Kentish Gazette, 22 June 1852.

ST. AUGUSTINE'S PETTY SESSIONS. Saturday, June 19th.

EXCISE CASE.

(Before Edward Foss, Esq., (chairman,) Wm. Delmar, Esq., W. Hyder, Esq., G. M. Taswell, Esq., and the Rev. J. Hilton.)

John Giles, landlord of the "Rose" beer-shop, Whitstable, appeared to answer an information preferred by the officers of the Inland Revenue, charging him with having certain quantities of British brandy and gin in an "entered" room on his premises, contrary to the provisions of the Act of Parliament.

The defendant admitted having the articles on his premises, but said it was with no intention of defrauding the revenue.

The case was then gone into.

Robert Hamilton, supervisor of Inland Revenue for the Canterbury district, deposed, that on the 3rd of March last he surveyed the premises of the defendant at Whitstable, who was a licensed retailer of beer, under various Acts of Parliament. He went into the cellar, and found eight gallons of British brandy and eight gallons of British gin.

By the Bench:— In licensing a house the rooms required for the business are named. The defendant had entered three of his rooms; the cellar, in which the spirits were found was one of the rooms so entered, and specified as "No. 2." (The clause of the Act of Parliament was here referred to, and read by the Clerk.)

Witness:- I seized the liquor, and told the defendant I supposed he knew he had acted wrong in having it there. He replied that he was not aware the spirits were in the cellar.

By the Bench:— We can visit the rooms "entered" at any time we wish to do so.

Defendant:— I did not consider my back cellar was an entered room; I never had any beer in it in my life.

Mr. Hamilton explained that there was but one cellar to the defendant's house, with supports in the centre. It had been entered by himself, as "the room under the bar."

Defendant:— I thought my spirits and my brothers' were quite safe in my fore-cellar.

The Bench:— What induced you, Mr. Hamilton, to go to the defendant's house?

Witness:— It was in consequence of having received information that the defendant was in the habit of selling as much spirits as the duly licensed publicans of the town were. I have never given him notice that I should inform against him on any other charge.

The Bench then consulted together for a short time, and the Chairman, said they were afraid that what the defendant had been guilty of was greatly practised in the town, to the great injury of the regularly licensed publicans. But as it was the first offence with which he had been charged, they had determined to fine him in the lowest mitigated sum the Act allowed, which was £12 10s. and £1 1s. costs and expressed a hope that it would act as a caution to him for the future.

The defendant paid the money, thanked the Magistrates for not imposing the full penalty of £50., and then left the Court.

Kentish Gazette, 28 September 1852.

ST. AUGUSTINE'S PETTY SESSIONS. Saturday September 25th.

Before Edward Foss Esq; (chairman,) and a full bench of magistrates.

This being the adjourned day for granting public houses licences, many of the publicans of the Home Division were in attendance.

There were 6 applications for licences to additional houses, vis. William Williams, ("Plough and Harrow") parish of Bridge; George Foreman ("Victoria") and John Giles, Whitstable; Thomas Holtum, Sturry; William and Frederick Wood Herne Bay. The bench refused to grant the licences, as they considered that at present the number of public houses in the different parishes was quite equal to the requirements of the inhabitants.

From the Kentish Gazette, 14 July 1857.

ST. AUGUSTINE’S PETTY SESSIONS.

Saturday, July 11. (Before Edward Foss, Esq., Wm. Delmar, Esq., Henry Kingsford, Esq., Win. Hyder, Esq., and Capt. Slarke.)

Thomas P. Gardner, hairdresser, of Whitstable, was charged with an assault upon Thomas Dane, sawyer, of the same place.

The complainant said that at seven o’clock on the evening of the 2nd July, he was at the ordinary weekly meeting of a benefit society, which was held in the club room of the "Rose Inn," Whitstable. Mr. Gardner, who had been a member of the society, came into the room with some companions, and he began to speak of certain charges which had been made against him of defrauding the society while in office. The complainant then said to him, "You robbed the society and acted like a downright scamp." Gardner then struck him over the eye, which was the assault complained of.

The bench told the complainant he was the party to blame for having used language calculated to provoke a breach of the peace. If a fraud had been committed, the law offered a means of punishment; but no man was justified in damaging the character of another by the use of such expressions. The charge was dismissed.

South Eastern Gazette, 4 September, 1860.

ST. AUGUSTINE’S PETTY SESSIONS. Saturday.

(Before W. Slarke, W. Plummer, G. Neame, and . Wynn Ellis, Esqrs.)

This was the annual general licensing day for the various public-houses situate within the Home Division. All the old licenses were renewed, and it is due to the respective landlords to state that out of the entire number only about two complaints had been made daring the past year, and they were only of a trifling character. There were six applications for new licenses, viz:—

John Anderson, for the "Stag," at Whitstable.

Thos. Ougham, for the "Rose," Whitstable. The decision upon these two cases will not be announced until the adjourned licensing day, the 29th September.

South Eastern Gazette, 2 October, 1860.

ST. AUGUSTINE’S PETTY SESSIONS.

Saturday. (Before W. Delmar, Esq. (in the chair), T. Hilton and W. Ellis, Esqrs).

This was the adjourned licensing day, and the Bench, according to their usual practice, announced their determination with respect to the applications for new licenses, the particulars of which were gone into at the annual licensing day. There were two applications; viz. John Anderson for the "Stag," and Thos. Ougham, for the "Rose," both at Whitstable.

To-day Mr. H. T. Sankey, on the part of the landlord of the "Stag," handed in a memorial from the inhabitants of Whitstable, in favour of the application. He also reminded the Bench, that on the previous year’s licensing day an intimation was made that in the event of the applicant’s house being improved, and rendered convenient for a licensed house, the Bench would in all probability accede to the application for a license. Such improvements had been made, and the house was now much used by visitors. The Bench, after a brief consultation, granted both applications.