Artillery Street (Mummery Square 1838)
Canterbury
Not a lot known about this pub, not even the number in Artillery Street,
only that it has so far been traced back to 1838. It was licensed by Arthur Marsh from between 1858 and 1862. 1874
does show a "Falcon" at number 26 in
the same street, it could well be that one changed to the other.
Unfortunately the street was heavily damaged during world war 2 and cleared
for redevelopment in 1962.
From the Kentish Gazette, 11 February 1845.
Caution.
A party of excavators employed on the branch railway, who took up their
quarters at the "Good Intent" public-house, St. Dunstan’s, in this city,
about a month ago, absconded a few days since, having become indebted to
a considerable a amount at the shops of various tradesmen in the
neighbourhood, who are left to beware their credulity in their trusting
strangers, however plausible.
|
From the Kentish Gazette, 9 September 1845.
Canterbury.
At the annual licensing on Thursday, the city magistrates renewed one
hundred and nineteen licences.
Two others were adjourned until the 13th inst.,
Charles Aiano’s, of the "Good Intent," Artillery-street, who was opposed
by Mr. Dunk, of the "Providence," and William Stone, "Royal Standard,"
New Ruttington-lane, who was unable to attend through illness.
|
From the Kentish Gazette, 16 May 1848.
IMPORTANT TO BURIAL SOCIETIES. CITY PETTY SESSIONS.
Before the Mayor, Wm. Plummer, Esq., and W. Mount, Esq.
HOPPER v. THE GOOD INTENT BURIAL SOCIETY.
This was a case of importance, involving the legality of some of the
proceedings of burial societies. It
occupied the court from eleven o'clock on Monday morning till nearly
seven o’clock on Tuesday evening.
The complainant, Ann Hopper, claimed to recover the sum of £20, alleged
to be due to her from the "Good
Intent Society" at the death of her husband. Joseph Hopper, Solicitors,
on the part of the complainant, Mr.
Chipperfield, and on the part of the society, Messrs. C. Sandys and K.
Walker. It appears from this decision,
that no man can act as an agent in an insurance, who has not a pecuniary
interest in the life of the person
for whom he acts.
After the usual preliminary business was transited, Ann Hopper was
examined by Mr. Chipperfield.
She deposed that she was the widow of the deceased, who was a member of
the Good Intent Burial
Society; he died on the 28th of February last; she obtained a
certificate of his death. She had made
application to the society for the money due to him, and she applied on
the 28th day of March for the
money. She made application to Mr. Steed, the secretary, to acknowledge
her as the widow of Joseph H
Hopper. She made a claim for the sum of £20. The secretary said, in
reply, that the deceased was not a fit
member. Mr. Bullinger was there at the time they objected to pay the
money. She had been married 40
years to Joseph Hopper. Her husband at one time received parochial
relief; this was about eight months
ago. It was because he was old, and failing, and not able to do much
work. He was unable to work because
he had a cough. He had had a cough for twenty years. She did not know it
was an asthma till after his
death. She never represented it to be asthma; would not swear that it
was. She did not know that her
husband had ever applied for a medical certificate to the Guardians of
the Poor, for she had never heard him
say so. She had known the pariah surgeon (Mr. Cooper) attend her husband
for his cough. He first
attended him about seven months ago. She did not believe he had attended
him before, and she would
swear that he did not receive relief in March, 1847. Mr. Buliinger was
the first person from whom she had
heard that her husband was a member of the club; he had asked her
whether he should put him in as a
member. She could not say for certain when this occurred, but she
thought it was a little before last
Whitsuntide. It was sometime in the summer, about this time
twelvemonths. It was about April or May,
1847. She gave her consent, and told him he might do so if he pleased.
He did not tell her what society it
was, nor did she know it till after the death of her husband. Mr.
Bullinger had put her husband’s name in
the club, but she had never paid him any money for it. Her husband had
never attended at the club, and
had never paid anything towards it. He never even knew he was a member
of the club, according to the
best of her knowledge.
After some altercation between the counsel for the plaintiff and the
counsel for the defendant, as to
whether the witness’s husband was legally entitled to any claim upon the
society, or whether he could
properly be considered as a member of the society, inasmuch as he had
never paid anything towards it, the
examination of the witness was resumed.
Cross-examined by Mr. Sandys:— She did not know that her husband was a
member of the club till after his
death, and it was Mr. Bullinger who first told her so. He died on the
24th of February last. Mr. Bullinger did
not tell her what club her late husband belonged to. Mr. Steed, the
secretary, told her, when Mr. Bullinger
told her that £20 was to he given between them; but nothing was said
about how it was to be divided. Mr.
Bullinger told her he should be paid, and so should she; and he would do
it for the good of her as well as
himself. She could not tell how it was to be paid out. They had not come
to any agreement as to how the
money was to be divided; she did not know what he was to have, but he
was to have something for his
trouble, and for what he had paid. Her son-in-law paid the expenses of
the funeral. The secretary (Mr.
Steed) had said that her husband was not a fit member, because he was
ill when he entered the club. Mr.
Bullinger was present at the time when Mr. Steed said so. She did not
think any conversation took place
between him and the directors. Mr. Steed said that he had given
Bullinger a book, which he had at that
time. She had never seen it except in Bullinger’s hands. She had never
heard the secretary taken to task
because he had not given the book of rules into the hands of the
defendant; but she recollected that Mr.
Bullinger had said he had given the book.
Mr. Sandys here referred to one of the Society’s rules, which excluded
all the parties from receiving any
benefit to which they would otherwise be entitled, if it should
afterwards be proved that any false statement
respecting the age or health of the member had been made. This was a
rule which it was necessary to
enforce, for the protection of the club; and therefore it was evident,
that Mr. Hopper had not been entitled
to any benefit therefrom, nor could he be considered as a fit member.
Cross-examination resumed.— She said her husband had been ill six weeks
with the dropsy, not six
months. She did not hear it said that her husband had not been fit to be
a member in consequence of
being ill for so long a time.
Mr. Sandys:— According to your own evidence he was not fit to be entered
a member of the club.
The learned gentleman then observed, that the Court was well aware of
the fraudulent practices which had
for a long time prevailed in this city respecting burial societies, and
he was determined to expose them.
Witness:— They had refused to pay her £20, on the ground that her
husband was not a proper member.
She had seen Mr. Davey about the register. He got his information from
her daughter, who had told him
the truth. Her daughter gave him the date of the day on which he died,
which was the 28th of February
last; she gave the name of Joseph Hopper. He was 67 years of age. She
believed the cause of his death
was stated to be dropsy and asthma. He had never had any attack of
dropsy till within two months before
his death.
Cross-examined by Mr. Walker:— Was living at Westgate, in Kerby’s Lane,
at tbe time of her husband’s
death; and she did not know that he had been a member of this society
until eight days afterwards, when
Mr. Bullinger sent for her to his house. But he did not even then tell
her what club her husband was in;
neither did be tell her the amount of money which would be due to them.
The secretary said, that if a
certificate of death was produced, he would give her the money. Mr.
Bullinger did not tell her, when he saw
her in the morning, that he had made a previous application to the club
on her behalf. He did not tell her
that when he had applied to the society they had refused to pay the
money, but he said it was necessary to
get a certificate. She never applied for it herself, but her son-in-law
did. She had never herself sent notice
to the club of his death. He died and was buried in Westgate, and her
son-in-law paid the expenses of the
funeral. Previously to her going to the society Mr. Bullinger had told
her that the secretary would not pay
anything without the widow applying with him. This was the 28th of
March. Her husband died on the
Monday, and was buried on the following Sunday. She had made no
application for the money, except
what she made jointly with Mr. Bullinger. Her son-in-law, George Green,
employed as attorney by her
direction.
By the Court, at the request of Mr. Sandys and Mr. Walker:— A month
before last Whitsuntide she had
authorised Bullinger to put her husband in a burial club, and he
afterwards told her he had done so. He
had been at work some tide before his death.
A discussion on several points of law between the opposing attorneys
here took place, the attorney for the
defendants arguing that there could be no real agency in this case, for
Mr. Bullinger was an interested
party; and, besides, Mrs. Hopper did not know that her husband had been
a member till after his death.
Stephen Marsh, examined by Mr. Chipperfield, deposed, that he lived in
the parish of St. Mary, Northgate.
He knew Samuel Steed, the defendant, who was the secretary of the
society. He knew that Samuel Hopper
was enrolled a member of the society on the 16th day of November, 1847.
George Green, examined by Mr. Chipperfield:— He is a labourer; the
deceased, Joseph Hopper, was his
father-in-law. When he first heard the money was refused, he thought it
curious they should entertain the
claim for three weeks, and refuse it afterwards. He called on them on
the 29th of March, the day after the
claim was refused. He went to the president, at his house in Union
Street, and asked him why the money
was refused; and he said he did not know. He said he believed it was on
account of the state of his health.
He then produced the certificate of his health from Mr. Cooper. The
president told him he was very sorry
the money was refused, which it would not have been if they had been in
the position which they ought to
be. He stated that they ought to be in a condition to pay two or three
debts to get out of trouble, but it was
necessary to make a quibble to set all right, and they might as well go
before the magistrates first as last.
They had repeatedly asked Mr. Steed to come and settle with them, but he
would never bring the books.
He knew Hopper very well; he worked when he could get work to do. He was
old and infirm, but before
Christmas he was in as good a state of health as he ever was before.
Under such circumstances they are
received into burial clubs. He died of dropsy, and not of asthma.
Cross-examined by Mr. Walker:— He knew Hopper about 14 or 15 years ago.
Could not recollect when he
first had the asthma, or when he first noticed it. He had been a failing
man ever since be knew him. He
once broke his leg, and never did any hard labour after that; he was not
fit to do a hard day's work in
consequence. He had heard that he received parochial relief, and also
medical relief two or three weeks
before his death.
William Bullinger examined:— He deposed that he knew deceased, and that
he had been a member of the
Good Intent Burial Society. He also knew Mr. Steed, the secretary of
that society. He had a conversation
with Mrs. Hopper, and she authorised him to put her husband it the club.
he then spoke to Mr. Steed about
getting him in the club. He was to receive the usual remuneration for
his trouble; could not say how much
that was. He had paid 19s. 6d. for previous costs, and no agreement had
been entered into for
remuneration for his trouble.
By Mr. Chipperfield:- Before he saw Steed he had a conversation with
Mrs. Hooper, and she authorised him
to put her husband in the club.
By Mr. Sandys:- It was for the benefit of Hopper's family that he put
his name down. He himself was also to
be remunerated for his trouble, but he had never made any particular
statement as to the sum he should
receive; that would depend upon how the parties afterwards agreed. I
fact, the amount was to be settled
between Mrs. Hopper and himself.
A letter was here produced in the hand-writing of Mr. Bullinger, setting
forth his claim upon the club for the
money. He said he did not think they would be as stringent in acting up
to the rules, after the expense
which he had been put to!
Cross examination resumed:— He had never read the rules; but he might
have just cast his eye over them!
He thought Mrs. Hopper was present when the certificate was read, but he
was not sure. He sometimes
saw Hooper two or three times a week, but he had not been in the habit
of conversing with him; he was
not a member of the club himself.
The Attorney for the Plaintiff here contended that the insurance was
void from its illegality. It was not a legal
one, inasmuch as the agent for the plaintiff had not a pecuniary
interest in the life of the deceased.
The Court then adjourned until ten the next day (Tuesday).
SECOND DAY.
The proceedings re-commenced at ten o'clock in the morning. Mr. Walker
was prevented by other
professional engagements from attending, and Mr. Sandys addressed the
Court on behalf of the defendants.
He took his stand upon the informality and illegality of the insurance
presented to the Court. It was entirely a
gambling speculation, and had been effected contrary to the regulations
of different acts of Parliament, and there was no legal evidence of the insurance. The
policy was also void on another point,
for it had been effected by fraud, inasmuch as the party was not in a
good state of health when he was
admitted a member of the club, which was contrary to the rules of the
society. No money could therefore
be recovered, in point or law, because it was attended with an illegal
consideration. His learned friend had
not called any medical man to prove the health of Mr. Hopper, he knew
better than to do that; but a man
who claims money at his hands is bound to prove that he it entitled to
receive it.
The chief magistrate here observed that be thought it was very evident
that the third rule decided the case.
Mr. Sandys said there was no evidence of the insurance having been
effected at all; for that would depend upon the interpretation of the acts of Parliament of the 9th and 10th
Victoria, passed in July, 1846, for the
regulation of clubs. The certificate was to the effect that Joseph
Hopper had been admitted a member on
the 16th of November. Now, the question was whether he had been a
legally enrolled member or not! For
he had never expressed a wish to be a member. The widow said in evidence
that her husband never knew
he had been a member; neither was she herself aware of the circumstance
until after his death! His learned
friend must see the weakness of his case; for he well knew that Hopper
had never paid a single penny to
the funds of this society. The evidence of the widow’s son-in-law, Mr.
Green, was also exceedingly
important. He said, he believed him to have been a little asthmatical,
and moreover that he had been a
failing man ever since he knew him. Now, here was a man afflicted with
an incurable disorder, and
consequently could not have been in good bodily health a few months ago,
after having been ill so many
years. The fifth rule had not been complied with, for either the
representation was false or there had not
been one; and in either case would fail. Now he claims to be a member
under the 6th class; and he is
either a member under that class or he is no member at all. A man of 67
years of age must be enrolled in
the fourth class; but the 6th class represents a man between 75 and 80,
and therefore he cannot claim on
that certificate. The learned council then severely animadverted upon
the conduct of Mr. Bullinger and said
that in the event of his obtaining the £20, he would have kept £19 19s.
6d. in his pocket, and would have
given the widow the rest. He denounced the affair; and submitted that
the insurance could not be a valid
one inasmuch as the agent had no interest in the life of the person
insured.
George Crowe, a publican, Westeate Without, was then examined by Mr.
Sandys. His deposition went to
prove the continual ill health of Hopper. To his knowledge he had
laboured under severe illness from
asthms during the last three years and a half, and during the hot
weather of last summer he could not lie in
bed.
Mr. Bodkin was then examined, who deposed to the same effect as the last
witness.
Mr. Cooper examined:— He is medical officer to the Canterbury Workhouse.
He deposed that he had
attended the deceased on several occasions, and gave it as his opinion
that asthma seldom shortened life,
although it was a formidable disorder. He also attended him in February
last. Dropsy was the immediate
cause of death, accelerated by pre-disposition to asthmatical affection.
Mr. Steed, the secretary, underwent an examination by Mr. Sandy, and Mr.
Chipperfield. His evidence
afforded a very convincing proof of the incorrect end discreditable way
in which the business of some clubs
is managed. It appeared that Bullinger was employed by him to procure
members for the the. Nothing very
material, however, was elicited from his evidence, except an expose of a
letter in his hand-writing,
recommending the enrolment on the club books of several old people above
75 and 80 years of age, one of
whom was an infirm old lady.
Mr. Chipperfield then rose; he said, that he was rather surprised at the
inconsistency of his trained friend in
affecting so much virtuous indignation of the conduct of Bullinger, in
so severely animadverting upon his
evidence, and in exercising such calm equanimity when his own witness,
the Secretary of the Society, was
examined, and especially after the very creditable disclosures made by
him. But he would beg to call the
attention of the Court to the following considerations in reply to some
of his learned friend's observations. In
the first place there could be no question that Hopper had been a bona
fide member of the Society,
because he had been accepted by the Secretary, and duly enrolled as a
member, having previously
received a certificate of health from a medical man who had but recently
attended him. Mr. Bullinger also
was his agent, and had paid the money for him out of his own pocket.
With regard to the question of
health, he had the authority of a medical gentleman for stating that
although asthma was a formidable
disease, yet it does not materially shorten life; and during its
intervals a man may be in tolerable health. The
learned gentleman here quoted several precedents in the celebrated Lord
Mansfield's decisions, who had
given judgments in favour of the plaintiffs in questions connected with
the insurance of lives. His learned
friend, the counsel for the defendants, had been occupied for a number
of hours in cross-examining the
witnesses, which he had done with great prolixity, and almost unexampled
minuteness of detail, combined
with great talent and skill; consequently he found himself placed in a
very disadvantageous position, being
under the necessity of replying seriatim to so many points advanced by
his learned friend, at this very late
hour. Under these circumstances he requested that the Court would
consent to a further adjournment of
the case till the following day.
The Magistrates replied that the Court could not consent to a further
adjournment; for the proceedings had
already occupied the greater portion of two days; and the principal aim
of the advocates seemed to be, in
their cross-examinations, to expose the proceedings connected with those
societies, instead of eliciting only
sufficient evidence for the settlement of the case.
The Magistrates then withdrew, and on their return decided that,
according to Act of Parliament 14 Geo.
III, cap. 48, the insurance was not valid, because the party effecting
the insurance had no interest in
Hopper’s life; beside, it was evident that neither Hopper nor his wife
knew anything about the affair; and it
was considered to be a gambling affair altogether. The information was
therefore dismissed. They regretted
to see the way in which these societies were conducted; and ordered each
party to pay its own costs.
|
Kentish Gazette, 16 May 1854.
Coroner's Inquest.
An inquest was held on Friday last, before Mr. Delasaux at the "Good
Intent," Ville of St. Gregory, on the body of Louisa Marsh, whose death
was produced partly from suffocation.
The mother of the child said that on the evening previous she put the
deceased to bed at about nine, in good health—that she saw her again at
ten equally well—but that at eleven o'clock, when she again entered the
room, she found the child lying on her face evidently very ill.
From the evidence of the surgeon it appears the child was suffering from
congestion of the lungs.
A verdict was returned that "Death was caused from apoplexy of the
lungs, produced partially by suffocation."
|
Kentish Gazette, 10 March 1857.
CANTERBURY POLICE COURT.
Wednesday. Disturbance by the Military.
Six gunners in the Royal Horse Artillery — Thomas Angel, Thomas
Fagg, Christopher Somerville, Richard Neilley, Chas. Owen, and John
M’Kenley, were charged with having wilfully broken some panes of
glass at the "Good Intent," in Artillery-street.
Elizabeth Marsh, the landlady, stated that on Monday evening about
eight o'clock, the defendants came to her house; and that Fagg
shortly after ignited some powder. They left for barracks half an
hour afterwards, and returned about 10, and remained drinking till
near 12, when she requested them to leave, as she wanted to close
the house. Owen then took a bonnet and cloak from the bar, which she
had not seen since; and Apgel broke seven panes of glass in the bar,
thereby doing damage to the extent of 5s. 3d. Somerville at the time
urged him on by saying "Go it." Neilley offered to pay 7s. 6d. for
the damage done, but she said she would wait till the morning, to
ascertain the charge for putting in the panes. In answer to Fagg,
witness said she did not know that Fagg was there the second time.
She knew he was the man who had the powder.
Mary Marsh, sister of the last witness, corroborated her statement,
and identified the whole of the parties engaged in the destruction —
they not being sober at the time. Owen threatened in the earlier
part of the evening that he would break the windows.
The Bench released all but Angel, who pleaded guilty to the charge,
and he was ordered to pay the amount of damage, and 7s. costs, or in
default to stand committed for fourteen days’ imprisonment. He said
he would pay the money.
As Mrs. Marsh did not press the charge about the bonnet and cloak,
Owen was acquitted on that also; but the bench gave him with the
others a little expostulation; with reference especially to the
first offence of letting oil gunpowder in the house.
The Major of the troop then came forward, and in palliation of the
conduct of the men, spoke of the public house as being disreputably
conducted, and that he blamed the men for going there. No doubt the
damage alleged had been occasioned, but he believed that the nun
when going there had temptations in their way through the number of
improper characters harboured there. As Major of the troop of course
he was much annoyed at the conduct of the men, though he wished to
show it was not altogether their fault.
Inspector Spratt stated that the fault lay with the men and not the
house. There were no prostitutes kept in the house, and if any ever
were there they were taken by the soldiery. And as a sample of the
disposition of one (Somerville) he had thrown the landlady of the
"Ben Jonson" down stairs and very much injured her.
The Major thought the implication should not rest on his regiment
alone, for men of all regiments went to the house — much to their
disadvantage.
|
From the Kentish Gazette, 2 June 1857.
CANTERBURY POLICE COURT.
An Infuriated Soldier.
Alexander Wilkie, a respectable and apparently inoffensive man, a
private in the 2nd Dragoons, was brought up on a charge of violent
conduct and breaking a door at the "Good latent," in Artillery
street. He had been drinking in the house, and had fallen into a
doze; and when roused for the purpose of closing the house, he
behaved in a most violent manner, smashing everything about him, and
among them the landlord his door, for the damage occasioned to which
was ordered to pay 8s. 10d. expenses, or stand committed to prison
for a week.
|
South Eastern Gazette, 25 September, 1860.
Inquest.
On Friday evening last, T. T. Delesaux, Esq, held an inquest at the
"Good Intent," Artillery-street, in the ville of St. Radigand's, on
the body at Fanny Bractwell, who had been found dead in her bed
early that morning.
Sarah, the wife of William Potter, pork butcher, was the first
witness called. She stated that the deceased resided in the same
house with her, and slept in the adjoining room. Witness saw the
deceased at about half-past eight the previous evening, when she was
apparently quite well. She went to bed about twenty minutes before
ten, and did not hear anything of the deceased during the night.
About half-past eight on Friday morning witness knocked at her door,
and not receiving any answer, she opened the door, and there found
the deceased lying on the side of her bed, with her head hanging
down, and quite dead. The deceased was subject to fits, and witness
had seen her in one about four years since.
William Potter, the husband, gave similar testimony, adding that as
soon to the discovery took place he ran to the doctor.
Mr. Thomas Sankey Cooper, surgeon, said the deceased had been dead
two or three hours when he saw her. He was of opinion that she died
from apoplexy.
Verdict:- "Natural death."
|
From the Kentish Chronicle and General Advertiser, 18 January, 1862. Price 1 1/2d.
WEDNESDAY. STEALING BEEF.
Patrick Feely and John Brennan, privates in the 8th Hussars, were
charged with stealing 42lbs. of beef, the properly of James Dixon.
James Dixon:— I am a butcher, living in Northgate-street. The leg of beef
produced is my property; I can swear to it, because it has a piece cut
off, and which was done by myself on Sunday morning last. The value of
the beef produced is about 26s. I did not miss the beef till I was asked
by the policeman on Monday night whether I had lost anything. I last saw
it safe about ten o'clock on that night.
Andrew Kennedy:— I am a draper's assistant, and live in Union-street.
About half-past ten on Monday night,
I was coming up Albion place, Broad-street, when I saw two soldiers with
what I thought was a large bundle. I met a boy named Ratcliffe, and as I
thought all was not right, I told him what I had seen. I had previously
seen the soldier throw the bundle into a garden. I then went home, and
come out again directly. I then ran round Artillery-street, and went
into Albion-place again. When I got there, I met Ratcliffe, who had his
brother with him. I also passed one soldier at the top of Albion-place.
It was the prisoner Brennan. No one was with him then. When we were
together I told the Ratcliffes where I saw the soldiers throw the
bundle.
I believe the prisoners are the men I saw first with the bundle; but I
will not swear that they are. I then went and looked in the garden, and
saw the meat. The prisoner Brennan was standing about four yards away
from the meat. I went and gave information to P.C. Alderton.
Mr. Austin:— Was the meat deposited in the garden not wrapped up.
Witness:— Yes, sir.
By Brennan:— I saw you first at the top of Albion- place. There was no
one with you. You had no girls with you.
Arthur Marsh:— I am the landlord of the “Good Intent.” From what my
daughter told me, about half past ten or a quarter to eleven, I went to
go down the passage called Albion-place, lending to my garden. The two
prisoners were then coming up the passage. I went back into my house,
and the prisoners were then in my tap room. I put my hat on to go down
to the garden with a man named Waterman, and found the piece of beef
produced. While we were there I heard some soldiers at the top of the
passage say, “Go down and take it away from him.” They used very bad
language. When we had found the beef I said to Warman, “You collar the
beef, and if anyone attempts to interfere I will knock them down, so I
will go in front.” When we got to the top of the passage the prisoners
were there. They then had an artilleryman and some girls with them. I
went indoors with the beef, and the prisoners came in, and Feely said,
“What are you going to do with the beef?” I said, “Find an owner for
it.” They then said, “Eat it up and make it right with us,” or something
to that effect. I cannot swear that they were the very words they used.
I replied, “It is not yours to give me.” They then said, “Give it to
us,” and I replied, “It is not mine to give you, more then it is yours
to give me.” It appears to me as if some one has put it in the garden,
and the question is, who put it there?” They then began to crowd a about
the door, and I said, “It seems to me that somebody knows about it, and
is gone for a policeman.
They then left my house, and ran up Artillery street as quickly as they
could. I gave the beef into the hands of the police.
The Mayor:— Do I understand you that you saw them in your house before
you went into the garden?
Witness:— Yes, Sir.
Cross-examined by Brennan:- I met you at the corner.
Rosa Sophia Marsh, aged eleven:— I was going to a shop on Monday night,
about half-past ten or a quartet to eleven o’clock, when I saw the two
prisoners go down Albion-place with a 1arge bundle. I thought they had
committed something wrong, so I went back and told my father. I then
went to the shop, and on my return they were in the tap-room, I know
Feely by his hair being cut so short, and I know the other prisoner by
his curly hair.
By the Bench:— It was a moonlight night, and as they hurried by me I
took particular notice of the prisoners’ hair.
The Bench doubted whether the nature of the prisoners’ hair could he
seen when their caps were on. They were therefore ordered to put their
caps on, which they did, and the hair of each could be distinctly seen.
The Bench being satisfied that she could only see the hair by passing on
the left-hand side of them, ordered the prisoners to take their caps
off, and asked the witness on which side she passed them, to which she
answered. “They passed me on this side,” pointing to her right arm.”
_____ Ratcliffe:- On Monday evening I saw the prisoner Feely standing
about four yards away from the meat.
Mr. Austin:- Why, this witness, instead of confirming what Kennedy told
us, tells us that it was Feely who stood near the meat.
The Superintendent of Police here asked for a remand till tomorrow.
The magistrates, after a few minutes consultation, discharged both
prisoners, telling them that if any fresh evidence can be brought
against them, they are liable to be brought up again.
|
LICENSEE LIST
COOPER James 1838+
AIANO Charles Sept/1845-47+
COOMBS John 1851+ (also coal merchant age 36 in 1851)
MARSH Arthur 1855-62+
PINCHES H 1867+
JONES Cornelius 1871+ (age 39 in 1871)
https://pubwiki.co.uk/GoodIntent.shtml
Stapleton's
Guide 1838
From Bagshaw Directory 1847
From the Post Office Directory 1855
From Melville's Directory 1858
From the Post Office Directory 1862
Census
|