|
From the Dover Express and East Kent
News, 4 April, 1902. Price 1d.
PUBLIC HOUSE LICENCE ENDORSED
William Thomas Bradley, landlord of the “Swan Inn,” Wickhambreaux, was
summoned for knowingly permitting drunkenness to take place on his
premises on Sunday, March 2nd.
Police Constable Binfield, Littlebourne,gave evidence that on Sunday
evening, March 2nd, at 10.p.m., he saw William Williams, and James
Holman come out of the “Swan.” Both men were drunk, and rolled about in
the road. Next day he called on the landlady, who stated the men had
been in the house since 8.30, but that neither was served with drink.
They were with friends, and he could not help them letting the two men
drink. As the men left they wanted a two-gallon bottle filled with beer,
and the landlord said he refused this because he did not want a row
outside.
Sergeant C. Hearn gave evidence in corroboration.
The inspector said that the two men were fined at the last Sessions,
when they pleaded guilty, and in consequence the Chief Constable ordered
a prosecution.
John Fox, landlord of the “Duke William” public house, at Ickham, gave
evidence that the men left his house at 8.20 p.m. on March 2nd, when the
landlady asked them to leave as they were noisy and the worse for
liquor.
Thomas Mount gave evidence that Williams and Holman were a little the
worse for liquor, but they were quiet, and were not served.
William Williams gave evidence that he was fined for being drunk last
Sessions. He never paid for any drink on March 2nd at the “Swan.”
James Holman, the other man who was fined, now declared that he left the
house sober.
The Inspector: But you pleaded guilty last Sessions to being drunk.
Holman said he was sober when he left the house, but the fresh air took
effect on him, and this, together with a big cigar, caused the drunken
symptoms.
Lord Northbourne asked witness if the “fresh air” often had this effect?
Witness said it did. (laughter.)
Mr. Rutley Mowll, for the defence, urged that there was no cause mad
out, as it had not been proved that, even if the men left the house
drunk (which he could call evidence to prove was not the case), the
landlord knew they were drunk. The evidence had been rather that the men
were quiet in the house.
He called The Defendant, W. T. Bradley, who said that he did not serve
the men, and that they did not appear to be drunk.
Cross-examined: The reason he refused to sell them beer in a bottle was
because it was ten o’clock.
Mr. Mowll then called Edward Harman, James Burrows, J. C. Wyles, Harry
Spicer Harris, William Hill, John Rook, and William Sladden, who each
gave evidence most positively that they either saw the two men leave the
house or in it, perfectly sober all the time.
Lord Northbourn (amidst laughter) asked each witness (all witnesses
having been ordered out of Court) if he knew that Williams and Holmes
had last month pleaded guilty to the charge of being drunk when they
left the house?
The witnesses, one and all, professed to be quite unaware of this.
The Bench, after retiring, decided that the case was a very proper one
to bring before the Court, and it had been proved. The defendant would
be fined 17/6, £2 2s. 6d. costs, and the license would be endorsed.
Mr. Rutley Mowll said the Chairman completely staggered him when he said
the license would be endorsed. He had appeared in a very large number of
licensing cases, and with one exception, a very serious case, the
license had never been endorsed on a conviction. This man had been in
the house for 13 years, and it was obvious that a man did not hold such
a position for 13 years without being a man of respectability.
The Chairman: The Police or the Bench may have been lax!
Mr. Mowll: You surely have confidence in your Police officers!
The Chairman: I make no charge; I only say they may have been lax.
Mr. Mowll said the question of endorsing the license hit someone else.
The defendant had been punished, and he would have to go.
The owners
would not let a convicted landlord remain.
The Chairman asked if that was so?
Mr. Mowll said he would give an understanding that the landlord would
leave the house.
After a minute’s consultation, the Chairman said the bench were unable
to alter their decision.
Mr. Mowll then gave notice of appeal, and the bench fixed the
recognisance’s at £50.
|
