 |
| Wellington, 1927. (To the right is the rear entrance to The Chequers) Credit Folkestone Library |
 |
| Wellington, 1913 |
 |
| Aftermath of a parachute mine which exploded over Beach Street on 18th November, 1940. The Wellington, which had already closed for the duration, suffered severe blast damage, as can be seen in this photo. It never re-opened and was eventually demolished in 1955 |
Licensees
Charles Gatley 1893 1896
William Woodgate 1896 1901
John Marsh 1901 1906 To Alexandra Tavern
Charles Skinner 1906 1916 From Tramway Tavern
John Salmon 1916 1921
Lily Salmon 1921 1928
James Salmon 1928 1939
Victor Whyman 1939 1940
Folkestone
Express 9-6-1894
Monday, June 4th: Before The Mayor, Alderman
Pledge, and J. Fitness Esq.
John Rackley was charged with stealing a rabbit and two
fowls, the property of Mr. Quested, of Coolinge.
P.C. Gardner said on Saturday last, from information
received, he went to the Wellington beershop, at the bottom of Dover Street, at
ten minutes past one. He saw prisoner there with a basket containing a live
rabbit and a dead fowl, the latter plucked. He asked prisoner where he got them
from. He replied “Where do you think? I bought them”. He charged prisoner with
stealing them, and prisoner replied “All right”.
Edward Quested, landlord of the Shorncliffe Inn, said
he kept fowls and rabbits at the back of his premises. He locked the yard up as
usual about nine o`clock on Friday night, and on Saturday morning he missed a
rabbit and two pullets. He gave information to the police. The fowl produced
was the same breed as those he lost. The rabbit was a remarkable one – it had a
“butterfly nose”, and he had no doubt whatever that it was his property. He
valued it at 5s., and the chickens at 2s. 6d.
Prisoner pleaded Guilty to being in possession of the
goods, bus said he received them from another man, but did not know his name.
He gave 3s. for the chicken and rabbit.
P.C. Gardner said 2s. were found on prisoner and his
discharge papers.
Prisoner was sentenced to one month`s hard labour.
Folkestone
Herald 9-6-1894
John Rackley, aged 29, and of no settled abode, and
formerly an Artillery soldier, was charged before the Folkestone Justices on
Monday with stealing two chickens and a tame rabbit, altogether worth 11s., the
property of Edward Quested, of the Shorncliffe Inn, Coolinge Road, on the night
of the 1st inst.
He was sentenced to a month`s hard labour.
The man, who was apprehended at the Wellington public
house by P.C. Gardner, is to be charged with rabbit stealing in the county when
his sentence expires.
Folkestone
Visitors` List 24-4-1895
Police Court Jottings
Before Capt. Carter on Saturday, James Cannon was
charged with creating a disturbance at the Wellington beerhouse, and refusing
to quit. He was ultimately ejected by force, and then he broke a window.
The prosecutor stated that the defendant “deliberately
put his fist through the glass”.
The defendant denied this, and stated that he fell
against the window when he was put out of the house.
The Bench thought, however, that the case was
sufficiently proved against the defendant, who was fined 5s., with 5s. 6d.
costs, and ardered to pay the damage, 9s. 6d., or go to gaol for fourteen days.
Folkestone
Chronicle 26-4-1895
Local News
At the Borough Police Court on Saturday an old offender
named James Cannon was brought up in custody, charged with damaging property of
the value of 9s., at the Wellington beerhouse.
Evidence was given showing that prisoner was turned out
of the above house on the previous evening, and that he retaliated by breaking
a couple of panes of glass in the door window.
A witness named Frederick Saunders corroborated the
prosecutor`s evidence, and prisoner was sent to gaol for 14 days with hard
labour.
Folkestone
Herald 27-4-1895
Police Court Record
On Saturday last James Cannan appeared before the
Borough Magistrates charged with wilfully breaking two squares of glass, value
9s. 6d., the property of Mr. C.E. Gatley, landlord of the Wellington public
house, in Beach Street.
It seems that the defendant went into the public house,
and, as he did not order anything, was told to leave. As he would not go, the
landlord put him out. He returned, and being again ejected, he broke two panes
of glass in the door with his fist.
Defendant said he slipped outside the door.
He was fined 20s. including costs, and value of the
glass.
Folkestone Chronicle
23-1-1897
Inquest
An inquest was held at the Town Hall, Folkestone, on
Tuesday, by Mr. J. Minter, Borough Coroner, touching the death of Jakob
Johannson, a Swede, able seaman of the brig Charity, of West Hartlepool, then
lying in Folkestone harbour.
Franz Lammonns, ordinary seaman on the Charity, stated that
deceased was a single man, aged 24, a native of north Sweden. The ship came
into Folkestone harbour on Sunday with coals, which they started discharging on
Wednesday. Deceased, in a sober condition, went ashore about six o`clock, and
witness about half past seven. Witness saw him in the Wellington public house
about eight o`clock. They left at nine o`clock, went and had some fried fish,
returned in about quarter of an hour to the public house, and remained until
about ten minutes to eleven. They had been drinking. Deceased drank enough to
make him tipsy. Witness was drunk too, but he knew what he was about. They had
some more drink at the Royal George after they left the Wellington, and left
the Royal George with three soldiers who were “a bit drunk”. He and deceased
accompanied the soldiers up High Street, and then returned to go on board. The
brig was in the inner harbour, near the Clock House. Johannson let him by the
corner of the Pavilion Hotel, and witness went on board. There had been no
quarrelling.
Frederick Goodsell, a coastguardsmen stationed at Sandgate,
said that on the previous night he was on duty at Folkestone. He came into
Folkestone at 12 o`clock, and on arriving abreast of the Marine Crescent he
observed deceased on the pavement lying on his back. On going to him, witness
found he was unconscious, but breathing. He had a wound on the back of the
neck. He got him into as comfortable position as possible and sent for the
police. There was a spot of blood on the pavement, and he was bleeding slightly
from the nose and mouth. The police arrived very promptly, and a doctor was
sent for. They conveyed the deceased on a hand truck to the Rocket House. Just
as they got to the House a constable returned and said Dr. Eastes suggested he
should be conveyed to the hospital. As they got deceased near the fire he
thought he breathed his last. Dr. Yunge Bateman was then sent for.
The Superintendent stated that Dr. Frederick Eastes was in a
very bad state of health, and he was not fit to come out at night.
Dr. Marcus Yunge Bateman said he was called at 1 a.m. that
morning to deceased at the Rocket House. He had been dead then a very short
time. On examining the body he found a small punctured wound at the back of the
head, probably caused by falling backwards on a pebble on the pavement. He
noticed a good deal of blood oozing from the nose and mouth, and from the
appearances he came to the conclusion that death was caused by suffocation from
the blood running into the lungs. The blood was caused by fracture at the base
of the skull. There were no other marks or bruises on the body.
P.C. Sales said that he saw the deceased at 10.45 on the
previous evening in Tontine Street, by himself, drunk. He next saw him about
ten minutes past eleven, in company with the first witness and three soldiers
of the 11th Hussars. They went up Tontine Street. He saw him again
at 11.25 near the Royal George, going in the direction of the harbour. He
appeared then rather more the worse for drink. He was accompanied by the first
witness, who was not so drunk as the deceased. Both appeared very jovial.
The Superintendent said he had made enquiries but could find
out nothing. It was not proposed to make any
further enquiries in view of the doctor`s evidence.
The jury brought in a verdict that deceased died from
suffocation, the effects of a fracture of the skull, but that there was no
evidence to show how the fall occurred.
Folkestone Express
23-1-1897
Inquest
On Thursday afternoon, J. Minter Esq., the Borough Coroner,
held an inquest on the body of Jakob Johannson, a Swede or Norwegain, an able
seaman on board the brig Charity, of West Hartlepool.
Franz Lammons, a shipmate, said on Wednesday the deceased
went ashore about six o`clock, and witness followed about 7.30. Deceased was
alright. He saw him afterwards in the Wellington. They left there about nine to
have some fried fish, and returned and stayed till ten minutes to eleven. They
drank beer, and both got drunk, but witness knew what he was about. They had
some more beer at the Royal George after they had left the Wellington. They
left there with three soldiers who were “a bit drunk”. He and deceased walked
up High Street, and returned to go on board ship. They got as far as the
Pavilion Hotel. Witness went on board, but deceased did not. There had been no
quarrelling.
Frederick Goodsell, a coastguard, said he and others found
the deceased lying on his back in Lower Sandgate Road on the pavement in front
of Marine Crescent. He was unconscious, and had a wound on the back of his
head. They sent for the police. There was a spot of blood on the pavement as
large as a crown piece. They removed the deceased to the rocket apparatus house
and sent for a doctor, but witness believed he died just as they got him into
the house.
Dr. Yunge Bateman said he saw the deceased at one o`clock
that morning at the rocket house. He examined him and found he had been dead a
short time. There was a small punctured wound at the back of the head, probably
caused by falling on a pebble or other hard surface. There was a good deal of
blood oozing from the mouth and nose, and he came to the conclusion that death
was due to fracture of the base of the skull, and blood running into the lungs
causing suffocation.
The jury returned a verdict of death from a fracture of the
skull, caused by a fall, but there was no evidence to show how the fall
occurred.
Folkestone Herald
23-1-1897
Local News
On Thursday an inquest was held by the Borough Coroner (Mr.
J. Minter) on the death of Jacob Johannson, an able seaman on the brig Charity,
of West Hartlepool.
From the evidence it appeared that on Wednesday evening the
deceased and a shipmate got drunk, the latter went on board, but the deceased
did not. He was afterwards found lying on his back on the pavement in Marine
Crescent. The medical evidence showed that death was due to fracture of the
skull, and blood running into the lungs, causing suffocation.
The jury returned a verdict accordingly, adding that there
was nothing to show what caused the fall.
Folkestone Visitors`
List 27-1-1897
Inquest
At the Coroner`s Court, on Thursday afternoon, there was no
evidence to show how the Norwegian seaman Jakob Johannson met with the fall
which caused his death on that morning. The deceased, with his shipmates, left
off work on Wednesday afternoon about half past four o`clock, and at six
o`clock the deceased went ashore. An hour and a half later he was joined by one
of his shipfellows, named Franz Lammofrans, and both had been drinking together
from the time they met until they had expended something like a florin apiece.
They left the particular house at which they had been partaking of
“refreshments” and went to an eating-house, where they partook of “fried fish
and potatoes”, but were absent for about twenty minutes only, and had some more
beer on their return.
The deceased, Lammofrans stated, was “tipsy”, but “knew what
he was about”, and witness himself added that he had drank “about enough to
make him drunk”, considering no doubt what he had expended. But at about “ten
to eleven” they had another pint at another public house, and left there in the
company of three soldiers, who were also “a bit in drink”. They “all five” went
up High Street, at the top corner of which street deceased and witness returned
back with the intention of “going aboard”. They got as far as the Royal Pavilion
Hotel when the deceased suggested that they should go along the Lower Sandgate
Road, but Lammofrans “turned in”, and Johannson went his way.
There had been no quarrelling in the course of the evening,
but the two sailors and the three soldiers were on the “best of terms”, and
this was corroborated by P.C. Sales, who saw the men both before and after the
“closing hour”, when they were very jovial, the deceased being particularly so.
Frederick Goodsell, of the Coastguards, stationed at
Sandgate, stated that he with another coastguardsman were coming from Sandgate
for duty at the Fish Market at “the hour of twelve” when the found a man lying
across the footpath opposite Marine Crescent. The man was insensible, and there
was a spot of blood on the pathway. The man was breathing, but was bleeding
from the nose and mouth. A policeman was sent for, and in the meantime the man
was lifted up in a sitting posture. The constable arrived in a very short time,
and a doctor was next sent for.
While the doctor was being sent for, the man was removed in
a hand truck to the rocket house, but by the time he had arrived there he had
“breathed his last”. The doctor first called was himself ill, and suggested the
man`s removal to the Victoria Hospital, and, this being so, Dr. Yunge Bateman
was called, who attended instantly.
Dr. Yunge Bateman saw the deceased about one o`clock on
Thursday morning. The man was then dead, but the body was still warm. He
examined it, and found a small punctured wound on the back of the head, probably
caused by falling on a pebble or hard substance on the pavement. The base of
the skull had been fractured, and he came to the conclusion that death was due
to suffocation by blood running into the lungs. There was every appearance of
death having been due to suffocation.
The Coroner having summed up the evidence, the jury returned
a verdict to the effect that death was due to a fracture of the skull caused by
a fall, but that there was no evidence to show whether the fall was accidental
or whether some person unknown had pushed him down.
Folkestone Express
23-10-1897
Local News
On Friday, before the Mayor and J. Brook Esq., James Coombes
was charged with being drunk and disorderly on the 14th October
outside the Wellington public house. Prisoner, who had only been discharged
from Canterbury gaol on the 6th inst., was fined 5s., and 4s. 6d.
costs, or in default seven days`.
Folkestone Herald
18-3-1899
Folkestone Police Court
On Saturday Michael Mannix, a soldier, who had been summoned
under the name of Sarsfield, was charged with being found drunk on licensed
premises, in the occupation of William Woodgate, on the 8th March.
P.S. Lilley deposed that about 25 past eight on the evening
of the previous Wednesday, whilst in company with P.C. Watson in Dover Street,
he saw the defendant, accompanied by another soldier, come down Dover Street.
The defendant was very drunk. His cap was off. He could not keep upright, and
had a narrow escape of going through Mr. Iverson`s shop windows. They both
turned round. He went into the Wellington. After waiting four or five minutes,
witness went inside in a small bar. He had some difficulty in opening the door.
When he had got in, the defendant`s companion was holding him up. There were
three glasses on the bar counter. Two contained ale, about half consumed. As he
was speaking to the barmaid, the defendant took one glass up and drank the
remainder. He was so drunk that he could scarcely stand in the bar. Witness
called the barmaid`s attention to it. She said she was aware of his condition
now, but was not when defendant came in. Ultimately they left the premises. He
followed them up High Street. He went to find the military provost. It was half
past eight when he went in.
The Bench fined defendant 2s. 6d., 9s. costs, or 7 days`
hard labour.
Folkestone Up To Date
18-3-1899
Saturday, March 11th: before J. Fitness Esq.,
Col. Hamilton, W. Wightwick, and C.J. Pursey Esqs.
A soldier named Michael Mannix was summoned for being drunk
on licensed premises on the previous Wednesday.
The defendant, when accosted by the police at the time of
the alleged offence, gave the name of Sarsfield.
Police Sergeant Lilley deposed: About 8.25 p.m. on Wednesday
last I saw the defendant, with another soldier, come down Dover Street. The
defendant was very drunk, so drunk that he nearly fell through Mr. Iverson`s
shop window. Afterwards he went into the Wellington, and drank off the contents
of a glass which was lying on the table.
The defendant was fined 2s. 6d. and 9s. costs, in default
seven days` hard labour.
Folkestone Chronicle
25-3-1899
Local News
Before the Folkestone Bench on Thursday, William Woodgate,
landlord of The Wellington Hotel, was summoned for selling liquor to a person
who was drunk.
Sergeant Lilley said on Wednesday, the 8th March,
at 8.25 p.m., he was in Dover Street, and saw two soldiers come down the
street. One was “obviously” drunk, and rolling about. They both went into the
Wellington public house in Beach Street. Witness and P.C. Watson went in there,
and saw the two soldiers in a small side bar, one holding the other up. There
were three glasses on the counter, two containing ale. No-one was in the bar
besides the two men. He asked the barmaid who served the men, and she replied
“I did”. He asked if she saw the condition of one of them, and she replied
“Yes, but I did not notice it when he came in”. He took the names and addresses
of the soldiers. The one who was drunk gave the name of William Saron, and
while he was doing so he drank the remainder of the ale. He asked the barmaid
to call the landlady, and she went upstairs and called a person named Mrs.
Blake, who assisted the defendant in the house. Mrs. Blake asked the barmaid
who served them, and she replied “I did”. Witness left the premises, and the
soldiers went shortly after. He afterwards found out that the soldier`s name
was Michael Mannix.
In reply to Mr. Minter, witness said the soldier who was
drunk was not interfering with anybody, and they did not take people into
custody for simple drunkenness.
Mr. Minter: Why didn`t you go and tell the people not to
serve the soldier? – It is not my business to run a public house. I expected to
be called in to expel him. I saw the woman come out of the house, but I didn`t
know who she was. I should not be at all surprised to hear that the man walked
home to the Camp and passed the roll call as sober.
P.C. Watson gave corroborative evidence.
Mr. Minter said the landlord had not the slightest desire to
break the law. He had always conducted his house in a proper manner, and there
had been no complaint against him. Assuming that what the policeman said was
true, there was no offence on the part of the landlord, because the barmaid
said she did not notice the condition of the soldier. It was not because a
mistake had been made that the landlord was to be convicted. He thought when
the Bench heard his witnesses` evidence they would come to the conclusion that
the constables were not telling the real truth. It was very strange to him that
when the constables saw the drunken man go into the house they did not go in
and warn the landlord of the man`s condition. Instead they waited outside four
minutes. The reason why was clear. The sober soldier went in first. The drunken
one followed. The sober man called for two glasses of beer, and at that moment
there was no second soldier in the house. There was no offence in serving a
soldier who was sober. The barmaid would deny that she said in reply to
Sergeant Lilley that she served the drunken man. On all the facts he asked the
Bench to say there had been no offence committed.
Rebecca Barmers said she had been barmaid at the Wellington
five weeks. When the soldier came in, the other side of the bar was full of
working people. The soldier entered alone, and asked for two glasses of beer.
At that time the other soldier had not come in. There was a woman in the little
bar, and as she behaved in an improper manner witness opened the door and put
her out. As she did so, the two policemen faced her. She did not see the second
soldier come in, as she turned to serve two pots of beer. Then she saw the two
soldiers now in court. When the policemen entered, Sergt. Lilley took the
soldiers` names and asked if she served them with drink. She replied that she
served the sober one. At that time the drunken one had not touched his glass.
She fetched the landlady down. She did not tell the sergeant she had not served
the drunken man. It was a very small bar, and two men were sitting down. After
the sergeant had taken the man`s name he said “If you call me drunk, I`ll ----
well drink some to make me drunk”. Her orders were distinctly not to serve
drunken people.
William McDermott, a driver in the R.A., corroborated what
the barmaid had said. Mannix did not go in with him because his hat blew off,
and he stayed to get it. Mannix then came in and sat down. There was a woman in
the bar, who was turned out by the barmaid. It was not true that he was holding
Mannix up. They both went home to barracks all right. Witness reached the
barracks about 11.
Mr. Bradley said the whole question turned upon the fact
whether the drunken man was in the bar or not when the beer was ordered.
Mr. Minter: Exactly, and the witness swears he wasn`t.
Lilley tells you that.
Chairman of Magistrates: We give you the benefit of the
doubt. The case is dismissed.
Folkestone Herald
25-3-1899
Folkestone Police Court
William Woodgate, landlord of the Wellington public house,
Beach Street, was summoned for unlawfully selling intoxicating liquor to an
intoxicated person. He pleaded Not Guilty. Mr. Minter represented the
defendant.
P.S. Lilley deposed that on Wednesday, the 8th
inst., about 8.25 p.m., he was in Dover Street, in company with P.C. Watson. He
saw two soldiers come down the street; one was drunk. He was rolling about all
over the street, and was obviously drunk. They both went into the Wellington
public house in Beach Street. Witness waited about three or four minutes.
Accompanied by the police constable he went in. In a small side bar he saw the
two soldiers, one of whom was holding the other up. There were three glasses on
the counter, two containing a quantity of ale. No-one was in the bar besides these
two men. Witness said to a barmaid “Who served this man?” She said “I did”.
Witness said “You see this one`s condition?” She said “Yes, but I did not
notice it when he came in”. Witness took the names and addresses of the
soldier. The one who was drunk gave the name of William Sarsfield, and whilst
doing so he took up some ale. He consumed the portion remaining in the glass.
He asked the barmaid for the landlady, being under the impression that the
licence was held by a woman. She went upstairs and returned with a woman named
Mrs. Blake. Witness said “You see this man`s condition?” She said “Yes”, and
turning to the barmaid, she said “Who served them?” The barmaid answered “I
did”. Witness then told her she would be reported for selling intoxicating liquor
to a drunken person. He left the premises, and the soldiers followed soon
after. He afterwards found out that the drunken man`s name was Michael Mannix.
Cross-examined: The soldier in court was the sober one. The
drunken soldier nearly fell into Mr. Iverson`s window. The soldier was not
interfering with anyone; he was simply drunk, creating no disturbance. Witness
was out of sight of the public house. He, however, watched them go in. He did
not interfere, because he did not consider it part of his business to conduct a
public house. He expected to be called in to expel the soldier. He saw a woman
come out. As to Mannix passing the military authorities, he said he did not
take much notice of it.
P.C. Edward Robert Watson deposed that at 8.25 on Wednesday evening,
8th inst., he was in Dover Street, in company with P.S. Lilley. He
saw two soldiers coming down there. One of them was very drunk, rolling about
all over the place. They both went into the Wellington. A few minuts afterwards
he went, with P.S. Lilley, to the small bar of the Wellington. He there saw the
two soldiers. The sober one was holding up the drunken one. There were three
glasses on the counter, two the contents of which were partly consumed, and one
empty. P.S. Lilley asked the barmaid if she had served the drunken man. She
said “Yes. I did not notice his condition until after he was served”. The
barmaid said “I will go and fetch the landlady”. She brought a woman, who asked
the barmaid if she had served the soldier. She said “Yes”. P.S. Lilley then
told the woman she would be reported for serving a drunken soldier.
Cross-examined: The question put was “Did you serve that
drunken soldier?” and that was repeated.
Mr. Minter said the landlord had not the slightest desire,
never had had, to break the law with regard to the conditions under which he
held his licence. He had always conducted his house in a proper manner, and in
this instance, if what the police constable had said was true, there was no
case to convict the landlord of the offence with which he was charged. It was
not because – although he was going to deny it if necessary – his barmaid had
made a mistake, that he was to be convicted of an offence never intended to be
committed. They contended the girl said that she had supplied this drunken
soldier, but did not observe his condition. If that was true, there was no
offence.
The Clerk to the Justices (Mr. H.B. Bradley) said that the
word “knowingly” was omitted from that section.
Mr. Minter said it was not intended a person should be
convicted who served someone by mistake. He considered that there was no case
here, supposing what the police constable said was true. He was in hopes that
the Bench would at once say that was the view they took. It was an unpleasant
duty for him to attack the veracity of the police. He was satisfied that the
Bench would not accept the statement of the police if it was contradicted by
credible witnesses, whom they could trust. The witnesses he would call were
equally entitled to belief as Sergeant Lilley and the other policeman. It
seemed to him to be a most extraordinary thing that a police constable, who saw
a soldier coming down the street, did not prevent him from going into the
public house, or follow him at once. One would have thought that would have
been the duty of a police constable, seeing such a drunken man coming into the
place. But he did nothing of the kind. He waited out there four minutes before
he went in. He left the Bench to draw the inference as to why. To an ordinary
person, the inference was perfectly plain. When the speaker cautioned him, he
told the truth. The speaker asked him whether the sober one went in first. He
admitted that. The speaker would show the Bench that independent of anything
else, there was no offence committed by the landlord through the barmaid. The
sober soldier went into the house, and there was a girl in the bar as well. He
called for two glasses of beer and at the same time he ordered those two
glasses the other man, the drunken soldier, was not in the house. There was no
offence. She executed the order of the sober man. It was true that the other
man came in afterwards. Then the police followed and complained about beer
being supplied. The barmaid would tell the Bench that she was never asked
whether she supplied the drunken soldier, and the landlady would inform them it
was untrue that the girl said that she supplied this drunken soldier with the
beer. The girl said she supplied the sober soldier with two glasses of beer,
and the drunken soldier was in the house. That was confirmed by P.S. Lilley,
who said that the drunken man did not go in until afterwards. There was no
offence. Looking at the case as it stood, he asked the Bench to say,
considering the character of the house, that there had been no offence committed,
and that the landlord was entitled to the dismissal of the summons.
Rebecca Palmer, barmaid, deposed that on the occasion in
question there were other people on the other side of the bar; it was full.
McDermott, the sober soldier, came first in the little bar. She was busy. The
soldier came in alone. He said “Two glasses of beer, please”. She drew it and
put it on the counter. He paid her for it. The other soldier had not come in;
she was sure of it. There was a woman in the little bar. On account of her
conduct witness opened the door and put her out. The two policemen faced her.
When she saw the drunken soldier, he was sitting down on a seat. She had not
served him; she served McDermott. Both the policemen came in, and P.S. Lilley
took their names. After that he asked witness if she had served this man with
drink. She said “Yes I did. I served this man with two glasses”. The Sergeant
was talking to the drunken soldier, who had not touched the glass. He had not
had the chance. He said “Where is the landlady or the landlord?” The landlady
was called. She did not notice that the so-called drunken man was drunk. There
was no room for the man to stumble. He had been sitting down. After the
Sergeant took his name, he said “Well, if you call me drunk, I will drink more
to make me drunk”, and he drank the beer. Before, he had not touched it.
Driver McDermott, Royal Artillery, deposed that on the day
in question he went into the public house first. Mannix`s hat fell off, and he
stayed outside to pick it up. Witness ordered two glasses of beer, and when he
did so Mannix was not in the house. Witness paid for the beer. Mannix came in
and sat on a seat. He saw the barmaid turn a woman out. The beer had not been
touched. The police came in four or five minutes after they had been in. He
asked the young woman if he was sober, and she said “Yes”. He told the
policeman that he paid for the beer. She said “I served you. I did not know
that he was behind”. It was untrue that witness held his comrade up because he
was so helplessly drunk he could not stand. He had been with Mannix all the
evening, but the latter had not had more than he. (Mr. Minter: You had a
stronger head than he had”. Laughter) Mannix came and answered his name as a
sober man. Witness reached the barracks about 11 o`clock. The barmaid had no
means of knowing who the beer was for.
The Chairman said the Bench gave defendant the benefit of
the doubt, and they dismissed the case.
Folkestone Up To Date
25-3-1899
Wednesday, March 22nd: Before J. Hoad Esq., Col.
Westropp, T.J. Vaughan, W. Medhurst, and J. Stainer Esq.
William Woodgate, landlord of the Wellington, Beach Street,
was summoned for a breach of the Licensing Act, by serving a drunken soldier
with drink at his house on the 8th inst. Mr. Minter appeared for the
defendant, who pleaded Not Guilty.
Police Sergeant Lilley said: On Wednesday, the 8th
inst., I saw two soldiers near the Wellington, Beach Street. They were obviously
drunk. They both went into that house. I company with a police constable, I
followed. At a small side bar I discovered two soldiers, one of whom was
holding the other up. There were three glasses on the counter, and a quantity
of ale. I said to a woman in attendance “Do you see this man`s condition?” I
took the name and address of the soldiers. The one who was drunk gave the name
of William Sarsfield. I asked the barmaid the name of the landlady. When I saw
the landlady I said “Do you see this man`s condition?” She said “Yes”, and
turning to the barmaid asked who served them. The barmaid replied “I did”. I
said I should report the case. I left the premises, and the soldiers followed
soon afterwards. Sarsfield`s real name is Michael Mannix.
By Mr. Minter: I did not take the soldiers into custody,
because we do not lock men up simply for being drunk. Soldiers do not take
soldiers into custody for public offences; only policemen do so.
Police Constable 4 deposed to being on duty in Dover Street
in company with Sergeant Lilley, and seeing two soldiers in the Wellington
public house. One soldier was sober and was holding the other up.
Mr. Minter stated that the landlord had no desire to break
the conditions under which he held his licence. When he called his witnesses it
would be seen that there was sufficient discrepancy in the evidence to justify
the Court in dismissing the defendant. The barmaid said that she had only
served the sober man with beer while the drunken man was outside looking after
his cap.
The barmaid said: I have been engaged at the defendant`s
house about five weeks. When the soldiers came in I only served the sober one.
A woman, who had come into the house, behaved in an improper manner, and while
I was turning her out I found myself faced by the policemen. I only saw the
drunken soldier sitting down. I did not know he was inside when I served the
sober soldier. When Sergeant Lilley came in he took the names and numbers of
the two soldiers. The drunken soldier had not touched the glasses of beer. He
had not had a chance. I did not know that either of the soldiers was drunk. Our
orders are not to serve drunken people.
A driver in the Royal Artillery deposed: On the night in
question I went into the defendant`s public house with Mannix, who sat down on
a seat. A woman came in, behaved improperly to one of us, and was turned out.
It is not true that my companion was so drunk that he could not stand. He
afterwards went to the barracks, and passed in as a sober man. The girl did not
know who the beer was for when she served it. The second glass was for my mate,
but she did not know that.
The Court gave the defendant the benefit of the doubt, and
dismissed the case.
Folkestone Express
29-3-1899
Wednesday, March 22nd: Before J. Hoad, T.J.
Vaughan, W. Medhurst and J. Stainer Esqs., and Col. Westropp.
William Woodgate was summoned for selling to a person who
was drunk.
Sergt. Lilley said on Wednesday, the 8th March,
at 8.25 p.m., he was in Dover Street and saw two soldiers come down the street.
One was “obviously” drunk and rolling about. They both went into the Wellington
public house in Beach Street. Witness and P.C. Watson went in there and saw the
two soldiers in a small side bar, one holding the other up. There were three
glasses on the counter, two containing ale. No-one was in the bar besides the
two men. He asked the barmaid who served the men, and she replied “I did”. He
asked if she saw the condition of one of them, and she said “Yes, but I did not
notice it when he came in”. He took the names and addresses of the soldiers.
The one who was drunk gave the name of William Saron, and while he was doing so
he drank the remainder of the ale. He asked the barmaid to call the landlady,
and she went upstairs and called a person named Mrs. Blake, who assisted the
defendant in the house. Mrs. Blake asked the barmaid who served them, and she
replied “I did”. Witness left the premises, and the soldiers left shortly
after. He afterwards found out that the soldier`s name was Michael Mannix.
In reply to Mr. Minter, witness said the soldier who was
drunk was not interfering with anybody, and they did not take people into
custody for simple drunkenness.
Mr. Minter: Why didn`t you go and tell the people not to
serve the soldier? – It is not my business to run a public house. I expected to
be called in to expel him. I saw the woman come out of the house, but I didn`t
know who she was. I should not be at all surprised to hear that the man walked
home to the Camp and passed the roll-call as sober.
P.C. Watson gave corroborative evidence.
Mr. Minter said the landlord had not the slightest desire to
break the law. He had always conducted his house in a proper manner, and there
had been no complaint against him. Assuming that what the policeman said was
true, there was no offence on the part of the landlord, because the barmaid
said she did not notice the condition of the soldier. It was not because a
mistake had been made that the landlord was to be convicted. He thought when
the Bench heard his witness`s evidence they would come to the conclusion that
the constables were not telling the real truth. It was very strange to him that
when the constables saw a drunken man go into the house he did not go in and
warn the landlord of the man`s condition. He did not do that. He waited outside
four minutes. The reason why was clear. The sober soldier went in first, the
drunken one followed. The sober man called for two glasses of beer, and at that
moment there was no second soldier in the house. There was no offence in
serving a soldier who was sober. The barmaid would deny that she said in reply
to Sergt. Lilley that she served the drunken man. On all the facts he asked the
Bench to say there had been no offence committed.
Rebecca Barmers said she had been barmaid at the Wellington
five weeks. When the soldiers came in, the other side of the bar was full of
working people. The soldier entered alone and asked for two glasses of beer. At
that time the other soldier had not come in. There was a woman in the little
bar, and as she behaved in an improper manner she opened the door and put her out.
As she did so, the two policemen faced her. She did not see the second soldier
come in as she turned to serve two pots of beer. Then she saw the two soldiers
she saw in Court. When the policemen entered, Sergt. Lilley took the soldiers`
names and asked her if she served them with drink. She replied that she served
the sober one. At that time the drunken one had not touched his glass. She
fetched the landlady down. She did not tell the Sergeant she had not served the
drunken man. It was a very small bar, and the two men were sitting down. After
the Sergeant had taken the man`s name, he said “If you call me drunk, I`ll ----
well drink some to make me drunk”. Her orders were distinctly not to serve
drunken people.
William McDermott, a driver in the R.A., corroborated what
the barmaid had said. Mannix did not go in with him, because his hat blew off,
and he stayed to get it. Mannix then came in and sat down. There was a woman in
the bar, who was turned out by the barmaid. It was not true that he was holding
Mannix up. They both went home to barracks all right. Witness reached the
barracks about eleven.
Mr. Bradley said the whole question turned upon the fact
whether the drunken man was in the bar or not when the beer was ordered.
Mr. Minter: Exactly, and the witness swears he wasn`t.
Lilley tells you that.
The Magistrates dismissed the case.
No comments:
Post a Comment