From the Kentish Chronicle, 2 May, 1863.

ST. AUGUSTINE’S PETTY SESSIONS.

Marsh Harrison, landlord of the “South Eastern Railway Hotel,” Whitstable, was charged with an offence against the customs law under the following peculiar circumstances:-

It appeared, from the statement of Mr. Phillips, an officer of Customs, and the explanation of the circumstance given by the accused, that on the previous day, the captain of a vessel called the “Sarah” arrived in the harbour laden with Caen stone. It was the first time the captain of the vessel had ever been at Whitstable. The captain went to the house kept by the defendant, and called for some refreshments, with which he was served by the defendant’s wife. In the course of conversation with the defendant, he said he had a bottle of cherry brandy on board, which he would make a present of for his wife, if the defendant would accept of it. The defendant expressed his willingness to do so, and accompanied the captain on board the Sarah, for the purpose of getting the cherry brandy, and he returned on shore with the bottle in his hand, and his hand in his coat pocket. The arm either holding or steadying the bottle. The customs officer observed the transaction, and, as was his duty, took possession of the bottle, and its contents, and the defendant now appeared to answer the charge. Mr. Phillips added he could do no other than take the present proceedings, though he did not believe the defendant had any intention of committing any offence. When the vessel was examined, the captain reported that he had a bottle of cherry brandy on board as stores.

The Bench were divided in opinion on the matter, the chairman (Mr Delmar) and Mr. Mackay considered that while they felt that the defendant had no intention of doing wrong, still they were bound to convict. Mr. Plummer and Mr. Neame did not think they were obliged to convict, the latter remarking that it was well known that a bottle of brandy or other spirits was often brought on shore by captains of vessels for their own private use and no notice was taken of it by the coastguard.

The Chairman said that might be, but if one person did wrong, that was no reason why others should do the same.

After some consultation, the Chairman inquired if the case could not be referred to the officers of the Board of Inland Revenue.

Mr. Phillips was satisfied that no notice would be taken of such a trifling case as the one then under consideration.

The Bench, however, determined to adopt that course, it being understood that a letter would be addressed to the Board of Inland Revenue, stating that the Bench were of opinion that the case was proved, but that the magistrates considered it of too trifling a nature to inflict any penalty, unless they were pressed to impose one by the customs authorities.