From the Deal, Walmer, and Sandwich Mercury,
19 October, 1872. 1d.
A BATCH OF DRUNKARDS
Thomas Tandy, labourer, was summoned by the Superintendent for being
drunk and riotous in the street a little after midnight on Saturday
last. Defendant pleaded guilty. Supt. Parker stated he was round
visiting the men after midnight on Saturday last, and P.C. Pettet
reported to him that there had been a disturbance at the top of Queen
Street, but that he had dispersed the men. Whilst talking to the
constable he heard a noise along West Street, and on proceeding there he
found the defendant outside Mr. Hogben's, with only his trousers on.
There was another man by the name of Wratten with him. He (the Supt.)
asked defendant what was the matter, and he said he wanted to fight - he
had been imposed upon, and he would fight with someone. The man Wratten
wanted to get defendant home, but he started him off, and presently
defendant's mother came and wanted to get her son home, but as the
latter appeared disposed to go quietly with her he allowed him to do so.
Defendant said he was so drunk he did not know what he had done.
After a consultation, the Mayor said the Magistrates would not
convict the defendant as he had pleaded guilty, and went home quietly
with his mother when the police requested him to. He would therefore be
let off this time upon payment of the costs, 6s. 6d.
The money was paid.
Thomas Wratten was then charged with being drunk and riotous in the
public streets on Sunday afternoon. Defendant pleaded guilty.
P.C. Dixon said he was on duty last Sunday afternoon seeing that the
public-houses were closed, and went to the "Hare and Hounds" about 20
minutes to three, and found several men inside standing at the bar. He
saw no beer in front of them, however, and they all went out of the
house as soon as he spoke to them, with the exception of the defendant,
who was drunk, and wanted to fight with a man named Williams.
The Clerk said the Superintendent had wanted to summons the landlord
of the "Hare and Hounds" also, but he (the Clerk) had thought the time
at which the constable visited the house was as near to the time of
closing that the difference might very easily be occasioned by the
variation in the clocks - Mr. Grant, the landlord, said the men all
turned out of the tap-room at half-past two, and he did not draw them
anything after, although some of them almost offered him a shilling for
a glass of beer. After they got out of the tap-room they stood at the
bar and presently someone said, "Here comes a constable," to which he
replied, "good job too, for you will go for him, perhaps." He never
served Wratten with a spoonful of beer, as he was drunk, and he also
ordered the other men not to let him have any.
Defendant who said he had a wife and family, promised that it should
not occur again.
The mayor said he though the defendant might find a better way of
spending his money than at a public house - in all these cases it was
the wife and children who suffered.
The Magistrates having conferred together, the Mayor said they were
of opinion that a distinction ought to be made in this and the previous
case, and as the defendant Wratten had committed a greater offence than
the other defendant he would be fined 10s., including costs, or in
default would have to go to prison for seven days' hard labour.
A friend being found, the money was soon paid.
Edward Drury, another labourer, was summoned for being drunk on
the same afternoon, and was in fact found in the above public-house by
P.C. Dixon. This defendant, it appeared, had been working during the
morning at the tank for the new gasometer (Sunday work being
necessitated on account of the water getting into the works.) He had a
pint or two of beer during the morning on the works, and after he left
he went to the "Hare and Hounds" where he had one more pint. The
constable stated he was vary quiet, but as he went through the street
rolling just as people were going to church, he thought it his duty to
report him.
Defendant said he was not very drunk, and attributed the reeling
principally to a weakness in one of his legs.
In answer to the Magistrates, Mr. Grant said the man appeared to be
perfectly sober when he came into the house with his workmates, and he
only had one pint of beer in his house.
The Magistrates took a lenient view of the case, and let the
defendant off upon payment of the costs, 4s. 6d.
The bench further said it appeared the landlord had done all he could
to conduct his house properly, but it could not be too generally known
that the police had strict orders to see that all houses were properly
closed, and that any landlord found guilty of serving an intoxicated
person with drink would be punished.
|