Dover Express 01 June 1866.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.

May 30. - Before Sir J. P. Wilde.

McDonald v McDonald.

In this case the wife petitioned for a dissolution of her marriage, on the ground of the cruelty and adultery of her husband.

Mr. Sergeant Perry and Mr. Searle were for the petitioner; there was no appearance for the respondent.

The petitioner was married to the respondent in September, 1861. She was at the time, and apparently is still, the landlady of the "Lord Warden Inn," Dover, having been previously married to Mr. Taylor, the landlord of that establishment. Soon after the marriage the respondent commenced to ill-treat and abuse his wife, striking her with his fists, and with such violence that she was often laid up for days. They had a concert-room in connection with the inn, and in 1864 respondent formed a criminal connection with a girl of the name of Rosette Harrison, a singer employed there, and with whom he went out to Australia in the ship Golden Age, in October, 1864. They went out together in that vessel as man and wife.

These facts having been proved, the Court pronounced a decree nisi, with costs.

From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 19 October, 1866. Price 1d.

REMANDED CHARGE OF FELONY.

James Chisholm, a private of the 70th Regiment, was charged on remand with stealing a coat, the property of Lieut. Howard, an officer of the same regiment.

Lieut. Pearson said the coat produced was the property of Lieut. Howard, who was too ill to be present. He borrowed the coat of Lieut. Howard and left it at Corporal Wright's quarters, at the Western Heights. He did not see it again till he saw it at the police-station.

Corporal Alexander Wright said the prisoner had acted as his servant. He remembered seeing the coat produced at his quarters, where it was left by Lieut. Pearson. The prisoner, as his servant, had access to his rooms at all times. There were two keys to the rooms. He (witness) kept one, and the prisoner kept the other.

The prisoner, on being asked if he had any questions to put to Captain Wright, desired that the captain might be questioned as to his (prisoner's) character.

Captain Wright said he had found him a good servant, and had never known him to be guilty of any act of dishonesty before. The prisoner also bore a good character as a soldier.

The evidence previously adduced went to show that the prisoner sold the coat to John Albert Taylor, son of the landlady of the "Lord Warden Inn," for the sum of 12s. The value of the coat was considered to be £1. Since the prisoner had been in custody he had admitted his guilt.

John Bailey examined: I am a police-sergeant in the Dover force. In consequence of information I received I went to the "Lord Warden," in Snargate Street, on Friday, October 5th, at about half-past nine, and there saw the witness Taylor, and received from him the coat produced. I then proceeded to the Western Heights, accompanied by the witness Taylor. I found the prisoner under arrest, and Taylor said in prisoner's presence that he (prisoner) was the man from whom he had bought the coat. Prisoner made no answer then, neither when he was handed to the police on Sunday, the 7th. The coat is worth about £1.

The prisoner now pleaded guilty to the charge.

Captain Wright said he hoped the Bench would deal as leniently with the prisoner as possible.

The Magistrates, taking into consideration the good character given to the prisoner and Captain Wright's recommendation, sentenced him the mitigate punishment of one month's imprisonment, with hard labour.

From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 25 January, 1867.

A TERRIFIED HUSBAND

Elizabeth Broadley, the wife of Mr. Thomas Broadley, of Hubert Terrace, upon whose application the Magistrates had on the previous day issued a warrant for the prisoner's apprehension, was placed at the bar in custody of Police-constable Geddes, and called upon to show cause why she should not be bound over to keep the peace towards her husband, who, as he had alleged, went in bodily fear of her.

Mr. Broadley was not in attendance on the case being called on.

The police, in reply to the Magistrates, said they did not know where to find Mr. Broadley. He was not staying in his own house, and from what they had heard they believed he was lodging at the "Lord Warden," a public-house opposite the Grand Shaft.

The Mayor said, that Mr. Broadley's solicitor (Mr. Elwin) had better be communicated with, as he might know where to find his client, and the case had better stand by for half-an-hour.

This was done; and at the end of the time stated Mrs. Broadley was again placed at the bar. There was still no one in attendance to press any charge against her, and the Magistrates therefore discharged her from custody.

Just as she had quitted the dock Mr. Elwin walked into the Court, and informed the Magistrates that sufficient time had not been allowed to find Mr. Broadley.

 The Mayor informed him that Mrs. Broadley had been discharged from custody. It was Mr. Broadley's duty, he had intended to prefer a charge against his wife, to be in attendance, as he was informed, on the previous day, that the warrant would be returnable that (Saturday) morning.

Mr. Elwin said he did not understand this.

The Mayor said it was so; and as Mr. Broadley was not in attendance they had discharged his wife.

Mr. Elwin: Then Mr. Broadley, if he desires, must apply for a fresh warrant.

From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 19 June, 1868.

INFRINGEMENT OF LICENSE.

Walter James Birley, landlord of the "Lord Warden" public-house, Snargate Street, was summoned for having unlawfully and knowingly suffered disorderly persons to assemble in his house, contrary to the terms of his license.

Mr. Fox appeared for the defendant, who pleaded not guilty to the information.

At the request of Mr. Fox, the witnesses were ordered out of Court.

Sergeant Stevens said he visited the "Lord Warden" public-house on the evening of the 10th inst., about ten o'clock. He was accompanied by police-constable Bowles and Swaine. On entering the house he proceeded to a concert-room situated at the back part of it, where he saw nine women seven of whom he knew to be common prostitutes. There were almost fifteen men in the room, soldiers and civilians. There was music and dancing. He called the landlord aside, and asked hi if he was aware of the character of some of the women in the concert-rooms. He said he was not, when witness informed him that he had at least seven prostitutes there, remarking at the same time that the assemble of such persons in his house was forbidden by his license. The defendant rejoined that there were plenty of other houses in town in which women of that class were allowed to assemble. Witness remarked that a landlord was allowed to supply such persons with refreshment, but was forbidden to harbour them in the house. The landlord made no attempt to remove the women, and witness then left the house. He again visited it, accompanied by the same constables as before, shortly after eleven o'clock, and he again found seven prostitutes in the same room, six out of the seven being the same he had seen upon his first visit. He again drew the landlord's attention to the fact, and he then said that if witness would point out the prostitutes to him he would have them removed. Witness replied that he could not possibly make any mistake, as all the women then in the room were of improper character. Two or three of the women left while witness was in the house, but the others remained, and the music and dancing were still going on.

By Mr. Fox: The parties were partaking of refreshment on both occasions. The landlord did not ask me to point the women out on the first visit; not till the second. The landlord's father was present on both occasions, but he did not ask me to point them out. It is possible that either the father or the son remarked that they were strangers in Dover, and did not know people.

Mr. Fox: I believe you were good enough to expound the law to them, and to tell them what was lawful and what was unlawful?

Witness: I told them what I have already stated, that they were permitted to serve women of this class, but not to harbour them in the house.

Mr. Fox: Was anything said about other houses?

Witness: Yes, the landlord and his father both said there were plenty of other houses in the town where prostitutes might be found.

Mr. Fox: I suppose you don't know anything about them?

Witness: I visited this house in consequence of complaints.

Mr. Fox: be good enough to tell me by whom the complaints were made?

Witness: I do not think I can.

Mr. Fox: You refuse?

Witness; Yes.

Mr. Fox: Then I must ask the Magistrates whether you are not bound to answer the question. If you do not answer it, I must put my own construction on your silence.

The Magistrates, after a short consultation, said they did not think the witness was bound to answer the question put by Mr. Fox.

Mr. Fox said he was bound to submit to the decision of the Bench, but he considered the circumstances a very unusual one. He would not ask, then, who had made the complaint, but he thought he might venture to enquire if the person lived within a hundred yards of the defendant's house.

The witness said he had received complaints from more than one person.

Cross-examination continued: I have no reason to believe that women of improper character are kept in the house. The landlord's father told me that only persons who conducted themselves properly were allowed to remain in the house, and that he had had occasion to turn out some who had misconducted themselves. Some of the women live in a brothel next to the "Lord Warden," on the Commercial Quay side, and the keeper of the brothel was the fiddler on this occasion. I saw no improper conduct on the part of any person present, and there is no complaint on that score. The present defendant has held the license about three months.

By the Bench: My attention has been directed to the "Lord Warden" previously on account of disorderly conduct.

The evidence of Swain and Bowley was corroborative of Sergeant Stevens's in all important particulars. Both the constables were cross-examined at great length by Mr. Fox, but no different complexion was put upon the more material facts.

Mr. Fox then addressed the Bench for the defendant, observing that he trusted to prove to the Bench that there was considerable doubt whether the defendant in this case had fallen within the terms of the information. If he should succeed in doing so he had no doubt the Magistrates would consider the defendant entitled to the benefit of such doubt. He should show that when the police visited the house on the first occasion the father of the defendant expressed his regret that any persons of doubtful character should be found in the house, at the same time observing that both he and his son were strangers to the town, and therefore were unable to distinguish persons of indifferent character. The defendant's mouth was closed, but his father would declare that the women went away, and although some of them were found in the house upon the second visit of the police, there was no evidence to show that they did not go away, and re-enter without the knowledge of the defendant. But whether the Bench should be satisfied that they went away, or not, was to certain extent immaterial, for the defendant was charged with knowingly allowing these persons to assemble. Of course the landlord was bound to serve whatever customers might present themselves, and they were entitled to claim a reasonable period in which to consume their refreshment, and the Bench therefore in dealing with such a case would give a fair construction to the term "assemble." He should submit that an hour was not an unreasonable time for persons to remain in a house of public resort for purposes of refreshment; and all that the police relied upon was the fact of the persons being there. There was no complaint of improper behaviour, nor was there any allegations that the house itself was used for any disreputable purposes. The truth was that Mr. Birley had a cantankerous neighbour who disapproved of the dancing, and who had complained to the police on this ground and not at all in the interests of morality. But dancing was no offence, and the defendant was not summoned for permitting this pastime to take place. He was summoned because females of indifferent character were found taking refreshment in his house. But if this was the only point of complaint, how many other houses might be made the subjects of an information? He asked the Bench to deal with this case broadly, and to gibe the defendant the benefit to which he was entitled from the honest desire he had displayed to carry out the terms of his license.

Mr. Fox then called Joseph Henry Birley, father of the defendant, who said he was present when the police came in on the night in question. What had been called a concert-room was in reality a bar entered from the Commercial Quay side of the house. On coming in at the Snargate Street entrance the police went into two or three rooms, but found no one in them, and they then proceeded to No. 2 bar, where there were several women present. Stevens said seven of them were prostituted, and on witness telling him that he and his son were strangers, and on requesting him to point them out, Stevens refused.  Ten women were then assembled, and he (witness) was satisfied that five out of the ten were respectable. The women left shortly after the police quitted the house, and if they were found there afterwards they must have come in again.

before leaving the witness-box, the witness put in some certificates to character in respect both to himself and his son.

The Magistrates said they believed the defendant was known to be of good character before taking the "Lord Warden," and but for his circumstances the Bench would have dealt with the case in a very different manner to that which they proposed to adopt. The Magistrates had no doubt that the license had been infringed, but it appeared to them that the defendant had unknowingly fallen into error, and he would therefore be dealt with leniently. He would be fined in the mitigating penalty of 10s., and the costs.

From the Dover Express and East Kent Intelligencer, 11 September, 1868.

THE ANNUAL LICENSING DAY

THE LORD WARDEN, SNARGATE STREET

The license of the "Lord Warden" public-house, in Snargate Street, was also suspended, this house having also been made the subject of complaint by the inhabitants of the locality.

It was stated on behalf of the owner of the house (Mr. Evenden) that a new tenant had been found.

The Mayor said that the Magistrates had resolved not to consider the renewal of this license until they sat at Broadstairs. In the meantime Mr. Evenden might communicate the name of the proposed landlord to the Superintendent of Police with a view to ascertaining if there was any objection to him.