Kentish Gazette, 17 March 1857.

Yesterday.

ASSAULT OF THE POLICE BY SOME OF THE MILITARY.

Two privates, in the 79th Highlanders, named William Gilchrist and Matthew Gemmell, were had up on a charge of violently assaulting the police in the execution of their duty. It appeared by the evidence of Inspector Parker that as he was passing down the High-street, shortly after eleven the previous night, he found Mr. Usher, of the "Freemasons’ Tavern," following the defendants, whom he was desirous of giving in charge for breaking two windows at his house; whereupon he took hold of Gilchrist, and Mr. Usher took hold of the other. A scuffle ensued in which Gilchrist broke from his custody, and struck him from behind a violent blow on the head, which laid it open to a considerable extent, and prostrated him. Gilchrist then ran away. He (the Inspector) seized the other man, who kicked and struggled so violently that he also got away. At half-past one in the morning he arrested Gemmell at a coffee shop, in the borough, when he resisted very violently, but was secured. There was an assemblage of some 15 or 16 persons when the scuffle took place, yet none would render him assistance.

Police-constable Samson, seeing the mob, went to the spot, when Parker’s head was bleeding from the blow which he had received. Witness afterwards went to a coffee shop, in King-street, with Manuel; and charging Gilchrist as his prisoner for breaking windows and assaulting Inspector Parker he seized a poker and with great violence aimed two severe blows at him, which he avoided, and a Dragoon afterwards took the weapon from him. When in the street he kicked and struck and resisted with great violence; and the other tried to rescue the prisoner, and going out returned with five Dragoons — all of whom attacked him, knocked him down and kicked him. Gemmell then ran away, but was subsequently apprehended, and conveyed to the station. Witness bore striking evidence of the ill-usage he had received.

Police constable Manuel corroborated the evidence of the assault on Samson on the evening described, and spoke of Gemmell having struck him. When at the police station he said they would pot care for six months if they got their discharge.

The clerk having pointed out that the bench had power to fine the defendants £5. and in default commit them to prison for three months, or if they felt that not severe enough, to send them to the quarter sessions and there indict them, the bench fined each 20s. and costs, and in default committed them to St. Augustine’s for a month. The men treated the sentence with the utmost levity, and it was generally felt that it was not near severe enough, as the assault was of an aggravated and cowardly nature. We hope, however, that if disturbances of this nature, and this is by no means a solitary case, the military authorities will abridge the indulgence of allowing so many men out of barracks at night. The men convicted in the present instance had committed damage at another place, in respect of which no charge was preferred.

South Eastern Gazette, 12 March, 1860.

BIRTH.

On the 8th inst., at the "Freemasons’ Hotel," Canterbury, the wife of Mr. W. H. F. Moore, of a son.

South Eastern Gazette, 26 June, 1860.

CANTERBURY COUNTY COURT.

The monthly sitting of this court was held on Wednesday last, before C. Harwood, Esg , Judge.

Usher v. Lambert.

For the recovery of £2 2s., for the hire of three rooms and the use of a bar at the "Music Hall Tavern," in St. Margaret's, in 1857, during the cricket week; 15s. had been paid into court.

The defendant admitted the hiring of the rooms, but explained that an opening was made from the "Music Hall tavern" to the ball room, at an expense of £6 or £7, and which was considered of advantage to the house. This (with the 15s. paid) he considered ample for the accommodation afforded by the use of the rooms.

The plaintiff denied that the communication made into the hall was of any advantage to him. He had not been treated properly in the matter.

Judgment for the sum paid into court.

From the Southeastern Gazette, 15 May 1866.

ILLEGAL USE OF BASS AND CO.’S PALE ALE LABELS.

A case of considerable interest to the public came before the magistrates on Thursday. It was an information taken out by Messrs. Bass and Co., the celebrated brewers of Burton-on-Trent, against Mr. Gibbon Ladd, ale and stout merchant, carrying on business in Burgate-street, Canterbury, for illegally and fraudulently selling 17 bottles containing ale on which were placed labels bearing the trade mark of Bass and Co.

Mr. Motheram, barrister, of the Oxford circuit, attended to prosecute, and Mr. Delasaux appeared for the defendant.

Mr. Motheram, in stating the case, said the information was laid under the 25th and 26th Vic., c. 88, sec. 4, and it charged Mr. Ladd with an offence against that statute. Mr. Ladd was formerly a customer of Messrs. Bass's, but trading with him had been discontinued. About twelve months ago, however, he ordered a quantity of ale, and it was sent him, together with 3,000 labels, containing the well-known trade mark of the firm, which was a sufficient quantity to place on the bottles necessary to hold the quantity sent. There had been no sale of their bottling ale to Mr. Ladd since that time. The learned gentleman, having read the clause, and stated that the proceedings were instituted by Messrs. Bass and Co. for the protection of the public, proceeded to state the facts of the case as borne out by the following testimony:—

John Walker stated:— I am a traveller in the employ of Messrs Bass and Co., brewers, Burton. In consequence of certain suspicions I sent Henry Jarvis to the defendants to purchase some pale ale on the 7th February last. I received six bottles, and afterwards ordered a dozen bottles in a hamper. These were brought me by Jarvis, and purported to have been sold by a man named Dunkin, on behalf of the defendant. I marked the labels and corks attached to the bottles so received, and sent them to my employers. I produce invoices signed by Dunkin and Ladd. I have had considerable experience in tasting ales, and I believe the ale produced is not Bass’s, but Scotch ale.

Cross-examined:— Henley and Son are customers of ours. They can do what they like with our ales. I should say that Scotch ale is not superior to Bass’s — I believe Bass’s to be the best ale.

Henry Jarvis, a youth living at the “Freemasons’ Hotel,” stated that on the 7th Feb. he went to Mr. Ladd’s stores, and asked for half a dozen bottles of Bass’s pale ale. He gave the order to Mr. Ladd, who put labels upon the bottles and handed them to him. Witness did not pay. On The same day he went again to the defendant’s, and ordered three dozen of ale; one dozen to be packed in a hamper. This was delivered at the “Freemasons’ Hotel” to Mr. Walker, who marked the corks and the labels in witness’s presence.

Cross-examined:— They were supplied by Mr. Ladd’s son. He had never seen the defendant at the stores, although he frequently went there. He knew the man who brought the ale to the “Freemasons' Hotel” to be in Mr. Ladd’s employ, because he had seen him at work at the stores.

Moses Fright, agent to Messrs. Pickford, proved receiving the hamper from Mr. Walker. He had not delivered any of Messrs. Bass’s ale to the defendant within a twelvemonth. He had delivered Tetley’s and Younger’s, he believed before the 7th Feb. The witness subsequently produced a record showing that it was in October that the last delivery took place.

John Matthews:— I am a chemist, and the head brewer in Messrs. Bass and Co’s brewery at Burton-on-Trent. Since July last they have brewed 187,000 quarters of malt, producing 600,000 barrels of beer.

Mr. Delasaux:— I do not see what this has to do with the case. It certainly is an excellent advertisement for Messrs. Bass and Co.

Mr. Motheram:— Then I have no doubt the reporters present will consider that in making use of the statement they are supplying important information to the public.

Witness continued:— I received a hamper sealed containing bottles bearing Messrs. Bass’s ale labels. I examined one or two bottles on the day of receiving them, and subsequently analysed nine bottles in all. The result of the analysis was that I found them to vary from a specific gravity of 1.053 to 1.055. Having made that analysis I am quite certain that the ale I examined was not Bass’s pale ale, and never had been; our standard gravity for pale ale is 1.064. Some brewings will come up to 1.066, and others will be as low 1.063. Every brewing is tested by me by

the saccharometer before fermentation. We brew every five hours, and at the end of the day, to obtain the average gravity, the brewings are amalgamated. We do not allow any of our pale ale to be made below 1.063; 1.064 is our standard. After fermentation the saccharometer would not give the gravity, but in order to obtain the original gravity we resort to an analysis by a process of distillation; it is recommended by the revenue and by Drs. Hoffman and Graham. By this means we can ascertain what the gravity of the ale was before brewing as measured by the saccharometer. Therefore I have no doubt, after having made this analysis, that the ale contained in the bottles was never Bass’s ale. The label on the bottles is that used for Messrs. Bass’s pale ale.

Cross-examined:— It is from the gravity only that I judge the ale not to be Messrs. Bass’s. Supposing it was Allsopp’s ale and the gravity was 1.063, 1 should not have been able to ascertain for certain that it was not our ale but I should have an opinion that it was not. The gravity was 1.053 to 1.055.

Re-examined:— The ale in the bottles is about one-half the value of Bass’s. If we found that one of our best customers was bottling any ale but the 60s., we should cease to trade with them. I believe Allsopp's to be about the same standard as ours, having analysed it.

Dr. Fraukland, professor of chemistry at the Royal Institution and College, stated:— I received some ale from Mr. Matthews, which I submitted to an analysis. The original gravity varied from 1.053 to 1.055. The differences between my analysis and Mr Matthews’s is hardly appreciable. I agree with what Mr. Matthews has stated.

Mr. Delasanx, in his address to the Bench, put it to the magistrates whether they were convinced from the statement of Mr. Matthews and Dr. Frankland, that the ale was not Mr. Bass’s. That was the first question for their consideration, and if the Bench decided against his client they would then have to consider whether the sales were made with the knowledge of the defendant, who was seldom at the stores, having business elsewhere. Should the magistrates determine that both points had been proved to their satisfaction, he must leave his client’s case in their hands.

Mr. Motheram said that, considering the honourable way in which the charge had been met by Mr. Delasaux, Messrs. Bass would be satisfied if the fine levied was the minimum penalty. In instituting the prosecution, Messrs. Bass were actuated by no ill-feeling against Mr. Ladd, their object being to protect the public.

A fine of 10s. and costs was then inflicted.

Mr. Delasaux having thanked Messrs. Bass, through Mr. Motheram, for the spirit of liberality they had evinced towards his client, the proceedings, which created considerable interest, terminated.

From the Southeastern Gazette, 26 June 1866.

A Public-house Fracas.

Herbert Claris was summoned at the City Police Court, yesterday, for refusing to leave the “Freemasons’ Tavern” late on Saturday night. P.S. Elvey deposed that after closing time on Saturday night he was requested to eject the defendant from the tavern. Directions were given him by Miss Abrahams, who was in charge of the house. Claris refused, and he removed him forcibly. The defence was that Claris was in the house visiting a friend, and that the constable had exceeded his duty in forcibly ejecting the defendant.

Fined 18s., costs 7s.