From the Dover Express and East Kent Intelligencer, 9 April, 1864.

PROSECUTION OF BROTHEL KEEPER

Henry Amos, the landlord of the "Little Lord Warden beershop, Union Street, appeared in answer to a summons charging him with having on the 31st ult., unlawfully and knowingly suffered common prostitutes to assemble and continue upon his premises, contrary to the statute.

Mr. J. Minter, solicitor, appeared for the defendant, who on Friday last was fined £3 and costs, for opening his house during the prohibited hours.

Sergeant Geddes said: At twenty-five minutes past seven o'clock on Wednesday evening I went to the house kept by the defendant, and there saw, sitting in the tap room, ten soldiers, six sailors, and three prostitutes. I cautioned the landlord that the girls were prostitutes, and told him that if I found him harbouring them I should have to report him. At eight o'clock the same evening, I again visited the house, and then found the same three prostitutes present, with other soldiers. I told the landlord I should report him; upon which the landlady abused me.

By Mr. Minter: I know the girls in question to be prostitutes from having seen them about the town at all hours of the night, and with different men.

Police-constable Camps corroborated the evidence of the last witness.

Mr. Minter, in addressing the Court for the defence, said this case, in his opinion, aught never to have been brought; and in support of that opinion he thought he might refer with some contidence to a recent decision of the Banch. They would remember that a short time ago the landlord of a public-house in town was charged with assaulting a prostitute by turning her out of his house, and the principle then enunciated by the Bench was that prostitutes had an equal right with other persons to go into a public house for refreshment, and that the landlord or any other person had not the power to eject them. That was the dictim distinctly laid down by the Bench on that occasion. Now, if that was the correct interpretation of the law - and he apprehended it was - there had certainly been no offence committed by the defendant in the present case, because the evidence of the prosecution itself went to show that the girls were in the house only half an hour, no very unreasonable time, certainly, for them to obtain refreshment, even supposing them for a moment to be prostitutes. Further, they had no evidence that the girls were misconducting themselves in any way; there were no disorderly proceedings going on, - indeed the only evidence was that the girls were in the house for half an hour for the purpose of taking refreshment; and he submitted, that in the face of the previous decision of the Bench, the magistrates ought not to convict the defendant.

Mr. Stride said he could not see why the decision of a previous Bench should be held binding upon them.

Mr. Minter submitted, however, that if the decision of a previous Bench were correct in according to law, it was binding on them. He then proceeded to say that he was provided with several witnesses, but as he did not wish to take up the time of the Bench unnecessarily he would not call upon them unless the magistrates thought it necessary. He submitted that any evidence for the defence was unnecessary, inasmuch as the summons ought to be dismissed on the point he had raised.

The Bench though it would be better for Mr. Minter t complete his case.

Ester Andrews, one of the women spoken to by the police as being in the defendant's house on the occasion in question was then called by Mr. Minter. She said she was a domestic servant to the defendant. She remembered the police coming into her master's house. She was sitting in the tap-room in which hey generally lived, with another servant and her mistress's cousin. She would swear she was not a prostitute, though she had been.

Mr. Minter, in reply to an observation from the Magistrate's Clerk, submitted that it was not what the girl had been but what she was now.

The Bench, having deliberated with closed doors for a few minutes, decided that the charge had been sufficiently made out and fined the defendant 20s. and13s. costs. Mr. Minter, the Mayor said, was quite right in regards to the decision of the Bench in the case quoted; but in the present case the defendant allowed the girls to remain in his house after being cautioned by the police.

William Bryce, the landlord of the "Railway Tavern," Beach Street, was similarly charged.

From the Dover Express and East Kent Intelligencer, 1 February, 1867. Price 1d.

A LADIES' QUARREL

Ann Stiff was charged, on the information of Susan North, with assaulting and beating her on the 25th inst.

Complainant deposed that of Friday evening about half-past eleven o'clock, she was at the "Little Lord Warden," in Snargate Street. Defendant was also there, and struck her (complainant) without any provocation whatsoever. Defendant also made use of very abusive language.

By the Clerk: She struck me in the mouth, There were not many persons in the public-house at the time.

Christopher Evans, seaman, stated that he was also in the "Little Lord Warden" last Friday night, and saw the two females there, Stiff struck the complainant in the breast. She only struck her once.

Defendant had nothing to say in defence, and the Magistrates fined her 1s., and 10s. costs. The money was paid.