In answer to one of the Magistrates, witness said that he was certain that the defendant said it was a turkey.

Frank Pearce said: I am a fishmonger and poulterer, carrying on business at No. 2 High Street. I have examined the bird produced, and find it to be a Tom fowl about seven years old (laughter). The fowl's head has been taken off and a turkey's head very neatly put on. It is sewn on, and must have taken some time to do. The claws had also been cut off, and a piece of coloured paper fastened round the neck where the head was sewn on. It weighs about eight pounds. If it had been a turkey it would have been worth eight shillings. The bird is too old for eating.

Richard Clift said: I am a plasterer, living at 2 South Road, Tower Hamlets. I was in the bar of the “Devonshire Arms” on Saturday night, December 21st, when Joseph Flaherty and another man came in, and he said to me, “Dick, will you make one for a turkey?” The defendant had the bird in his hand, and when he asked me he held the bird up, I said, “no, I don't care for turkey.” The defendant and his companion went into the back room, and I followed them, Gurr being in the room. He asked me twice again, and I told him “no.” He said “I want to get it off tonight if I can.” I did not hear him offer it to Gurr as I left the house. When I left, the defendant was in the room with Gurr and several others. I felt the bird and thought it was a turkey.

Arthur Wells, a plumber, living at 80, Biggin Street, said: I was in the “Devonshire Arms” public-house last Saturday week between ten and eleven at night, sitting in the back room with Gurr. The defendant and another man came into the room having the bird (produced) with him. He wanted to raffle it, and asked if those present would make one for it in a raffle. He said it was a good turkey, and wanted to put it up for 6s. he then asked 5s. 6d. and at last came down to 5s. I did not hear him ask Gurr to buy the bird, as I was not present in the room all the time. The defendant took the bird into the bar but I do not know what took place there.

The Defendant was then cautioned and afterwards made the following statement:- “I had the bird of my friend, which was won in a draw, and therefore I never put the head on the bird and never knew whether it was a turkey or a fowl. I brought the bird to him and sold it, not knowing whether it was a turkey or whether it wasn't. I only had the bird in my possession about a quarter of an hour. My friend said “We will sell the bird as I don't want to take it home, and we will share what it makes.

The Defendant then called the following witnesses:-

Richard Court, living at 22, George Street, Buckland, said: I am a sawyer. I was in a draw at the “Walmer Castle” public-house, Market Square, last Saturday week. About nine o'clock at night I went into the bar of the “Walmer Castle” with the defendant, and the landlord said to me, “As you were not here when the draw came off, Mr. Wright has drawn for you and won you a bird. Mr. Wright, the toll collector was there, and I thanked him. The landlord handed me the bird and I took it and handed it to the defendant. The bird produced is the same one and in the same condition, it having the frill of paper round its neck when the landlord handed it to me. I said to Flaherty “As we were shares in the draw we will try and make something of it.” We then went to the “Devonshire Arms” public-house and went into the bar. The defendant walked through with the bird in his hand, and I followed him. There were about ten or twelve men in the room and Flaherty said “Who will make one in a raffle for a bird?” or he might have said turkey. I heard someone present say “go out into the bar and see whether you can get some there, and then we will try and get it off.” As we could get no members in the bar we went back to the tap-room, and I heard the defendant say he would sell it for 5s. 6d. We then came back to the bar, and the landlord (Gurr) followed us and said “I will give you 5s. for that.” Flaherty said “the bird is yours,” he handed it to Gurr, who gave him five shillings. We stayed a few minutes and then left.

In answer to Mr. Vidler, witness said he did not find out that it was not a turkey when they sold it to Gurr. He heard nothing about it until Monday night, when Flaherty told him what Gurr had said when he met him in the morning. The bird he won was a third prize.

Thomas Wilford said: I am staying with my son-in-law at the “Walmer Castle,” and I was present in the house on Saturday week when defendant and Court came into the bar. Mr. Wraight was also present. During the day there had been a draw at the house, the last witness being in the draw. The first prize was a goose, second two fowls, and the third bird produced was the third prize. Court was number four on the list, and Mr. Wright drew that prize for number four, and in the evening it was handed to the man Court. I gave it to him but did not say what it was.

The Clerk: Where did you get it from?

Witness: It was brought from Mr. Wright the toll-collector, for half-a-crown (loud laughter). I did not know what it was when I bought it.
The Clerk: Did it have the same head on as it had now?

Witness: Yes, sir; but I did not notice the paper frilling. I gave it as a prize in the draw.

In answer to further questions the witness said: I knew it was not a turkey just before I handed it to Court. I bought it as a bird and thought it big enough for half-a-crown (laughter). I did not tell Court or defendant what is was, and to my knowledge nothing was said at the “Walmer Castle” about it not being a turkey.

One of the magistrates said it appeared that the witness had been, according to his evidence, knowingly the means of passing off a fraud, and the end of it had been that a poor man had been defrauded of five shillings. He had passed it off without any explanation.

The witness admitted that he did not tell the men. He said he had been laughed at for buying it, and he thought he would pass it off as he had bought it.

The Chairman said it appeared to the Bench that it was intended as a practical joke, but a fraud had been committed, and the individuals had narrowly escaped being committed of that fraud. On the other hand they thought the defendant was innocent, and that he passed it off as he had received it. They very much regretted that such practical jokes should be perpetrated, and that it would be much better if the landlords of hotels took more care as to what took place in their house. The case would be dismissed.

From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 18 September, 1891. Price 1d.

CRUELTY TO A PONY

Frederick William Collins was summoned for cruelly beating a pony on September 6th.

Mr. John Adams, who keeps the “Devonshire Arms” public house, said that on Sunday, the 6th inst., about 6 p.m. as he was about opening his house when he saw Collins pass by severely flogging the pony which he was driving in a trap. He was going up Priory Hill to Mr. Pearce's stables, and appeared to be using the butt end of the whip. He struck the horse several times.

Mr. F. W. Pearce said the defendant drove for him on Sunday, the 6th inst., and about six o'clock he was sitting at his window and saw defendant thrashing the pony as hard as he could with the butt end of the whip.

Inspector Flavill, R.S.P.C.A. Officer at Dover, said that he was called by the last witness to his stables on Sunday, the 6th inst., and was shown a chestnut pony gelding. Upon examination he found it suffering from three weals over a foot long on the off side of the back, there were six or seven small cuts on the thighs, caused by a whip thong, which had been bleeding recently, and there was a raw abrasion on the buttock which had recently been done. All the surrounding parts were very tender, and the animal flinched very much.

The defendant was fined £1 and costs 13s., or in default 14 days.

From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 25 December, 1891. Price 1d.

STEALING CIGARS

Harry Walker was charged with stealing from the “Devonshire Arms,” 47 cigars and a snuff box, value 6s., the property of Mr. J. R. Adams.

Mrs. Adams, wife of Mr. J. R. Adams, who keeps the “Devonshire Arms,” High Street, said that the prisoner came into his house on Friday afternoon. She had occasion to leave the bar, and when she returned the prisoner had two boxes of cigars, which he was in the act of putting into a handkerchief. She asked him what he was doing, and prisoner said they were not her cigars. She said they were, and she would give him into custody. Prisoner then bolted out of the door, and she took the handkerchief away from him as he was going out. Soon afterwards she missed the snuff box.

Police-constable Hambrook proved taking the prisoner into custody in High Street. When searched four cigars and the snuff box were found on him.

The accused was sent to prison for one month with hard labour.

From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 15 January, 1904. Price 1d.

THE DEVONSHIRE ARMS CASE

Before M. Pepper, Esq., and Captain R. B. Cay, R.N.

Percy A Burville, landlord of the “Devonshire Arms” public house, High Street, was summoned for selling intoxicating liquors to a drunken person.

Mr. R. E. Knocker appeared for the prosecution on behalf of the Watch Committee, and Mr. Rutley Mowll for the defence.

Police-sergeant H. Morris said: I visited the “Devonshire Arms” on Sunday, December 20th, at 9.40 p.m. In the taproom I saw J. L. Norris with the defendant, and Police Constable Greenland. Norris said that he had been assaulted by a man called by the nick-name of Lane. I do not know the man's proper name, who Norris said had knocked him down and kicked him in the face. Norris's face was then smothered in blood. He was very drunk. There were several patches of blood on the floor of the tap-room. Norris said he had been in the house since seven o'clock in the evening. He said that he had had nothing else to drink all the evening except whisky. The defendant said, “All he has had here is soda water. I believe he had had a fit, and I am giving him that to try and bring him round.” Norris said that the reason he had been assaulted was because he said he had passed a remark that they should not play darts on a Sunday, which game they had been playing for drinks. I called the defendant's attention to the dart board hanging from the wall with the dart's sticking in it. He made no remark. Norris afterwards went to the Police Station. He was then taken home by a friend. The landlord held a beer licence only.

Cross-examined: I went to the house because I saw a crown outside. I believe that Norris was speaking the truth because drunken men generally do. He was conversing with the defendant when I came in, very excitedly.

James Alexander Norris, who attended on a subpoena, said: I live at 22, Albion Place, and am employed on the pilot boat Guide. I went to the “Devonshire Arms” at half past six or a quarter to seven in company with a friend. I had been there previously at twenty minutes to two, and I stopped there till a quarter past two. I then had ale. When I went in there in the evening I was drunk. I called for some whisky, but the landlord gave me some soda water. I had a plain soda. I paid for it but do not remember anything after that. I lost my recollection until I was knocked about, and went to the Police Station. I was in the front bar when I went in, and was in the dart room when I was knocked about. Some men were playing darts there. I do not know who they were. My friend had gone. He only had a lemon, as he is a teetotaller. There was a man named Lane there. I do not know his proper name. I was having an argument with him and skylarking about. I do not know how we fell out, but at any rate I got assaulted. I afterwards went to the Police Station and complained of having been assaulted. I was drunk then, but came round a bit after washing my face. I remember seeing the doctor then. When I went into the house I had 36/- in my pocket; that was at 2 o'clock. I spent about 2/- then treating people. I spent another 1/- in the afternoon as I had 1/- worth of whisky in a friend's house, which I sent out and got. When I was in the Police Station I had 13/-, but I afterwards found another 1/-, so that it was 14/-.

So you spent 19/- there?

I must have spent a lot there.

Do you mean that you spent all that on soda water?

I do not mean to say anything; I do not know where I spent it.

Can you tell us what else you had to drink except soda water?

No, I lost all recollection. I was under the impression I had been drinking whisky when the Police asked me.

The Magistrates' Clerk: How do you know now?

Because I was told I had not.

Mr. Knocker: Who told you?

Everybody in the house told me I had no whisky – only soda water.

When did they tell you that?

On the following day.

Do you remember making a statement to the Police?

I do not remember making it on Sunday.

Did you make a statement to the Police?

I must have done.

The Magistrates' Clerk: Why do you say must have done?

Because I saw the Inspector with it on the Monday in the Police Station.

Mr. Knocker: Did you sign it?

Yes, I signed it.

Did you know on the Monday morning when you signed it what was in it?

Yes, it was read to me.

Just look at it. Is that your signature?

Mr. Mowll: I entirely object to this statement being used as evidence being used as evidence against my client. I object to the statement being made at the Police Station in the absence of my client being used as evidence against him.

Mr. Knocker: But surely one need not take the evidence of witnesses in a prosecution in the presence of your client?

Mr. Vidler: If you ask to treat this man as a hostile witness you could put in a statement he had made as to what he had said previously.

The Magistrates' Clerk: I think you cannot use it.

The Chairman: The evidence of the witness in the box is sufficient evidence.

The Magistrates' Clerk: It is no evidence that he has been served.

The Magistrates, after further consultation, said that the statement could not be used.

Captain Cay (to witness): What is your age?

18.

How long have you been on the Guide?

Twelve months' last Christmas.

Well, you have not been guided right.

Mr. Knocker: he does not seem very clear whether he had any whisky or not – that is the point I am trying to get at. Id I may say so, that statement made on the 21st does not agree with what he says now.

The Magistrates' Clerk: At what time did you sign this?

About half past seven.

You saw people afterwards who told you you had had no whisky?

Yes.

Mr. Knocker: You tell us you do not remember whether you had any whisky. I suppose you were not drunk on Monday when you signed this?

No.

Then you knew what you signed?

I do not know whether I had whisky or soda in that house.

Captain Cay: You treated all hands?

Yes, the landlord said I was treating everybody.

Mr. Mowll said he had no questions to put to the witness.

Witness, in reply to questions by the Magistrates' Clerk, said that he was drunk before he went into the “Devonshire Arms.” He had had 1/- worth of whisky in a public house, and then three whiskys at the “Crown” public house before he went into the “Devonshire Arms.”
Mr. Knocker said that he did not propose to call Dr. Ormsby as the witness had admitted he was drunk.

The Chairman: That is another matter. The charge is of having a drunken person in the house.

The Magistrates' Clerk: No, selling liquor to a drunken person.

Mr. Mowll: The charge reads was as follows: “That he did unlawfully sell intoxicating liquors to a certain drunken person.”

The Chairman: That is what I said.

Mr. Mowll: Not quite.

Captain Car (to Norris): What rating have you on the pilot cutter?

Assistant steward.

Captain Cay: I hope there are not many like you on the pilot cutter.

Police Constable Greenland said: The last witness came to the Police Station between 9.30 and 9.40 and complained of having been assaulted at the “Devonshire Arms.” I went there with him. The landlord, who was the only person in the bar at the time, was asked by me if he saw this assault, and who was the man. The landlord said, “They have all gone out of the house.” I said, “This man has been assaulted in your house?” He said, “Yes.” I then asked him how long he had been on the premises. His reply was, “Since seven this evening.” I said, “Do you see the condition of the man; he is drunk?” The defendant replied, “He has had nothing intoxicating in my house. I have been poking soda waters into him all the evening.” (Laughter.) I replied, “Has he been in your house since seven, and if he has been drinking soda water I think he ought to be sober.” Norris then said, “I had Scotch whisky; it id behind the bar in the cupboard.” Sergeant Morris then came into the house and took charge of the case.

Did you see any whisky?

Yes, sixteen bottles all told; some broken.

Mr. Mowll: Before we go into that point, my client has been threatened with a prosecution by the Excise for having spirits on his premises. I must appeal to you that it would not be fair that any matter relating to that question should be gone into today. It is not a proper procedure for the enquiry today, which is an enquiry into the question of selling to this alleged drunken man, to be used as a pumping ground for evidence for a subsequent prosecution by the Excise, and therefore I suggest to you that the proper course in reference to anything that may occur in that prosecution by the Excise would be to omit any reference to that today, there being no charge against my client at present on that ground.

The Chairman: Our business is not to deal with the future, but with the present.

Mr. Mowll: Of course.

The Chairman: We cannot help what is in the future.

Mr. Mowll: None of us can, but I was threatened with that prosecution.

Mr. Knocker said that his object was not to prepare the ground for another prosecution, but to find out where there is any probability of this man having been served with whisky. (To witness.) You need not say how much, but whisky was found where the man said it was?

Yes.

The Magistrates' Clerk: Behind the bar in the cupboard?

Yes.

As previously stated by Norris?

Yes. Four bottles in the cupboard behind the bar. Some of them were half-full of whisky and some with wine.

Were there any glasses about, any whisky glasses?

No, not on the counter.

Out of the four bottles how many were spirits?

All were spirits.

Mr. Mowll: Oh no, you said some wine.

The Magistrates' Clerk: How many of the four were whisky?

I can hardly say. There were four bottles down in the cellar sealed.

Of the four upstairs they were not all whisky?

No.

There was a bottle with whisky?

Yes.

Mr. Knocker: It had been opened?

Yes.

Mr. Mowll: I have to take an objection before we proceed further in this case that there is n o evidence before you –

The Magistrates' Clerk (interposing) said that it ought to be proved that this defendant was the licence holder. He then read an extract from the register to show that the defendant had a temporary permission since December 7th, to draw, but it had not been confirmed yet.

Mr. Mowll (continuing) said that there was not sufficient evidence before them that his client did, as the summons charged him with doing, unlawfully sell intoxicating liquor to a certain drunken person. Assuming that Norris was drunk, they had to be satisfied that his client sole him something, and that what he sold was intoxicating liquor. He submitted that Mr. Knocker did not prove that, and that it lay on the prosecution to prove that a sale took place. There were two little side issues in the evidence that might be said to go towards proving that. One was that Norris said he had a quantity of money when he went into the house, and that he had a very much less quantity when he came out, but that was his statement, and he said he was very drunk and probably he did not know how much he had in his pocket. A man might have parted with 19/- in plenty of other ways than buying intoxicating liquors. The other point was that there was some whisky in the house. He did not think that proved anything. The last witness said distinctly there were no whisky glasses, and there was nothing whatever to prevent the landlord having whisky in the house for his own purposes and keeping it in a cupboard in any part of the house. He asked for their ruling on the offence.

The Chairman asked if he called any evidence.

Mr. Mowll: I am taking a preliminary objection before I open my case in that there is no evidence.

The Chairman asked Mr. Knocker to let them look at the information on which the summons was obtained.

Mr. Mowll rose to object, but the Magistrates' Clerk assured him that it would not be prejudicial to him.

The Magistrates having retired to consider their ruling, returned and stated that the summons would be dismissed; it should have been drawn under another section.

The Magistrates' Clerk said it was drawn as applied for.

The Chairman: It should have been applied for under another section.

From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 22 January, 1904. Price 1d.

THE DEVONSHIRE ARMS CASE

PROSECUTED A SECOND TIME

On Friday, at the Dover Police Court, before M. Pepper, Esq., and Captain R. B. Cay, R.N. Percy Alonzo Burville, the landlord of the “Devonshire Arms” public house, High Street, who the previous week had been acquitted on a charge of serving a drunken man with intoxicating liquor, was summoned for permitting a drunken man to remain on licensed premises on December 20th.

Mr. R. E. Knocker appeared for the prosecution on behalf of the Watch Committee, and Mr. Rutley Mowll to defend.

Mr. Mowll said that he had a suggestion to make. The Bench would remember that last Friday that heard a very similar case against his client, for an offence covering the same facts, and the same date, and the case was dismissed. The Superintendent of Police had since intimated to Messrs. Phillips and Co., the brewers, that he would be compelled to oppose the transfer to Burville. The effect of that had been that Mr. Burville had had to summarily leave the “Devonshire Arms,” and there was present a new tenant, to whom he would ask the Magistrates to grant permission to draw at the house, and the transfer would be heard on the 29th inst. This meant that his client had to leave the house at a sacrifice. He had only been in about three weeks, having been a sailor and saved a little money. If this case were proceeded with it would lead to this. His unfortunate client, if he were convicted, would have to pay more because he was acquitted the other day than if he had pleaded guilty to an offence which he had not been committed. They did not apply then that that costs should be borne by the town, but simply accepted their ruling without making any application for costs. He, therefore, suggested that this case might be allowed to be withdrawn. He need hardly point out that it was unusual for a second summons to be issued in any case, and this course having been taken in this case, and these events having happened, he suggested it would be a fair thing to allow the summons to be withdrawn. He had intimated to Mr. Knocker wha5t he was proposing to do, and Mr. Knocker had treated him very fairly over it. He said he was not in a position to make any application of that sort himself, but if the Bench saw their way to grant the application, he would have no objection. He hoped under the circumstances they would allow the case to be withdrawn.

The Chairman: Go on, Mr. Knocker.

Mr. Mowll said that before his client pleaded, he was going to take an objection that the Magistrates had no jurisdiction to hear this case. He had already been tried and acquitted, and referred to the case of Reilly and Brown, 54 Justice of the Peace 487, a case where a dog was dangerous, and an order was made for it to be kept in. It was not kept in, and Reilly was summoned, and the Justices dismissed the charge because although there was evidence that the dog was at large on the 21st of August, there was no evidence that it was at large for ten days afterwards. The prosecution took out a second summons charging him with committing the offence on the 21st August, and dropped any reference to the ten days thereafter, and on the second summons the Justices convicted. The objection was taken before them, as he took the objection now, that the case had already been decided on the plea of autrefois acquit. (Law French for "previously acquitted" means the defendant claims to have been previously acquitted of the same offence. Paul Skelton) The Magistrates would not hear anything of the objection. The defendant took it to the High Court, and when it came before the Justices of the High Court, they said, “Oh, this man has already been acquitted.” Lord Esher and the Justices were wrong on both occasions; they might have convicted on the first summons, but they did not do so. The please of autrefois acquit held absolutely good. Now there was a similar plea of autrefois acquit.

The Chairman: Do I understand you to say we were wrong in not convicting?

Mr. Mowll replied that he was happy to say they were entirely right. There was also the plea of autrefois convict, that was where a man was already convicted. On that plea he would refer them to another case, Regina v. Miles, 54 Justice of the Peace, 549. The two please had the same legal effect, that was to say, he could not be tried a second time. In that case a man was charged with assault, but the Magistrates deemed it trivial and discharged him on entering into a security for good behaviour. Afterwards he was indicted and found guilty of unlawfully wounding arising on the same facts. It was held that the latter conviction was bad. The purport of the judgement in that case was that no man could be placed in peril on two occasions. That was to say, if a man is convicted he is convicted and there is an end to it; if he is acquitted, he is acquitted, and there is an end of it, as he suggested there was in this case. The principle was, as Mr. Justice Charles said, no man shall be placed in peril on more than one –

The Magistrates' Clerk: For the same offence.

The Chairman: Have you any more cases? We think there is no connection between the dog and the fighting and the gentleman you are defending.

Mr. Mowll remarked that that was hardly the point. He was quite aware that a dog was not the same as a public-house, but the principles of law –

The Magistrates' Clerk: It was the same offence, same words of information, and all except the dates.

Mr. Mowll; True, but what about the other case? You see that was not the same offence, it was an entirely different offence.

The Magistrates' Clerk': He was convicted there.

Mr. Mowll: You know perfectly well as a lawyer –

The Magistrates' Clerk: I know perfectly well as a lawyer that it is all nonsense.

Mr. Mowll asked that a note should be taken of his objection.

The defendant then pleaded not guilty.

The Chief Constable then proved that the defendant, on December 7th, had the licence of the “Devonshire Arms” transferred to him till the next transfer day, which had not yet arrived.

Police-sergeant Morris repeated the evidence that he gave on the first hearing, that he went to the “Devonshire Arms,” on Sunday, December 20th, at 9.40, and there saw the man Norris, who complained of being assaulted. He said that he had had nothing to drink except Scotch whisky, and witness called the landlord's attention to his condition, the man being very drunk. The landlord said that he thought the man had had a fit, and he had been giving him soda water all evening to try and bring him round.

In reply to Mr. Mowll, witness said that Norris's statement that he had been at the house since seven was not correct, as he had been to the Police Station. Norris was not disorderly nor incapable. He had been to the Police Station and went home afterwards by himself.

Mr. Mowll: Just drank enough to make my client an offender?

Yes, quite drunk enough for that.

That being so, are you in a position to tell me why Norris was not summoned for being drunk?

No, sir.

James Alexander Norris, 22, Albion Place, said that he first went into the house at two o'clock in the afternoon. He had a glass of whisky with the landlord, who treated him, and he, after having some twos of ale, left at 2.15. He then went to the “Dewdrop” and remained there seven minutes. He also had something to drink in a private house in Lowther Road, and in the evening went back to the “Devonshire Arms.”

Captain Cay: Do you generally spend your Sundays like this?

Not as a rule.

Witness, continuing, said that he went to the “Devonshire Arms” at seven minutes to seven. He was then drunk. He asked for whisky, but from what he had been told by those who went in with him he had only soda water. In consequence of what occurred, he went to the Police Station, and afterwards returned to the house with the Police.

By Mr. Mowll: Witness had known the landlord before as being a sailor. He did not pay for the whisky served in the middle of the day.

Police Constable Greenland said that he went to the “Devonshire Arms” with Norris, who came rolling into the Police Station drunk. In the house the conversation between the landlord and Norris took place.

In reply to Mr. Mowll, witness said that he did not say that Norris came rolling into the Police Station at the last hearing as there was no need to prove that the man was drunk.

Mr. Mowll advised the witness to consult Mr. Knocker before prepounding such a piece of law as that.

This was the case of the prosecution, and Mr. Mowll called the defendant as a witness.

The witness stated that the man had only soda water to drink whilst he was in his house in the evening. In his judgment the man was not drunk. He had three sodas.

The Magistrates' Clerk: Is that poking sodas down a man all the evening?

Mr. Mowll: It does not necessarily mean that he put a siphon to the man's month.

Thomas Ford, 8, Churchill Street, Dover, said that he was in the “Devonshire Arms” on the evening in question, and left about 9.40. he only saw him drinking soda. He did not consider Norris drunk.

Cross-examined by Mr. Knocker: he was not drunk, but had had enough.

By the Magistrates: He went to the “Devonshire Arms” at 6.30, and remained until 7.30, and went back just before 9, leaving at 9.40. He saw Norris there, and he had only sodas to drink. He threw a soda over another man.

Arthur Saunders, 15. Pleasant Row, Durham Hill, said that he went to the “Devonshire Arms” about eight o'clock and remained there about an hour. He saw nothing in the condition of Norris to indicate that he was the worse for drink. He was drinking a soda.

Mr. Mowll, for the defence, contended that the landlord did not know the man was drunk. There was no doubt that this man had had enough to drink when he came into the house, but the landlord only gave him soda water, which was a reasonable step to prevent drunkenness, but unfortunately he had a quarrel whilst in the house, and this led to a fight, and he got very excited, and that excitement caused by the fight produced the appearance of what the Police called drunkenness.

The Magistrates fined the defendant 40/- and costs 17/-, which was paid.

They afterwards agreed to give Richard W. Charles permission to draw at the house in place of Burville.

From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 12 February, 1904. Price 1d.

DOVER LICENSING SESSIONS

Mr. Mowll formerly applied for the renewal of the licence of the “Devonshire Arms.”

Mr. F. W. Bartholomew proved posting a copy of the notice of objection to the holder of the licence.

The grounds of objection were read as follows: That on the 15th January, P. A. Burville the then holder of the licence, was convicted of permitting drunkenness on licensed premises, and fined £2. 2nd, that on 2nd November, 1903, the then holder of the licence knowingly suffered bribery and treating to take place on licensed premises. 3rd, that it was not needed for the requirements of the neighbourhood. The objection was signed by Thomas William Wright, Secretary to the Dover Temperance Council.

Mr. M. Bradley said that he appeared to object to the renewal of this licence on behalf of the Dover Temperance Council, and he thought when he laid the facts before them, they would not agree that this was not in any sense factious opposition, or one based on extreme or intolerant views, or, as Mr. Mowll very often urged, on the ground that they were endeavouring to do away with the whole of the licenses of the borough. The objection to the renewal of this licence was based on strong and substantial grounds. In giving this notice, those whom he represented were only acting in accordance and furtherness of the expressed opinion used by this Bench to the effect that the number of licensed houses in Dover was more than required, and that it would be desirable to lesson their numbers. He thought that he could put it even more strongly by saying that they really were assisting the Magistrates in carrying out the expressed opinion which they had more than once given. He quite appreciated the difficulty in selecting those whose licenses should be taken away, but in this case there were reasons why the licence should not be renewed. First of all, because there had been, since the last renewal of the licence, a conviction against the landlord of the house for a serious offence against the licensing laws, and there had also been a record, as they would see from the licence register, of transfers during the past four or five years as he thought gave the strongest evidence that the house was not required, and it does not pay, and was not doing sufficient trade to make the holder willing to remain in it. On these two grounds he submitted that the Magistrates were entitled to say, in the interests of the town at large and the neighbourhood, which was already perfectly well served by other licensed houses, that this licence should not be renewed. A license was a privilege, and a very valuable privilege, and if the holder of that privilege treats it so lightly as to prejudice it by committing an offence against the licensing law, he was not entitled to come there as a matter of right to ask for the renewal of the licence. He was aware that Mr. Mowll would say that if it were not renewed a great hardship would be inflicted on those who had the licence – the brewer. He should like to point out that it was the owners of the house, the brewers, who were really benefited by the licence. It was they who made the profit out of the licence, and they should also have the responsibility of it. If Mr. Mowll's argument were carried to its logical conclusion, no matter how great the offence or how bad the record, they would be entitled to and have the licence renewed if they put in a new tenant. He should like them to carefully consider the recode of the house. It was transferred on November 3rd, 1899, on July 6th, 1900, and August 15th, 1902. there was also a transfer on the 15th January, 1904, and on the 29th January, 1904.

Mr. Mowll said there was no transfer on January 15th.

Mr. Bradley said that at any rate there were five tenants in five years. He thought that this was the strongest possible evidence that they could not make a living in the house. Now and then a tenant left for some other reason, but when there were so many transfers occurring in such a short period, it was very strong evidence that the tenants were not making a living, for they would not want to go otherwise. The other houses in the vicinity were quite able to supply all the needs of the locality, and he thought a very strong reason was made out for saying that the house was not required. Besides, these houses where there were these continuous transfers affected very unfairly a certain class of men who take them. They save a sufficient sum of money, just enough to go into the house, remain until the money is exhausted, and then make way for another man. Such houses as these were not needed in the interests of the men who lose money in them, in the interests of the general public, who do not want them, and in the interests of the general body of licensed victuallers, who by the unfair competition that such houses cause, and by the unfair competition by breaches of the law, as in this case. He would call Mr. Wright, who would tell them that there were half a dozen houses within a stone's throw. He would also call Mr. Farrier, who would prove the other ground – the ground that the premises were used for the purpose of treating and bribery at the recent election.

The Rev. Thomas William Wright said he was secretary of the Dover Temperance Council and curate of St. Bartholomew's. he sent in the notice of objection in his official capacity as Secretary of the Temperance Council. He stated that there were other licensed houses – the “Mason's Arms,” three doors away; three houses in Ladywell, and two or three within a hundred yards in Biggin Street.
Br Mr. Mowll: How long have you been in Dover?

Two years.

How long have you, during that time, held this important position as Secretary of the Dover Temperance Council?

I have been Secretary of the Council for several months.

Did you belong to that body as soon as you came to Dover?

I did.

Have you been a hearty supporter of it ever since?

Yes, a hearty supporter.

You did not object to any licenses last year?

The Council objected.

You did not object to any?

I personally did not.

Why was that?

I was not Secretary then.

Do you mean to say the Dover Temperance Council exercises such an influence on your mind that you are not free to do anything without their permission?

I was in Dover such a short time. I did not know the need so well.

Is it now your intention always to oppose the licenses as long as you remain in Dover?

I shall be very pleased to do it.

Good fun, is it not?

It is annoying to have to spend one's time in Court.

Is it one of those annoyances which will give you pleasure to do?

My only reason for doing so is to reduce the number of public houses because so many are not required.

Assuming the Temperance Council did not oppose, you would not feel entitled to do so on your own account?

I cannot tell, I am thoroughly in sympathy with opposing a licence.

I am perfectly certain of that. You have just told us you are a curate of St. Bartholomew's?

I am one of them.

The “Devonshire Arms” is not in your parish?

No, it is not.

Did you ask the vicar in charge of the parish where the house stands whether he had any objections to your interfering with his parish?

No.

You took French leave for that. (Laughter.) Assuming that the Magistrates were to refuse to renew the licence, should you ask them next year to take away some more?

Oh yes, certainly.

Yes, you would go on!

I should oppose the excessive number of public houses.

What would you think not excessive?

I should say one public house to every 1,000 persons, whereas we have one to every 250.

Do you know in the case of the “Primrose Hall” where your objection was that it was not needed, there were far more than 1,000 to one licence? (No reply.)

Mr. Bradley: How are you going to split them up?

Witness: Yes, exactly. (Laughter.)

Mr. Mowll: When my friend goes into the box I shall be happy to cross-examine, but as long as I have Mr. Wright there I shall deal with Mr. Wright.

Mr. Wright: I cannot divide them. So many to the town. I object to so many if they were reduced to one in 1,000 I should not object unless the houses were badly conducted.

Do I understand that your objection is to a licence in Union Road if there are a lot too many licenses in Commercial Quay is that it?

You see you must not take it in this district the house supplies; you must take the number of houses in the town?

Yes, you must reduce the number there are in the town.

Having satisfied you that there is nothing in that ground, let me ask you this. Do you know the Magistrates who tried the case of the “Devonshire Arms” inflicted a fine of £1?

Mr. Bradley: £2 I think.

Do you know the Magistrates had power to impose a fine of £10?

You know more about that than I do.

Unfortunately you are the witness?

I did not know that they had the power.

You did not inquire how far the Magistrates regarded the case as a serious one?

They would not have fined him had they not considered it serious.

Nonsense! There may be fines quite slight. This is only one fifth of the amount that they might have inflicted. You did not make any inquiry about that at all? Have you anything to say against the present tenant of the “Devonshire Arms?”

No, I am opposing the house, not the tenant.

But here is your notice, R. W. Charles, is not that the tenant?

He is not there now. (Laughter.)

Oh! I beg your pardon, you do not know very much about it. He is there. (Laughter.)

You said you were opposing the house and not the tenant?

In this case I oppose the tenant, then.

Do you know anything whatever against his character?

No. I only go on his conviction.

Have you not anything against Mr. Charles personally?

I thought it was the man convicted.

Have you not got anything against him?

Certainly not.

Do you appreciate that if his licence is refused Mr. Charles will lose the difference between the value he paid for the goods and what they would sell at a knock-out price?

I don't know exactly what you mean.

I am putting to you an elementary point in licensing. Mr. Charles goes into the house at a value. I suppose you know that?

I suppose so.

You may take it from me that he goes in at a valuation. Supposing that you were to persuade the Magistrates to refuse to renew the licence this tenant would lose his valuation. He would only have the selling prices of goods at a public auction. Do you appreciate that?

Is that so?

Do not ask me questions. I am asking you.

Probably he is insured.

Have you made any inquiry to find out?

I know most public houses are insured.

Mr. Mowll; I beg your pardon, they are not, and it is the action of gentlemen of your sort that prevents them being.

Witness: I know a great many are.

Mr. Mowll: Well, you may take it this is not.

Do you appreciate that if this licence is refused the brewers will lose a considerable sum?

Yes, they will have one public house less. (Laughter.)

And that means to say the value of the property as a licensed property will be taken away from them?

Yes, in the interests of the town.

To satisfy your whim?

It is not a whim, but a conviction.

Have you made any offer to buy this house from them yourself? (Laughter.)

I have not.

You prefer to come here without any cost to oppose the renewal?
I oppose the renewal.

Re-examined by Mr. Bradley, witness said he opposed on the ground of the conviction which was a matter of common knowledge, and the new tenant knew as well as he did and went into the house with his eyes open.

William Farrier, of 5, Hultsdorph Cottages, Tower hamlets, was called.

The Mayor: This is two tenants back.

Mr. Bradley: The changes have been so rapid. William Farrier, do you remember the 2nd of November last? Did you go into the “Devonshire Arms?”

Yes.

At what time?

A quarter to eight in the evening.

Did you see the then landlord of the house, Mr. Ford?

Yes.

Did he speak to you?

Mr. Mowll: May I interrupt for a moment? I understand this man Farrier is called for the purpose of supporting the second ground in the notice, which was that the then holder of the licence “knowingly suffered bribery and treating in reference to the municipal elections to take place upon his licensed premises.” Now, I have carefully perused the report of the proceedings before the election court and I cannot find that any such charge was preferred on that occasion, and there was no suggestion made that the licensee had knowingly suffered bribery and corruption to take place. Furthermore, if there had been it would have been the duty of the Commissioner to determine whether the charge, if such a charge was put forward, was proved. Not only was the charge not proved, but no evidence was ever offered that the offence was committed. Mr. Mowll also pointed out that under the Corrupt Practices Act of 1883, as extended by the Municipal Elections Act, 1884, there was ground for taking into consideration the question in respect of the renewal of such person as had knowingly suffered bribery and treating, but this application was for the renewal to another person, and if it had been even the same person he would have contended that it would have to be found by the election court that the offence had been committed.

Mr. Bradley said that he was going to put his witness in the box and get from him evidence that would absolutely support the grounds that these premises were used for an illegal purpose. That was sufficient apart from what might have occurred at another place. To submit unless the direction of the Public Prosecutor makes a report this matter was not entitled to be gone into –

Mr. Mowll: Pardon me, it is the election court, not the Public Prosecutor.

Mr. Bradley said that it did not matter in the least. It did not effect the Magistrates' power to hear any objection whatever. There were certain duties laid down on the election court that they must report and that these reports must be considered, but if evidence was brought on oath in that Court the Bench were entitled to hear the evidence and to form their opinion upon it. It was not necessary they should be bound by anything brought out at the enquiry. He might call witnesses that had never been called at that hearing and put them into the box there to show that improper and illegal practices were carried on at this house. They were able to hear every ground of objection to the houses, and it was their duty to hear every ground of objection, and he was entitled to call this witness.

The Mayor said they would retire to consider the point.

On returning, the Mayor said: The Magistrates have come to the conclusion that as this offence took place under a previous tenant they cannot hear this witness.

Mr. Bradley: Would you allow me to call attention to one case quoted here. It says “Evidence of conviction against previous occupiers of the house.”

Mr. Mowll: But that is convictions!

Mr. Bradley: I am entitled to call any witnesses here. I do not say I am entitled to ask you absolutely to say it is a sufficient reason, but I have the right to call witnesses.

The Mayor: That is our decision.

Mr. Bradley: Do I understand you rule I am not entitled to call this witness?

The Mayor: On that point.

Mr. Bradley: I must take your ruling, but I should like a note taken of the fact that I ask for this witness to be called and it is refused.

The Mayor: We should now like to hear you. I suppose you will address us?

Mr. Bradley said that he had done so, he merely asked for the registers to transfers and convictions to be put in, and that would complete his case.

The Mayor: The decision of the Magistrates is this; They regret very much they have no power to interfere with the granting or renewal of the licence of this beer-house, so there is no other alternative but to renew the licence to Mr. Charles.

Mr. Bradley: I take it that it is that the witness I have called does not bring it within one of the four grounds of the 1869 Act?

The Clerk: Yes.

Mr. Bradley: And with regard to the ground which I was going to allege, you say you will not hear the witness?

The Clerk: As relating to a previous tenant?

Mr. Bradley: Yes.

From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 16 February, 1906. Price 1d.

OBJECTION TO THE DEVONSHIRE ARMS.

The Licensing Committee then proceeded to consider the question of the renewing the licences which the Police under the instructions of the Magistrates, were opposing.

The first to be dealt with was the “Devonshire Arms,” High Street, the licensed holder of which was Mr. R. W. Charles. Mr. Rutley Mowll appeared for the tenant and the owners Messrs. Phillips.

The grounds of the objection were that having regard to the characters and necessities of the neighbourhood the number of licensed houses there and in the immediate vicinity is excessive, and the license held by Mr. Charles was unnecessary, and in the interests of the public, the renewal of the license was undesirable.

The notice of objection was signed by the Chief Constable, who owing to his own serious illness, was unable to be present.

The Magistrates Clerk asked if any objection would be pressed owing to the unfortunate absence?

Mr. Mowll then instructed that he would not being any objection.

Inspector Fox in giving evidence said that the license was granted to Mr. Charles on the 29th January, 1904. he was the twelfth tenant within the last twenty years, the house being one of the 69 beer-houses. There were nine other licensed premises within the vicinity, the nearest being the “Masons Arms,” 37 yards distant, and the furthest of the nine the “King William IV” in Biggin Street, 189 yards away. It was situated right opposite the Congregational Church. Witness also described the accommodation afforded by the house, and said that, when he visited it with the Chief Constable on February 3rd, there was no one on the premises.

Cross-examined by Mr. Mowll: The landlord was a thoroughly respectable man, and there was not a complaint against him.

Mr. Mowll: I do not quite understand by what process the “Devonshire Arms” is decided out of the other nine premises. What instructions were given for this to be opposed?

Witness continuing said that one of the conditions was that the house was adjacent the Congregational Church. He knows that the “Devonshire Arms” existed before the Congregational Church came there.

Mr. Mowll: The Congregational Church having been there you think it a good reason for doing away with the public license in the neighbourhood?

Witness: Yes, sir, one reason.

Does that not apply to the “Mason's Arms” just over?

“We have to start somewhere.”

So you start at the “Devonshire Arms” and go on to the “Mason's Arms” next year?

“No, we have not given notice at present.”

“If you proceed at that rate there will be no houses at all?

“Then there will be nothing for the Police to do.”

Mr. Mowll intimated that he would address the Bench at the conclusion of the hearing of the objections.

THE MAGISTRATES DECISION

After a short consultation in private, the Magistrates turned to the Bench. The Chairman said “The following houses will be referred to the Kent Compensation Committee of the Quarter Sessions in due form: The “William and Albert,” The “Three Compasses,” the “Wellesley Inn,” the “Old Commercial Quay,” the “Duke of York,” and the “Half Moon.” The licenses for these houses will run until the time when the compensation is paid, and then the licences will cease. With respect to the “Devonshire Arms” and the “Lord Roberts,” and the “Nottingham Castle,” they will be withdrawn from the list.- These licences will be renewed in the ordinary way.

From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday 14 February, 1908.

THE ANNUAL LICENSING MEETING

THE DEVONSHIRE ARMS

Mr. Blair, the agents of Messrs. Phillips and Son, of Malling, said: I may well say that I am instructed by my firm to say that considering this license has been threatened once or twice before, and considering you have got plans for rebuilding it, we consider it rather hard for you to object to it again this year. But as you do, it is useless for us to disagree with you, and do not oppose it.

Inspector Fox stated: The "Devonshire Arms," High Street, is a beer-house, the owners being Messrs. Phillips and Co., of Malling and Dover. The present tenant being transferred to him on the 31st January, 1904. There have been eleven tenants in 20 years, and five within the last ten years. The rateable value is gross £20, nett £16. The licensed houses in the immediate neighbourhood are the "Mason's Arms," High Street, 37 yards away; the "SirJohn Falstaff," Ladywell, 36 yards away; the "Park Inn," 92 yards away; the "Wheatsheaf," Park Place, 100 yards; the "Prince Albert," Biggin Street, 105 yards; the "Salutation," Biggin Street, 124 yards; the "British Queen," Biggin Street," 128 yards; "King William," Biggin Street, 164 yards. The house has 13 ft, frontage, and has two bars in the front, one being the passage, which is used as a private bar. There is another small bar in the front and a back parlour. The Congregational Church is nearly opposite the house. The house was visited on Monday, January 25th, at 10.20 a.m. when there was one customer; on Thursday, January 30th, at 2.35 p.m., when there were no customers; at 8.50 p.m. on Tuesday, February 4th, when there were five customers; and on Friday, February 7th, at 6.20 p.m., when there were no customers.

Detective Mount corroborated.

The whole of the four cases ("Canterbury Bell," "Old Fountain," "Ordnance Arms," and "Devonshire Arms," were referred to  the East Kent Quarter Session for decision whether they would grant compensation for the non-renewal of the licenses.