From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday 15 June, 1888.

PROPERTY SALE

At a property sale of Messrs. Worsfold and Hayward at the "Royal Oak Hotel," Dover the "Wellesley," Commercial Quay was sold for £180. The solicitors were Mr. T. Lewis, Mr. Montague Bradley, and Messrs. A. Hicks and Arnold (London).

From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday 10 February, 1893. 1d.

SUSPECTED MURDER

Last night a woman named Jane Ann Dennis was arrested by the Dover borough police in a charge of having caused the death of a soldier of the Inniskilling Fusiliers, named Flannery, by pushing him into the harbour. We understand that there is no direct evidence of the fact, but it is stated that the two were at the “Wellesley” public house leaving together about 8.30, and soon after it is alleged that the woman was seen running away, and the man was found drowned in the harbour. The woman will be brought before the Borough Magistrates today, but will be remanded pending the Coroner's inquest, which will be held this afternoon.

From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday 10 February, 1893. 1d.

THE DROWNING OF FLAHERTY

EXCITEMENT AMONGST THE MILITARY

We briefly reported last week that a private soldier of the Inniskilling Regiment, was drowned in the Wellington Dock on Thursday night, and that a woman named Dennis had been arrested on suspicion of having caused his death.

BEFORE THE MAGISTRATES

On Friday morning the woman, Jane Ann Dennis, was brought up at the Borough Police Court, Maidstone on the Beckoning J. L. Bradley, Esq., Captain Bagshaw, H. F. Edwin, and T. A. Terson Esqrs. The following evidence was given:-

Edward Morris, a sergeant, in the 1st Royal Iniskilling Fusiliers, said: A private in our regiment named Flaherty, No. 3,636 was drowned last night in Wellington Dock. I saw him taken out of the water about ten minutes past nine o'clock. I was on garrison picket duty, and having been told by Private Fullerton, of our regiment, that one of our men was in the water, I went on the Commercial Quay. There were a few people assembled there, and some men were dragging for a body, and they recovered the body in about 25 minutes. It was removed to the Military Hospital. The prisoner was standing on the footpath on the quayside when I reached there, and in consequence of something Private Fullerton told me I detained her. I afterwards handed her over to the police. She tried to get away, but I prevented her.

Private George Purdy, in the Northumberland Fusiliers, said: Last night I was talking to a woman about 9.30 outside the “Wellesley” public house, Commercial Quay, and I saw the prisoner who was in the company of Flaherty. They came out of the “Wellesley” together and went towards the quayside. Two or three minutes after I heard a splash, and went towards the quayside. I then saw the man in the water. When I first looked round, the prisoner was coming across towards the footpath, she stood on the footpath and did not say a word. I gave the alarm. The man floated for about two seconds and then sank. I think he must have fouled himself. I stopped on the quayside about ten minutes, but the man did not rise again. Before the police arrived I went back into the public house. When the men arrived with the drags I came to the police station.

The Chairman: What state was the man in when he left the public house?

Witness: He was so drunk that he could hardly walk.

The Clerk: Did you hear any angry words between them?

Witness: No, sir.

Witness, in reply to further questions, said: the prisoner herself shouted out that there was a man in the water, when she returned from the quayside. The deceased had some difficulty in getting over the chain when he left the public house. There was a good few people in the “Wellesley,” and when I went and told them, some of them ran across, but that man was gone down then. I afterwards saw the prisoner at the police-station and identified her as the woman I had seen with the deceased. I had seen both the deceased and the prisoner in the “Wellesley” together previously, and they were then drinking together. When I saw them drinking together the deceased was already drunk, and I saw him supplied with beer by the barman. The landlord was there. I saw deceased supplied twice with beer. Deceased ordered it, and the barman served him, the landlord was there. Deceased staggered about. He paid for the drink which the prisoner had. She was sober.

By the prisoner: I was with a woman named Wood. The deceased was drunk.

Superintendent Sanders asked for a remand until Monday, and the Bench granted the application.

THE INQUEST

The inquest on the body of Private Thomas Flaherty, of the Inniskilling Fusiliers, who was drowned in the harbour on Thursday evening, and for whose death a woman named Jane Ann Dennis was charged at Friday's Police-court on suspicion of having caused, was held at the “Hotel de Paris,” by the Borough Coroner (Sydenham Payn, Esq.). the following gentlemen composed the Jury:- D. Houlden (foreman), S. H. Carrier, F. Bartholomew, J. Rowland, R. A. Marks, G. S. Cheeseman, W. Finnis, S. Springgay, S. Landall, C. Geartner, E. Conner, C. Young, I. Hinkley, F. Hawerier, W. G. Wells.

Before the Jury left to view the body, which was lying at the Military Hospital, the Coroner asked them to dismiss anything they might have heard outside from their minds.

Sergeant E. Morris, Royal Iniskilling Fusiliers, said that the body the Jury had viewed was that of Private Thomas Flaherty, aged 19 years and three months. On Thursday evening about 8.45, witness was in charge of the Grand Shaft Garrison Picket, and was going from the South Front of the Shaft when he met Private Fullerton, who said there was one of the Inniskillings in the water. Witness went down to the Commercial Quay. He saw a crowd of people on the footpath, and some men grappling in the water. In consequence of information he received from Private Fullerton, he had the woman in court (Dennis), detained until the police arrived. The body was recovered about twenty-five minutes later, and was conveyed to the Military hospital. The deceased had his overcoat and belt on, but the lower buttons of the coat were undone. About 9 o'clock the police arrived, and the woman was handed over to them.

Private John Wallace, Inniskilling Fusiliers, said that on Thursday he left barracks with the deceased about half-past six. They came straight from barracks and went into the “Wellesley” public house. They remained in the house until half-past eight. They had had only a pot of beer between them. There was a woman in the bar, the same as in court (Dennis), and the deceased said he was going with the girl and would not be long. Witness remained inside the house waiting for the deceased. They left the “Wellesley” by the side door, and he saw them go across the street. Five minutes later, he heard an uproar, and heard that a man had fallen into the water. He heard that it was his chum from several people who were standing around. Witness went across the chain in the direction of the crowd at the back of the crane. There was a large number of blocks timber, and several of them were very close to the edge of the quay. The handle of the crane was across the edge of the quay, and was low down, and left no room to pass. The woman who had left the house with the deceased was standing close by. Witness did not speak to her, and went back to his quarters about 9 o'clock. Witness heard the woman screaming whilst he was in the public house. She was shouting for help. In consequence of that, witness went across to the edge of the quay, but could not see anything but the deceased's cap in the water. The deceased and witness were quite sober.

By the Jury: The female was perfectly sober.

Private John Davis, Inniskilling Fusiliers, said that on Thursday evening he was going up the quay, about twenty past eight. He saw the woman walk across from the “Wellesley” with private Flaherty. Witness went on into Snargate Street, but returned in less than two or three minutes. He saw a crowd with the woman in the centre. Witness heard her saying an Inniskilling was drowned. Witness, at the direction of Sergeant Morris detained her, whilst he was holding her she said that she would hit him in the mouth. (Laughter). Deceased appeared when he walked across the road to be all right, and not the worse for drink. He did not tell the Sergeant that the deceased staggered.

Private George Purdy, Northampton Fusiliers, said that on Thursday evening about half past nine, as near as he could guess, he was standing by the “Wellesley.” He saw the deceased and the woman Dennis go over the chain. Witness was standing against the door of the “Wellesley” talking to a woman. About ten minutes afterwards he heard a splash right opposite. Directly afterwards the woman came running out, and shouted to him that a man had fallen overboard. The woman had noticed him before. He went across to the edge of the quay and saw a man in the water. He was just underneath the crane. He went back to the “Wellesley” and gave the alarm to those inside. When witness went to the edge of the quay he was the only one present. He did not notice the life-buoy on the lamp post. When he returned to the quayside the deceased had gone under. The life-buoy was brought a few minutes afterwards. Deceased was drunk and witness had spoken to him in the “Wellesley.” He could speak all right, but staggered slightly when he walked. Witness was in the “Wellesley” about an hour and a half. He saw deceased have two pints of beer.

By Mr. Marks: The last he saw of deceased and the woman was about five yards from the crane and they had not stopped there.
Private A. Broad, Assistant-Military-Surgeon, proved receiving the body at the Station hospital.

Stephen W. Wood said he was a labourer and lived at Oxenden Street. He was in the Market Place on Thursday evening, and hearing that there was a man overboard went to the spot. He saw that the life-buoy had been taken down. He took the grappling irons and hooked the deceased in about twenty minutes. He got the body into a boat and brought it to the steps, where the Military Authorities took the body from him.

Private W. Fullerton, Inniskilling Fusiliers, said that on Thursday evening he was standing outside the “Wellesley” about twenty-five minutes past eight, in company with Private Hamilton, when he saw Flaherty and the woman Dennis cross the road. Flaherty appeared to be sober. A minute or two afterwards the woman came from the quay side, shouting out that one of the Inniskillings was in the water. He went to the edge of the quay, but could see nothing except a cap floating in the water. He immediately went to report the matter to the Grand Shaft guard, but met the picket on the road. He heard no quarrelling after Flaherty and the woman crossed the road. He assisted in detaining Dennis until the police arrived.

By a Juror: If the woman had been so disposed, she could have gone away after giving the alarm. She went back to the quay side with him, to show where the deceased had fallen in.

Jane Ann Dennis in reply to the Coroner said she wished to make a statement. The Coroner then cautioned her in the usual manner. She said: I am a widow, and live at 4, Tower Hamlets Street. On Thursday about ten minutes to six I went to the “Wellesley” and had a glass of beer there. Whilst standing in the bar an Inniskilling came in that I knew. He asked me to drink and gave me another glass. I went out with him. We came back again and went in the “Wellesley” and had another pint. In a short time two more Inniskillings came in. It was the deceased and another man. When they saw the Inniskilling with me they came into the part of the bar I was in, and gave me some beer out of a pot. I went out with Wallace, and when we returned he called for another pot of beer. Then the one who was drowned asked if the others would wait until he came back. I then left the house with the deceased. We stood at the “Wellesley” corner about two minutes talking. I told Flaherty to go over there and I would follow. He went, and was about three yards in front of me when he got over the chain. Then I heard a splash, and not seeing the deceased I said “Where are you Paddy?” and I heard someone shouting in the water. I did not see him go over. I looked over the side but could not see him. It was very dark. I then ran across the road and shouted for help. A lot of people came and I went over with them. When I went back I could see nothing, but a 5th Fusilier said “There he is.” There were a lot of ropes near the crane over, which the deceased had stepped. Nothing had occurred between us in the way of a quarrel. The deceased appeared sober. I have seen him before, and been in his company. I am innocent of having pushed him over.

Luther Herbert Parris, landlord of the “Wellesley” public-house, said he saw the deceased in his house on Thursday night. Witness was in the bar. He came in between 7 and 7.30, and witness served his comrade with a quart of beer. Deceased was quite sober. Witness left the bar, and went into the kitchen. He heard nothing of the affair until about 9 o'clock. His wife served when witness left. Flaherty was quite sober when he came in.

The Coroner in summing up, said he did not think there was any evidence against the woman, and in that case there was only one course for them to adopt – to return a verdict of accidental death. With regard to the moral aspect of the case, they, of course, had nothing to do with that.

The Jury then returned a verdict of “Accidental Death.”

THE DISMISSAL OF THE WOMAN

At the Police-court on Monday, before J. L. Bradley, T. A. Terson, H. F. Baldwin Esqs., and Capt. Bagshaw, the accused woman Dennis was brought up on remand from Friday, charged on suspicion with having caused the death of Private Flaherty.

The Court was crowded.

The Superintendent of Police informed the Magistrates the result of Flaherty on Saturday, when a verdict of accidental death was returned.

The evidence given at the inquest was laid before the Bench, and after they had examined it, the Chairman addressing the prisoner said: “Jane Ann Dennis, you were charged on suspicion with causing the death of Private Flaherty, but the police have no further evidence to offer against you in that matter; and there having been an inquest in the meanwhile, the magistrates have no other course than to dismiss you.

THE FUNERAL OF FLAHERTY

The news got abroad that the funeral of Flaherty would take place on Monday afternoon and crowds thronged the main streets about the centre of town waiting for it to pass. The interment was however postponed till Tuesday afternoon, when the whole regiment volunteered to follow their unfortunate comrade to his premature grave. With the exception of the long train of followers, it differed in nothing from an ordinary soldier's funeral, but the curiosity of the townspeople to see the last that could be seen of the sad affair was manifested by large crowds lining the streets and following to the cemetery at Copt Hill. As the procession was approaching the Market Place, it was noticed that the woman Dennis was in the crowd, whereupon great excitement arose; the soldiers following the gun carriage vented their feelings in groans and it was feared they would break rank and go for her. The police promptly intervened, and got the woman away, mud was hurled by the crowd, and the woman was escorted, amidst yells, up the town to Tower Hamlets.

FACTS ABOUT FLAHERTY

Concerning poor Flaherty it should be said that he was little more than a lad. He came with the Inniskillings from his native county, Clare, where he left his widowed mother, for whom he had a strong filial affection, which he frequently exhibited by sending over to her what he could from his pay. It is said that he had in his possession a postal order for 4s. to send to her, at the time of his death. Unfortunately he succumbed to temptations which are allowed to flaunt themselves in Dover in houses licensed by the Magistrates, for which he had to pay a terrible penalty.

From the Dover Express. November 1896.

Fire at the Wellesey Inn.

On Wednesday evening about 10.20 a fire occurred at the Wellesley Inn, Commercial Quay. It originated in an upper bedroom and was confined to a corner of the room the floor catching alight from a fallen cinder it is supposed and burning a hole through into the next room. The landlady noticed it and the inmates succeeded in promptly extinguishing it. The police were quickly on the spot with two fire hoses but they were not required.

Information kindly supplied by Joyce Banks.

From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday 22 March, 1901. 1d.

CONDUCT OF A COMMERCIAL QUAY HOUSE

At the Police Court on Friday, before Messrs. A. Bottle, H. Peake, C. W. Bagshaw, and P. W. J. Mackenzie, Alfred Smith, landlord of the “Wellesley Inn,” Commercial Quay, was summoned for knowingly permitting his premises to be the habitual resort of prostitutes, and allowing them to remain longer than necessary for refreshment on February 23rd and divers subsequent dates.

Defendant pleaded not guilty.

Mr. Vernon Knocker appeared to prosecute.

Mr. A. E. Aldington said he had only been instructed that morning to defend the case on behalf of the defendant and the brewers, and therefore asked for a week's adjournment as he had not been able to go into the defence, which he believed to be a good one. The owners of the house were not informed of the prosecution until late the previous night, although the defendant was served with the summons on the 8th. No notice had been sent to the owners by the Police.

Mr. Knocker said the Police were not bound to give the owners notice. He did not wish to appear unreasonable, but inasmuch as the summons was served a week ago ample provision was given for the defence. Several Sergeants and Police Officers were engaged in the case, and would be kept at the court owing to this case.

Sept. Sanders stated that defendant had called on him during the week and asked if the case could not be settled out of court.

The Bench decided that the case must go on.

Mr. Aldington said it was impossible for him to go on with it, and he must therefore withdraw from the case, as he could not take the responsibility of the defence. It was a case of great importance to the owners.

In his opening remarks, Mr. Knocker said the defendant was employed late each night at the coalmine, but the word “knowingly” would apply equally to the responsible manager of the house, who in this instant was the man's wife.

Police Sergeant Scutt stated that on February 23rd he, in company with Police Sergeant Ovenden, visited the “Wellesley” public house at 7.30 p.m., and in the bar he found two women named Godsmark and Swinburne. Two men were also there, the defendant's wife being behind the counter. Witness asked her if she knew who the women were, and she replied, “Yes, they do not stop over their time.” The women drank their liquor and left the house. Again at 9 o'clock witness went to the house, and the same two women were there, as well as a number of soldiers and civilians. The landlady then said she had not kept them over their time. The women left the house at once. At 9.55 witness was standing opposite the house with Police Constable Southey, and he saw the women Swinburne leave the house. On the last visit to the house witness asked the landlady if her husband was at home, and she said he was at work.

By Defendant: The women were in the front bar. When he made his first visit there were three women there, but one he did not know. Witness did not see them sitting down.

Police Sergeant Lockwood said that on the 23rd February he visited the house with Police Constable Ovenden at 9.05 p.m., and there was nothing wrong then. On the 28th witness went again at 9.25 p.m., and found no women there. The same thing happened on March 1st at 9.20. On March 2nd witness went to the house at 8.45 with Police Constable Bond, and found the woman Godsmark in the bar with three soldiers. The landlady was behind the bar, and she said she knew the character of the woman, but that she had only just entered. Godsmark left the house a few minutes later. On March 4th witness visited the house at 9.05 and found Godsmark there again. The landlady again said the woman had only just come in. She remained in the house five minutes, and then left with two soldiers.

Police Sergeant Fogg said he visited the house on February 27th with Police Constable Groombridge at 8.45 p.m., and found Godsmark with two soldiers there drinking. The landlady said her husband was not in, and when asked if she knew the character of the woman she said, “Yes, all right.”

Police Constable Southey said that he watched the house at night from the 23rd February to March 1st. According to a table of notes he had made, and from which he read, Police Constable Southey had seen two women, Godsmark and Swinburne, whoce character he knew, go into the house each evening, and come and go with soldiers. He had also seen two sisters named Vickers, as well as a woman named Gatehouse, make use of the house. The period of their stay in the house ranged from two minutes to thirty-five. One night there was a row between some soldiers who came out of the house with two of the women, and some more soldiers waiting outside, and witness had to whistle for a piquet. Every evening the landlord left the house shortly before nine, apparently to go to work, and either the wife or the daughter would come out of the door to see if anyone were watching. The woman Godsmark visited the house 26 times in seven days, and Swinbourne 15 times. On the sixth night of witness's watching he was “spotted” – (laughter) – and only two women left the house.

Defendant had nothing to say in answer to the charge; he said he had no wish to give evidence or to call any witnesses. He had been in the house 2½ years.

The Chairman said this was a very serious charge against defendant, and in order to give him an opportunity of calling witnesses or obtaining professional advice, the case would be adjourned till the following Monday.

PEST GOT RID OF

Elizabeth Godsmarkm, one of the women referred to in the “Wellesley Inn” case, was sent to prison for a month for disorderly conduct and being drunk. She was described as one of the pests of Snargate Street.

From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 3 May, 1901. Price 1d.

WELLESLEY INN APPEAL

The appeal of Alfred Smith, the licensee of the “Wellesley Inn,” Commercial Quay, against a conviction by the Dover Borough Magistrates on March 18th last for knowingly permitting his premises to be the habitual resort of prostitutes, and allowing them to remain longer than necessary for refreshment on February 23rd and other subsequent dates. He was then fined £5, and 14s. 6d. costs, and the licence ordered to be endorsed.

Mr. Rose Innes and Mr. Weigall appeared for the appellant, instructed by Mr. A. E. Aldington.

Mr. G. F. Hohler appeared for the respondents, instructed by Messrs. E. W. & V. Knocker.

Mr. Hohler, in opening, said the case came under Section 14 of the Licensing Act of 1872. The appellant was licensee of the “Wellesley Inn,” Dover, and although the house was fully licensed he did not take out a full licence. From February 23rd to March 1st a watch was kept on this house, and counsel detailed the result, how some well known characters were seen to enter the house and leave with soldiers several times during the evenings in question. Counsel also detailed how Police Sergeant Scutt and other Police Officers called the landlady's attention to the character of these women, but apparently she thought no one was watching and allowed the whole thing to continue. There was a side entrance by an alley or lane which these women always entered by. It gave access to a small bar partitioned off from the public bar, and it was an important thing that these women after entering the private bar passed through into the private bar where they were seen talking to soldiers and frequenters of this public house. Evidence would give the name of the women Godsmark, Swinbourne, and two Vickers who frequented this house. A very significant fact would also appear in the evidence, viz., that soldiers were seen, when the watch was kept, to go to the house, and after looking in go away if none of those characters were there, and the same was the case in regard to the women, while evidence would be given that on one occasion they called some soldiers back as they were leaving, and then went away with them. The landlord worked at the coal mine, and was not always at home, but admitted to the Magistrates that he was present when the Police visited the premises. He left the charge principally to his wife, who made the startling admission to the Police that they kept the private bar for those women, showing obviously that they clearly recognised what these women were. [Mr. Rose Innes said the women were not allowed to go anywhere else.] He considered it incredible that anybody could require to be refreshed six times in a night, by the landlady seemed to be under the impression that if she allowed them to be there about ten minutes and then called time and out they went, that they could come back after an absence of five or ten minutes. He urged that this case was a flagrant breach of the section of the Act of Parliament.

Police Sergeant Scutt then gave evidence, and said that at 7.30 and 9 p.m. on February 27th he visited the house, and finding Godsmark and Swinbourne there, asked the landlady if she was aware of their character. She replied that they did not stay over their time, and they left the house. About 9.35 he saw the woman Swinboune leave the house.

In cross-examination Mr. Rose Innes was proceeding to ask as to the length of time witness saw the woman in the house.

The Recorder said that to allow a stay of ten minutes and then after an absence of five minutes another ten minutes in the house would be straining the law.

Mr. Rose Innes said that it was a question of degree.

Mr. Hohler said that he should call evidence as to individual cases which should startle his learned friend.

Mr. Rose Innes: It didn't before.

Witness continuing, said that on the occasion of his last visit the two women were in the public bar.

Police Constable Southey then gave his evidence as to repeated visits by the characters in question, as he did before the Magistrates detailing the result of the watch he kept on February 23rd, 24th, 25th, 26th, 27th, 28th, and March 1st.

On witness stating that women and soldiers went in the direction of the North Pier, which was a secluded place.

Mr. Rose Innes objected to this as having nothing to do with the case. The only thing meant was that there was apparently some part of the town where the Police could not stop immorality. It was time they did.

Mr. Hohler: That is what we are trying to do.

Cross-examined. Witness had seen five bad women use this public house, which was conducted as a beer shop. Gatehouse used it once, the Vickers used it about ten times in eight days, but Swinborne and Godsmark used it more often. Smith so far as witness knew bore a good character. With one or two exceptions the visits of these women lasted from 5 to 10 minutes, sometimes longer.
Police Sergeant Lockwood then gave evidence as to twice visiting the house with a Police Constable, and finding Godsmark in the house, and that he called the landlady's attention. On March 8th, the day the summons was served, at 9.20 p.m. he found Godsmark and Swinbourne in the house, the landlady being in charge thereof. At the Magisterial hearing the landlord said he left the charge of the house to his wife in his absence but he also said he was there when the Police called two or three times.

The Recorder remarked that if the licensee chose to go away to work, he must be considered to “know” what was going on during his absence. Mr. Rose Innes said that he hoped the Recorder would not retain that opinion, as that was his point that under the section he did not knowingly permit these characters to remain beyond a reasonable time.

The Recorder said that that would mean that a man who neglected his duty by going to work five miles away, might escape the consequences of his neglect in allowing his servant to serve these bad characters.

Mr. Rose Innes, said that the Recorder had argued that point in 1874.

The Recorder: In my long and chequered career I have argued a good many bad points.

Cross-examined, witness said that the landlady said she allowed the women to be there ten minutes, and then when time was up they had to go outside, and that they were kept to the private bar.

Re-examined. The trade of the house was principally military and services.

What sort of trade does it do since the summons was served?

Mr. Rose Innes objected to this question.

Mr. Hohler said that it was suggested that it was a misfortune that the house was used by these women. What he wanted to show was that there was no genuine trade at the house except for these. Mr. Rose Innes said that the statute did not prevent these being served. The question was simply whether it was used for the habitual purpose.

The Recorder upheld the objection.

Police Sergeant Fogg then gave evidence that he visited the house on February 27th at 8.45 and found Godsmark there. In reply to a question if she knew the character of the women, the landlady said “Yes.” Her husband was not in.

This completed the case for the respondents.

The Recorder remarked that he took it that that Court was a Court of summary jurisdiction under the Act, and that he would have full powers to deal with the case, and if he chose, alter the penalty at his discretion.

Counsel on both sides assented to this.

Mr. Rose Innes then called Alfred Smith, licensed holder of the “Wellesley Inn,” who said that the house was managed and carried on by his wife, and he was engaged as a miner at the Kent coal mine. His work was in 8-hour shifts, which changed from 6-2, 2-10, and 10-6. During the whole week of eight days that the Police said they were keeping a watch, he was not at any time conducting the business himself. On February 23rd he came off at six o'clock in the evening.

The Recorder: This is a little dangerous, because if a man has got a licence and wholly neglects his business------

Mr. Rose Innes said that terrors attending that line were very clear to his client, but he would not press this matter, and he would turn to another point.

Witness, continuing, said that they only sold beer, and in leaving the house he gave directions about he women being served in the private bar.

The Recorder: How long have you been there?

Two and a half years.

Leaving your wife to conduct the licensed business while you attend to the mine?

Witness: Yes, there is not enough trade at the house to keep a man alone.

Mr Hohler: There is not enough trade at the house to get a living?

No.

Worse than before since the summons?

The same as it has been since the troops left the town.

Did the women frequent it all that time?

Yes, the same as they do many more houses in the town.

For the purpose of picking up soldiers?

The same as any public house.

To pick up soldiers?

I don't say so. The same as at any other public house.

How many times an evening?

Witness said they had been in four times.

You knew all about them?

I know they behaved themselves in my house. Was I to follow the “girls” across the street and mind what they did?

Mr. Hohler: Oh, then you were there? I thought you were a miner!

Witness got indignant, and told Mr. Hohler that he was a miner beneath the earth, not a minder of other people's business.

Mr. Hohler: You should keep cool. You are not nearly so cool as I am. You don't mind, then how many loose women come in your house?

Witness: No, so long as they are well behaved and civil and don't stay there more than ten minutes.

Why do you mind how long?

Because that is long enough to get refreshment.

Can they go out and come back after 5 minutes?

No.

Have they gone out for five minutes and come back for 5 minutes more?

Why should I not serve them any more than my own father whilst they conduct themselves quietly?

Then you don't mind how they conduct themselves morally?

I draw the line as to how they conduct themselves in my house.

Have you had notice to quit from your brewer?

No.

Did they ever make a complaint that you did not sell enough beer?

Mr. Rose Innes objected to that question.

The Recorder rules that the question might be put as if he had had that complaint it might be a reason why he carried on trade in an irregular way.

Mr. Hohler: Your brewers are Messrs. Phillips and Co., of Malden?

Witness: Yes.

Is it not a fact that they informed you that unless your sale increased you will have to quit?

No, not from Phillips and Co.

Who was it from?

Not from the Brewery Company.

Has not the agent?

No.

Has not somebody told you? Why do you confine your answer to “Not from the Brewery Company?”

Because they are a Company. No one has told me either by post or by word of mouth.

Has anyone told you any other way?

No.

What is your sale of beer?

I am not obliged to tell you, and I will not.

Are you tenant of this house, or manager?

I pay the rent.

Who put you in – Phillips and Co?

No.

Did you ever take out a spirit licence?

No.

Re-examined by Mr. Rose Innes. The soldiers in the habit of frequenting this house conducted themselves properly.

Are you aware that you are as much bound to serve an unfortunate as anybody else?

Yes.

Have you seen them there more than a reasonable time?

No.

The Recorder: Ten minutes is a short time for a meal, but for a glass of beer it is rather long, especially if you have had another not half-an-hour before.

Mr. Rose Innes said he could not speak from experience, but he should not have thought so.

The Recorder: Some drink beer up at once, some sip it. You must not make it last ten minutes or a quarter of an hour. That would be colourable.

Mr. Rose Inns said he would ask witness whether having regard to his experience as a licensed victualler, what in his opinion was a reasonable time in which to consume the liquor.

The Recorder: You can ask him, but his opinion would be utterly worthless.

Mr. Rose Innes: Then I won't ask him.

Mrs. Smith, wife of the licensee, and who conducted the licensed business in his absence, was the next witness. She said that the women were known to her by sight, and her practice was to give them about ten minutes to consume their liquor, and sometimes on wet nights they might have been longer, but not thirty minutes. Everything had gone on properly and with decorum while in the house.

Cross-examined. Witness said that some of the women who used her house were respectable. There were two or three.

You have had two or three respectable women in your house in the last two years?

Witness: More than that. I have friends.

I don't mean your friends?

There might be seven or eight dozen.

Independently of them, they are all this loose class of women?

Only these five.

How do you get rid of them?

I tell them it is time to drink up and clear out.

They just go outside and come back?

No.

How long do they remain outside?

Quite half an hour or a quarter of an hour.

On February 23rd one of them came in a number of times. Did they ever order more than one or two drinks of a night?

Witness said they always ordered something.

You are very careful about them being sober?

Yes.

Is it not a fact that they used to go in without drinking?

If they did so they walked straight out again.

The Police called attention to these women?

Yes, but they did nothing wrong.

After the summons they did not come?

No.

How did you get rid of them?

Because they heard the summons.

Has the trade fallen off?

No.

Then they did not drink very much?

What are 3 or 4 glasses of beer?

Have you ever had any complaint of notice from your brewer that you must sell more beer?

No.

Not by word of mouth?

No.

What trade do you do?

Witness declined to reply.

By Mr. Rose Innes. We charge 1d. per glass for beer.

This closed the evidence for the appellants.

Mr. Rose Innes, in addressing the Recorder read Section 14 of the Act, and laid stress on the wording “not longer than necessary,” and argued that this legislation did not intend this class of persons to be debarred from entering a licensed house any more than a church or theatre if they paid their way. The next question was whether the way in which the house was conducted, and the time occupied by and the frequency of the visits was an offence under the statute. He did not consider that half a dozen visits would be an offence. It was knowingly permitted it to be a habitual resort. That was the legislator's wording. It granted them the right to go in, and only excluded on the express terms quoted.

The Recorder said that in the statute the element in the case was for refreshment. Here it was only drink.

Mr. Rose Innes argued that the word refreshment only meant liquor. It was only a beer shop of a very cheap character.

The Recorder, in regard to the question of the landlord's knowledge, said that it had been distinctly held that “knowingly” applied to the landlord's manager, whether wife, barman, or barmaid.

Mr. Rose Innes said he would read a case which went exactly the other way, viz., Commissioners of Police v. Cartman, 1896, in which a drunken person was served by a barman contrary to the orders of his master. The Lord Chief Justice, however, decided that the legislature being in the interests of public order to prevent the sale of liquor to drunken persons, and the actual control of the trade being in the majority of cases deputed to other persons than the manager he must be subject to the acts of others according to the scope of their employment.

The Recorder remarked that that did not help appellant.

Mr. Rose Innes said perhaps he had set it in a wrong way, as he did not quite see it himself now. They were left, however, to carry on business without breach of the law, and were bound to serve these people.

The Recorder: You are not bound to serve anybody except bona fide travellers.

Mr. Rose Innes said it was clearly not in the scope of his wife's authority to allow the house to be the resort of these women.

The Recorder: You are driven to this conclusion in view that the whole of the Act of Parliament may be brushed aside in order to allow a man to neglect his business. Your argument drives you to an absurdity.

Mr. Rose Innes: So would the gaming case decision if followed to its logical issues.

The Recorder asked if he had any other authorities.

Mr. Rose Innes quotes Somerset v. Hart and others. There must be guilty knowledge on the part of the person charged. He would not unduly press this point, and proceeded to argue generally against the conviction, and that the penalty was too severe.

The Recorder said he need not trouble Mr. Hohler to argue the case as to the knowledge of the wife on behalf of her husband, or that the case came under the 14th section. The evidence seemed to be overwhelming that the holder of this licensed house knowingly through his wife permitted his premises to be habitual resort or place of meeting of these women, and, whatever their object, she allowed them to remain longer than necessary for the purpose of obtaining refreshment, because they came to the house, left it, back, more drink, back, and more drink again. Therefore he felt that an offence had been committed. With regard to the sentence. There had never been a conviction before, and these people had been there for two years.

Mr. Hohler said he submitted on behalf of the Police that it was very great importance that a record should be made on the licence in regard to that case. Because, first, it appeared that they had a fully licensed house, but that that licence was so valueless that he did not take out a spirit licence.

The Recorder said that a man was not bound to take out a spirit licence. There had been no drunkenness, no disorder, and except on one occasion there had been no warning. It was a question in his mind whether for the first offence a licence should be endorsed. He had power to increase the pecuniary penalty. He had, however, he confessed, some doubt whether for a first offence he should allow the licence to be endorsed, because that affected vary materially the value of the property, and then the penalty was a very severe one.

Mr. Hohler: That is the very thing I respectfully urge. Touch the brewer! Unless you can touch him it is perfectly hopeless. The man will very likely get notice tomorrow and go out. They put a man known to be a miner, - they put him in a house which can't give him a livelihood. Ought they to get off scot-free? Unless you tough the brewer you will never enforce the administration of the licensing laws. This has been going on for the last two years, and even if there was remissness on the part of the Police (they do not always hear of these things), I submit now on behalf of the magistrates and the Police that this sentence should be enforced in its entirety.

Mr. Rose Innes said that if the Police had made a single representation to the brewer they would have watched the place. Taking his friend's argument to be right, which he did not, even then there was no right to put the penalty on the brewer.

The Recorder said that there had been no drunkenness or disorder.

Mr. Rose Innes said that pressing for the heaviest penalty at a first offence was contrary to all reason.

The Recorder then gave his decision. The conviction must be confirmed, and he thought it a case in which he should impose the maximum penalty under Section 6, viz., £10. He thought, having regard to the facts of the case, that endorsing the licence was such a very severe penalty that he was not disposed to order that to be done. His judgement was, therefore, penalty £10, licence not to be endorsed. There was the very serious part of the case, however, that appellant must pay the costs of appeal, which would come to a very considerable sum, and would, he thought, meet the justice of the case.

After some conversation, in which Mr. Hohler suggested £10 costs, both counsel agreed to the costs being subject to taxation out of sessions by the Clerk of the Peace.

The Recorder concluded by saying: Between this and the licensing day I should recommend the licensee to take care that he does not get into trouble again, or there will be an endorsement on the licence which will not be removed.

From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 26 July, 1901. Price 1d.

WELLESLEY INN

Application was made for permission to draw at the “Wellesley Inn” by Mr. Somerfield, late of the “Bowling Green Inn,” in the place of Mr. A. Smith. The late tenant had been convicted of an infringement of the licensing laws, and the licence endorsed, but on appeal the penalty was increased and the endorsement revoked.

On the licence being produced in Court, the Magistrates' Clerk pointed out that the endorsement still remained on the licence, and expressed his astonishment that the landlord had not seen that it was expunged.

The new tenant received an excellent character, and permission was given.

From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 16 February, 1906. Price 1d.

OBJECTION TO THE WELLESLEY INN

The notice of objection to this house, the landlord of which is Frederick Freeman, the house being situated in Commercial Quay, was that the license was unnecessary, and that the premises had been ill-conducted. Mr. Mowll appeared for the tenant and the owners.

The Chairman enquired whether this latter objection was to the present management of the house, and it was stated that it was not.

The Chairman said that under those circumstances they did not want to go into the past history, they only wished to take the premises as they were now being conducted.

Inspector Fox stated that the license had been transferred to the present tenant on the 4th August last. The house had changed hands eight times during the past ten years, and 16 within the last 20. he described the number of licensed houses in the vicinity as given in the last two cases.

Police Constable Southey said that when passing the “Wellesley” at 8.20 on Wednesday evening last, he found the house in total darkness, and as far as he could see, it was shut up.

In reply to Mr. Mowll, witness said that he was not surprised as he had gone by there repeatedly, and never saw anybody in the house. He did not know when the landlord got his milk and food, but 8.30 was not the usual time to deliver milk.

THE MAGISTRATES DECISION

After a short consultation in private, the Magistrates turned to the Bench. The Chairman said “The following houses will be referred to the Kent Compensation Committee of the Quarter Sessions in due form: The “William and Albert,” The “Three Compasses,” the “Wellesley Inn,” the “Old Commercial Quay,” the “Duke of York,” and the “Half Moon.” The licenses for these houses will run until the time when the compensation is paid, and then the licences will cease. With respect to the “Devonshire Arms” and the “Lord Roberts,” and the “Nottingham Castle,” they will be withdrawn from the list.- These licences will be renewed in the ordinary way.