From the Whitstable Times and Herne Bay Herald. 7 April 1900. Price 1d.

CANTERBURY POLICE COURT.

CHARGE AGAINST A LANDLADY DISMISSED

Emily Fogarty was summoned for permitting drunkenness on her licensed premises, the "Duke of Cambridge," Broad Street, on March 20th.

Mr. H. Fielding prosecuted and Mr. H. Broughton appeared for the defence.

Inspector Dunk stated that on Tuesday, march 28th he was in Broad Street at 1.45 p.m. and he was passing the "Duke of Cambridge" public-house. As he heard shouting he entered the house and in the bar saw eight or nine men, two of whom were nearly drunk. He advised the landlady not to serve them with any more drink. At 2.45 he visited the house again with Sergt. Ewell and then found both men were drunk. A man named Sutton was hopelessly drunk and Palmer was sitting on a form with a pint glass in front of him, which was about three parts full. He asked the barman for the the landlady and he showed witness into the back room. Witness saw the the landlady and told her that she still had the two men in the bar whom he pointed out at 1.45. He said, "They are both drunk." The landlady said, "I must admit Sutton is drunk. he was put out but came back again. Palmer has had a glass, but he is not so bad." Witness said "Come into the bar and look at Palmer." They went into the bar together and witness told Palmer that he would be reported for being drunk whilst on licensed premises. Palmer said "I have only had a pint and a half of beer." The landlady then said " You have only had a pint of beer." Witness then said he should report her for permitting drunkenness on licensed premises and she said. Do not take any notice of it this time." Witness told the defendant he had cautioned her the previous evening and also that afternoon.

In answer to Mr. Broughton, witness stated that Serge. Ewell, the barman, and an old woman were present when he had the conversation with the landlady. He did not know that the barman put the men who were drunk out of the house. The house in question had been conducted better during the past six months.

Sergt. Ewell corroborated and in cross-examination stated stated the landlady asked Inspector to "look over it this time" fire or six times.

Mr H. Broughton said that the two men in question were no doubt drunk, but he should prove that the landlady did her best to persuade them to leave the house and finding that she was unable to she got the barman to put them out. The defendant did not serve the men with drink at all.

Emily Fogarty, the defendant, stated that on the date in question two men came into her house about two o'clock They called for drink and she refused to serve them. She told them to go two or three times. They were in the house about ten minutes before the police came in. Just after Inspector Dunk went out again she got her barman to put the men out. The second time when the men came in she was not in the bar. When the police came in again she gave instructions to her man to put the men out. She had been landlady of the house since August. She had held a licence altogether for four years.

In answer to Mr. Fielding, defendant said she had been trying to persuade the men to go for ten minutes before the police entered the house. She did not ask the police to assist her in getting the men out of the house. She did not remember saying anything about one man only having had a pint of beer when he said he had a pint and a-half.

George Powell, a well sinker, in the employ of Mr. Chambers, Northgate, and living in Ruttington Lane, stated he was in the public-house when Palmer and Sutton entered. They were rather "boozy ” when they came in. They were not served with drink. The landlady asked them to go out several times and at last she got the barman to put them out. About an hour afterwards the men came back again. They were not served with any drink from the time they came in till the police arrived.

William Fursmon, a carriage painter, living at Union Street, corroborated.

Thomas Hay, barman at the public-house, and having been in the employ of defendant for about three years, stated that at about ten minutes past one he had to turn Palmer and Sutton out of the bar. When the men came in again witness told them to go out because he thought they looked the worse for liquor.

Henry James Palmer, living at Union Street stated that he had five or six glasses. He had a man named Sutton with him and he was the worse for drink. On the suggestion of the Inspector he left the house in question. He left a tin bottle there and ten minutes afterwards he went back for the bottle.

The Magistrates retired and on their return into Court the Chairman said they thought there was a little doubt in the case, and therefore would give the defendant the benefit of the doubt and dismiss the case.

They considered that the defendant had done her best to persuade the men to leave the house and yet at the same time the police had done their duty in bringing the case before them.

From the Whitstable Times and Herne Bay Herald. 7 April 1900. Price 1d.

DRUNK ON LICENSED PREMISES

George Sutton and Henry Palmer were charged with being drunk on the licensed premises, the "Duke of Cambridge," Broad Street, on the 20th inst. inspector Dunk proved the case, and Palmer was fined 2s. and 7s. costs, whilst Sutton, who did not appear, was fined 5s. and 7s. costs.