Swan (2) 1905 - 1909

Folkestone Daily News 27-4-1907

Saturday, April 27^th:  Before Messrs. Herbert, Stainer, Leggett, Hawksley, Ames, and Boyd.

Alfred Robert Clark, landlord of the Swan Inn, Dover Road, was summoned for allowing drunkenness on his premises. Mr. Mercer appeared for the defence.

P.C. Allen deposed that on Wednesday, the 17^th of April, he was on duty in Dover Road. About 10.25 he was near the Swan Inn. He was on the opposite side of the road, and had been there about three minutes when he saw a man named Suckling come out of the public bar of the Swan Inn. He was very drunk, and was holding himself up by both sides of the doorway. After staggering about for a few minutes, he fell down into the road. He got up again, commenced to stagger, and then fell down. He got up again, went a few yards, and then fell down again. He was going in the direction of the Skew Arches. Seeing he was unable to take care of himself, he (witness) took him into custody. Suckling could not have gone into the public house without witness seeing him.

P.C. Eason said he was on duty in Dover Road about 10.25 on the evening in question. He saw a man named Suckling come out of the Swan Inn, and after staggering about for a few second he fell into the horse road. He got up, went a little further, and again fell down. He got as far as the Skew Bridge, and then propped himself up against the wall. Witness passed the Swan Inn a few minutes earlier, but saw nothing of Suckling, who could not have entered the house without witness seeing him.

Florence Hambrook said she was employed by Mr. Morrison of Dover Road. She remembered the evening of the 17^th April, and saw a man named Suckling, about 10.20, come out of the Swan Inn door. He was very drunk, and she saw him fall down into the road. He got up, and again fell down on the pavement in front of Mr. Morrison`s shop. The next she saw of him was that he was in charge of two constables.

Horatio Albert Suckling, of 74, Bridge Street, said: I am a fish hawker. On Wednesday, April 17^th, I was down at the fish market, and after leaving the market I went to the Swan. That was about 8.30. Previously to going to the Swan I had not been in any public house before that day. On entering the Swan I went to the public bar, and was served by defendant, Mr. Clark. There were other people present, but I do not know their names.

The Chief Constable: Can you tell us how long you stayed in the house?

Witness: Yes. I stayed in there until I came out. (Laughter)

The Chief Constable: When did you come out?

Witness: About 10.30.

When you went to the Swan, had you a cut over your eye? – No.

When did you discover it? – The next morning.

Where were you? – In here.

Mr. Mercer: Suckling, are you given to drink? – No, sir.

Have you been convicted here before or anywhere else for drunkenness? – No, sir.

Which way did you come from the Market? – I came straight up Dover Street.

You had 1s. 6d. when you went to the Swan? – Yes, sir.

How much had you when you counted your money next morning? – Elevenpence.

What do you remember after half past eight? – I can`t remember anything.

Suppose I call witnesses to prove that you went into the house at 8.30 and were turned out, went back again, and were again turned out, would that be true? – No.

You don`t remember anything, and yet you remember that you remained on the premises? – I might have gone out the back, but not off the premises.

As a matter of fact you don`t remember anything, eh? – No.

Inspector Swift deposed that he went to defendant and told him he would in all probability be prosecuted for permitting drunkenness on his premises, and defendant replied “You mean Suckling”.

Mr. Mercer then called the defendant Clark, who said: I have been 12½ years a licensed victualler in the town. I have £1,400 invested in this house. I know Suckling. On the 17^th he came in the room about 8 o`clock and sold some fish. When I next saw him it was between ten minutes and a quarter past 10. When he came in I saw he had had enough. At that time Mr. Pope and Mr. Bull were in the bar. I told Suckling to clear off home. Mr. Pope said to me “He has drunk my beer”. I looked and found that he had. Suckling was then gone. I replaced Pope`s beer. I was about the bar from 6 p.m. until closing time, only being absent about ten minutes for supper.

Cheif Constable Reeve: Now, Mr. Clark, the very first statement you made to Mr. Mercer was that you have never been summoned or cautioned. Is that true?

Witness: Yes.

Come, let me refresh your memory. Have I not cautioned you? – Yes, but nothing serious.

I`m sorry for you if you do not think it serious. Did I not meet you myself and caution you as to the conduct of the house? – Yes.

Do you seriously mean to say that the man Suckling was not in your house between 8.30 and 10? – I do.

And that he came in drunk soon after ten? – Yes, that is so.

And did you refuse to serve him? – I did.

When Suckling came in, where was the barman? – In the club room.

How long did Mr. Pope remain after Suckling left? – I don`t know.

When Suckling left the house, did you follow, or anyone else, to see what became of him? – No, I did not.

Is not Suckling a regular customer, spending hours in the house daily? – No, only a casual customer. He would not stay longer than any other casual customer.

Mr. Boyd: You say you have been a licensed holder about twelve years? – Yes, sir.

Mr. Boyd: Yet you know this man has been addicted to drink, and serve him. Extraordinary!

Mr. Mercer, before calling further evidence, asked the Bench to find that the balance of evidence must preponderate in favour of the defendant, whose evidence and that of his witnesses must weigh against that of the man Suckling, who in evidence remembered nothing.

John Hatfield, barman at the Swan, said on Wednesday, April 17^th, Suckling came into the bar about 8.15; the man was then sober, and fater selling his pennyworth of fish had a pint of beer and went out after about twenty minutes. About 10.10 witness again heard Suckling enter the bar, and Mr. Clarke refused to serve him and told witness to put the man out. By the time he got there Suckling had gone out.

The Chief Constable: Is it possible that Suckling could have gone into the public bar from the private bar without your seeing him? – It was not possible.

Did you see Suckling take up the pint of beer? – No, I did not.

Then you cannot tell me whether he was served or not? – Yes, I know he was not served.

That`s funny. You did not see him drink the beer, but know he was not served.

Thomas Pope, painter, of Princess Street, said while at the Swan on the night of the 17^th, Suckling, who was intoxicated, came in. Suckling had asked fo a pint of beer. Mr. Clark replied “You have had quite enough” and refused to serve him.

James Boxer, of 32, Gladstone Road, a ginger beer manufacturer, said on the 17^th inst., shortly after 10 o`clock, he visited the saloon bar of the Swan. Suckling entered the public bar a few minutes later. Suckling said “Hello, Mr. Boxer. Are you going to treat me?” Clark said “No, Mr. Boxer. He has had too much already.

After cross-examination the Bench retired, and on returning the Chairman said: We have come to the decision that there is not sufficient evidence of permitting on which we can convict you, but at the same time we have come to the conclusion that you did not use sufficient caution, or eject the man at the proper time.

Folkestone Express 4-5-1907

Saturday, April 27^th: Before W.G. Herbert, J. Stainer, R.J. Linton, T. Ames, G. Hawkesley, and G. Boyd Esqs.

Alfred Robert Clark, the licensee of the Swan Inn, Dover Road, was summoned for permitting drunkenness. Mr. R.M. Mercer, solicitor, appeared on behalf of the defendant, who pleaded Not Guilty.

P.C. Allen said on Wednesday evening, April 17^th, he was on duty in Dover Road. About 10.25 he arrived opposite the Swan Inn, which was kept by the defendant. Witness was on the opposite side of the road to the Inn. He had been there about three minutes, when he saw a man named Suckling coming out of the public bar, which was at the corner of the public house and faced the Skew Bridge. He was very drunk, and was holding himself up by the sides of the doorway. He went a few yards, staggered about, and fell down in the road. He fell down again twice after that, and then went towards the Skew Bridge. He went through the arch, staggered across the road, and then hung on to the railings. Witness took him into custody, and with the assistance of P.C. Eason brought him to the police station. Suckling could not have entered the inn during the time witness was there without him seeing him. He did not see the landlord or any of jis servants put Suckling out.

P.C. Eason said on the evening of the 17^th of that month he was on duty in Dover Road. About 10.25 he was near the Skew Arch, when he saw a man by the name of Suckling come out of the bar of the Swan Inn. He staggered about and then fell into the road. He got up and went a few yards further, and then fell again. After falling a third time Suckling walked up the road to the Skew Bridge, and the propped himself up against the arch. He was subsequently arrested by P.C. Allen and brought to the police station. He was very drunk and practically helpless. Witness had passed the Swan Inn about ten or twelve minutes past ten, but at that time he saw nothing of Suckling. During the five minutes witness had been standing at the Skew Bridge Suckling could not have entered the bar without him seeing him.

In cross-examination Eason said he was a good judge of the time, but on being put to the test he turned out to be incorrect, and his guesses at the correct time caused much laughter.

Florence Hambrook said she was employed by Mr. Morrison, who kept a fish shop in Dover Road. The shop was just above the Swan Inn, Folly Road running down between the shop and the Swan. On Wednesday, 17^th April, about twenty minutes past ten in the evening, she saw a man named Suckling come out from the public bar of the Swan Inn. He was very drunk. Witness saw him fall down in the road, about a yard from the inn. She saw him fall down again, and the next time she saw Suckling was in charge of two constables.

Horation Albert Suckling said he lived at 74, Bridge Street, and was a fish hawker. He remembered Wednesday, the 17^th April. He was not working at all that day. He was down in the fish market. About eight o`clock in the evening he left the fish market, and went into the Swan about 8.30. Previous to going into the Swan he had not been to any other public house that day. He was perfectly sober. He had a pint of beer. He remained there until a little after ten. He did not remember leaving the house. He could not remember how many drinks he had. He did not remember what happened after he left the Swan. He remembered being arrested, but he did not remember falling down. When he went into the Swan he did not have a cut over his eye. He was not sober when he left the Swan. He had been in a public house in the morning.

Cross-examined, witness said he could not remember anything after 8.30.

Inspector Swift said on April 18^th he went to the Swan Inn, where he saw defendant. He told him about Suckling, who had made a statement that morning to the police that he went into those premises at 8.30 the previous evening and remained there until the time he was arrested, at twenty five minutes past ten. Defendant replied that Suckling came in twice, but he did not attend to him himself until ten minutes past ten. He (defendant) then said that Suckling had already had enough and had better have some ginger beer. Suckling then took up a pint of beer belonging to Mr. Pope and drank it off. Witness told defendant that information would be laid against him.

Before calling witnesses for the defence, Mr. Mercer drew the Magistrates` attention to Section 4 of the Licensing Act of 1902, and Section 13 under which that summons had been issued.

The defendant then went into the witness box. He said he had been a licensed victualler in that town for twelve and a half years – eight years at the Eagle, eighteen months at the Eagle in High Street, and three years at the Swan. During that time there had never been a complaint or a summons against him. He had invested in the Swan £1,400, which was practically all his money. Witness knew Suckling and knew his proclivities. He remembered Suckling coming in on the 17^th April. He came in a little before eight o`clock and remained there about half an hour, during which time he sold some fish. Witness believed he was supplied with some drink. He did not serve him. Witness next saw Suckling a little before ten. He was drunk when he came in, and wanted a pint of beer. A Mr. Pope was in teh public bar, and a Mr. Boxer in the saloon bar. Witness told him he had had enough to drink. Suckling then asked Mr. Boxer to treat him. Witness told Suckling he was not to have anything. Then Mr. Pope said Suckling had drank his beer, and, looking round, witness saw the glass was empty. Witness told Suckling to clear out. He had a barman there ready to put him out, but before he could get round Suckling was gone.

Cross-examined, witness admitted that the Chief Constable had cautioned him about the conduct of his house, but he did not think it was serious.

Mr. Mercer said he ventured to say, if the facts should prove to their satisfaction, they would say he was right, after having read that Section of the Act, and he (defendant) rebutted the prima facie presumption of permitting drunkenness in doing his best to get Suckling out directly he recognised he was drunk. He ventured to say the balance of the evidence must preponderate in favour of his case.

John Hatfield, barman at the Swan Inn, said Suckling came into the bar about ten minutes past eight. He was perfectly sober, and witness served him with some beer. There was no truth in the statement that he was there from eight to ten.

Thomas Pope said he lived in Princess Street, and was a house painter. He called in at the Swan on the 17^th April, about five or ten minutes past ten. There was no-one in the bar then. While he was there he saw Suckling come in. He was intoxicated. In further evidence Pope generally corroborated defendant`s statement. Suckling was on the premises about three or four minutes.

James Boxer, of Gladstone Road, ginger beer manufacturer, said shortly after ten o`clock on the evening of the 17<sup>th</sup> April he went into the saloon bar of the Swan Inn. Suckling entered the public bar two or three minutes later. He saw Suckling take Mr. Pope`s beer after being refused by defendant. He could not suggest anything that the landlord did not do to get him out.

The Magistrates retired, and upon their return the Chairman said that they had come to the decision that there was not sufficient evidence on which they could convict defendant for permitting drunkenness, but they did not consider defendant ejected Suckling from the bar as quickly as he should have done.

Note: No mention of Clark at the Eagle, High Street in More Bastions.

Folkestone Herald 4-5-1907

Saturday, April 27^th: Before Mr. W.G. Herbert, Councillor G. Boyd, Messrs. T. Ames, R.J. Linton, J. Stainer and G. Hawksley.

Alfred Robert Clark, of the Swan Inn, Dover Road, was summoned for permitting drunkenness on his premises on the 17^th inst. Mr. R.M. Mercer appeared on behalf of defendant, who pleaded Not Guilty.

P.C. Allen deposed that on the 17^th April, at about half past ten, he saw a man named Suckling coming out of the Swan Inn very drunk. He left the door at the corner which faced the Skew Arches. Suckling was holding himself up by both sides of the door. He came out a few yards, staggered about, and fell down.

Mr. Mercer, interposing, said that he did not deny that Suckling was drunk.

Continuing, P.C. Allen said that he took Suckling into custody, and with the assistance of P.C. Eason brought him to the police station. Witness said that accused did not enter the public house during the time (about three minutes) he was outside. No-one was behind Suckling when he left the house, and no-one ordered him out.

P.C. Eason stated that he saw Suckling leave the Swan Inn. He was very drunk indeed, being in a practically helpless condition. Witness hd passed the Swan Inn previously, at about 10.10 or 10.12 p.m., and he did not see anything of the man then. He looked down towards the Swan Inn, but did not see Suckling enter the house.

Florence Hambrook, in the employ of Mr. Morrison, Dover Road, said she saw Suckling come from the door of the Swan Inn in a very drunken condition.

Horatio Albert Suckling deposed that he lived at 74, Bridge Street, and was a fish hawker. On the 17^th inst. he was not working, but went down to the fish market and stood about there. He went to the Swan Inn at about 8.30 p.m. He had not been in any public house before that evening, and he was perfectly sober. He had a pint of beer on entering, and Mr. Clark served him. He went into the public bar, where there were some other people whom he knew by sight. He remained there till he came out after ten o`clock. He did not remember leaving the house, and did not remember how many drinks he had. He knew, however, that he had more than one pint. He was not sure if Mr. Clark was in the bar the whole time. He knew that he had no cut on his face when he went to the Swan, but found out that he had a cut in the morning, when he was in the police station.

Mr. Mercer, in cross-examining Suckling, asked him if he remembered anything after 8.30 p.m. – No.

Although you remember nothing after 8.30, yet you remember that you were in the house the whole of the time? – Yes.

Mr. Mercer: It is inconceivable that you remember being in the house the whole of the time if you remember noting after 8.30.

Inspector Swift deposed that on the 18^th April he went to the Swan Inn, Dover Road. He saw Mr. Clark, and said to him “I have come about the affair that took place last night. At 10.25 p.m. a man in a drunken condition was seen to leave your premises. He was taken into custody, and he made a statement this morning to the police to the effect that he came to your premises at 8.30 last evening, and remained till the time he was arrested at 10.25”. Defendant said he knew the man Suckling, who came to the house twice the previous evening. Defendant further stated that he did serve Suckling when he came at about 10.10 p.m., for he (defendant) said “You have already had enough, and you had better have some ginger beer”. It appeared, from what defendant said, that Suckling thereupon took up the pint of beer belonging to Mr. Pope and drank it off. Witness told defendant that in all probability he would be prosecuted for permitting drunkenness.

Defendant, on oath, stated that he had been a licensed victualler in the town for 12½ years. He had never had a summons or a complaint against him. He had invested £1,400 in the house, and was an experienced man. He remembered the day in question when Suckling (whom he knew very well) came to the house a little before eight o`clock. Witness did not serve him then, but his man did. Suckling left the house at about 8.30, and did not come back till 10. When he came into the public bar at about 10 p.m. he was drunk; witness noticed it at once. Suckling called for a pint of beer, but witness told him he had had enough to drink. At this time witness was serving Mr. Pope with a pint of beer, which he placed in front of him. Mr. Pope took a drink, and just afterwards Suckling picked it up and drank it off, then asking Mr. Boxer, who was in the saloon bar, to treat him to a drink. Witness told Suckling to clear off home, and refused to give him a drink. Suckling only stayed there about two or three minutes, and on being told went out without making a row. Witness told the barman to put Suckling out. Suckling had, however, gone before the barman got to him.

The Chief Constable: You say that you have never been summoned or cautioned? – Yes.

Did I not caution you once, about three months ago? – Defendant said he did not consider that that was a caution when the Chief Constable spoke to him on that occasion.

Mr. Mercer, in addressing the Bench, asked if they were going to take the evidence of a drunken man, who remembered nothing that occurred after 8.30.

John Hadfield, barman at the Swan Inn, said Suckling came in at about 8.10 p.m., and was perfectly sober. He had half a pint of beer, and went into the private bar. He saw Suckling go out about twenty minutes later. He returned again at about 10.10 or 10.15 p.m., and Mr. Clark told him to clear off home. There was no truth in the statement that he was in the house the whole of the time.

Thos. Pope, a painter, of 5, Princess Street, stated that he went to the Swan Inn about 10.05 p.m., and while there Suckling entered in an intoxicated condition and asked for a drink. He was told by the landlord that he had had quite enough, and the best thing he could do was  to get home. Suckling then took his (witness`s) glass of beer and drank it. He drew the landlord`s attention to it, and he was supplied with some more. The landlord then told Suckling to go. Suckling was only there about three or four minutes, and the landlord, in his opinion, could have done nothing to get Suckling out of the premises quicker.

James Boxer, 32, Gladstone Road, said he saw Suckling drink Mr. Pope`s beer. Suckling called to him (witness), and asked if he would treat him. Mr. Clark said he would not give him anything to drink. Suckling went out after being there two or three minutes.

The Chairman said the Bench had come to the decision that there was not sufficient evidence to convict defendant, but they did not think that Suckling was got out of the premises as soon as possible.

 

Folkestone Express 28-12-1907

Local News

Just before one o`clock on Monday a collision occurred at the top of Shellons Street, between a cab belonging to Mr. A.R. Clarke, of the Swan Inn, Dover Road, and a London and South Coast motor coach. The motor coach was proceeding down Cheriton Road towards Shellons Street, while the cab was coming across Guildhall Street by the Shakespeare Hotel. Apparently both drivers were unaware of each other`s presence until they were practically in collision. The driver of the cab, in order to avoid the motor coach, turned into Shellons Street. He was hardly quick enough, and before the chauffeur could pull up the coach had crashed into the horse, which fell and broke its leg. The front part of the coach ran on to the pavement by Mr. Strood`s shop, where it came to a standstill. The cab was not damaged at all, but the horse had to be shot, which was done by Mr. Attwood.

Folkestone Daily News 18-2-1908

County Court

Tuesday, February 18^th: Before Judge Shortt.

Clark v London and South Coast Motor Co: This was a case tried before a jury.

Mr. Theodore Matthew appeared for the plaintiff, and said that his client lived at the Swan Inn. He was a proprietor of carriages, and on the 23^rd December last one of his carriages was passing along Guildhall Street, and when at the junction of Shellons Street and Cheriton Road, it was run iton by one of the defendant`s motor cars, with the result that the horse in the carriage had to be destroyed.

George Benjamin Phillips, a driver in the employ of the plaintiff, said on the 23^rd December he went out with his fly. On returning home about 12 o`clock, and when within two yards of the Shakespeare, he saw a motor car coming from the direction of Cheriton Road. As he saw an accident was inevitable, he tried to turn his horse and get out of the way, but failed, and the motor ran into his horse, breaking one of its legs.

In reply to Mr. Frame Dodd, for the Company, witness said there was no other vehicle there. P.C. Kettle came up and took the position of the motor car, and witness told him the horse cost thirty five guineas.

Grecian Bell, of Linhurst Road, Peckham, said he was on his way to the Post Office on 23^rd December last. When in Shellons Street he saw a motor car coming down Cheriton Road and a fly crossing the top of Shellons Street. The car struck the horse`s leg, but he could not say what rate it was going at.

Miss Margaret Wylle, of Regent`s Park, said she was looking out of Mr. Strood`s window, and saw the motor car coming down Cheriton Road, and the fly coming from the direction of Darlington. The car, in her opinion, was travelling at much too fast a pace for a wet day. When opposite her the car ran into the horse. The driver of the car did not blow his horn until he was within a few yards of the fly.

Archibald Edwards, of Gladstone Road, said he was coming down Cheriton Road and the motor car was in front of him. He saw the car strike the horse on the near side, and the driver tried to avoid an accident by turning his horse down Shellons Street. Had he not done so, the car would have struck him broadside.

Frederick George Mercer, of Dover Road, said he was going up Shellons Street on the 23^rd December last, and saw the driver jump off the fly. He did not see the accident happen, but heard the driver of the car say he could not help it, as the roads were slippery.

Frederick Tritton, of 20 East Cliff, said he was in the vicinity of the accident and saw the motor car run into the fly. The driver of the latter tried to turn his horse down Shellons Street to avoid an accident.

Henry Dawkins, 2 Ingles Mews, said he examined the horse in question for Mr. Clark, and advised him to buy it. He considered it well worth 45 guineas.

John Morphy, of Coolinge Road, said the horse was well worth £50.

This concluded the case for the plaintiff.

Richard Littlehale, a motor car driver in the employ of the defendant Company, said he was driving a motor car down Cheriton Road on the 23^rd December last. The roads were very greasy, and when near Shellons Street he was going about four miles an hour. As soon as he saw the horse and fly he put on his brakes, and this caused his car to slip down the road. One of his wheels went on to the pavement. Had he been going at eight miles an hour and a clear road he would have pulled up.

Cross-examined by Mr. Matthew: The witnesses who said I was travelling fast are wrong.

You say the fly was coming along rather fast? – I don`t think I said anything about seeing the driver coming along at a fast pace.

Oh, yes, you did.

His Honour said he had taken a note of what the witness had said, and he found he had said the fly was coming along at rather a fast pace.

William Want said he was the conductor of the car in question on December 23^rd. There was another car near the Shakespeare Hotel. The driver sounded the horn twice. Witness did not see the horse until they were right on it, and the driver tried to avoid an accident by running on to the pavement.

Cross-examined by Mr. Matthew: They were going about four miles an hour, but they were too far over the fly to allow them to turn into Guildhall Street.

Charles Hinds, a motor driver, said he was outside the Shakespeare Hotel when the accident happened. He heard the horn twice, and saw the car run into the horse. It was impossible to avoid an accident, although the fly driver did all he could to avoid one.

Cross-examined by Mr. Matthew: How fas was the fly going? – About eight miles an hour.

Then you mean to say the fly ran into the car? – Yes.

P.C. Kettle said he was called to the scene of the accident just after it occurred. One wheel of the car was on the pavement. A veterinary surgeon was sent for, and he advised that the horse should be shot. Witness did not see Hinds` car there.

Mr. Dodds, for the defendant Company, briefly addressed the jury, pointing out that it was not the duty of a defendant to prove that he was innocent, but for the plaintiff to prove that the defendant was the guilty party. He submitted that in the present case proof of negligence had not been produced, and therefore he was entitled to a verdict in his favour.

Mr. Matthew said all the plaintiff`s witnesses were independent people, whereas the witnesses on the other side were, to a certain extent, prejudiced. It was absurd to say that the fly ran into the motor car. He contended that a case of negligence had been proved against the Company.

His Honour briefly summed up, and the jury returned a verdict for the defendant.

Folkestone Express 22-2-1908

County Court

Tuesday, February 18^th: Before Judge Shortt.

Alfred L. Clarke v London and South Coast Motor Service Ltd.: The plaintiff claimed £70 for damages done to his horse and motor coach, owing, he contended, to negligence. A jury was empanelled in this case.

Mr. Theodore Matthew, instructed by Mr. Mercer, of Canterbury, represented the plaintiff, and Mr. F. Dodd, instructed by Messrs. Reynolds and Son, 5, Arundel Street, Strand, London, for the defendants.

Mr. Matthew said the issue the jury had to decide was a simple one, whether a horse, the property of the plaintiff, was injured so that it had to be killed owing to the negligence of the defendant`s driver, and they would also be asked to estimate the value of the animal.

George Benjamin Phillips, living at 15, Darlington Street, said he was employed by the plaintiff, who was a fly proprietor. On Monday, December 23^rd, he went out with his fly. About half past twelve he was returning with his fly from his home in Guildhall Street. When he got to the corner of Shellons Street he saw a motor coming from the direction of Cheriton Road. Directly he saw him the driver blew his horn. The only possible thing he could do was to pull his horse up, but the rear wheel of the motor struck the horse`s foreleg. The horse stood holding its leg up, so he jumped down at once. The motor ran onto the pavement near Strood`s shop. The driver said he could not stop on account of the road being slippery and the brakes skidding. He would not allow anything to be touched until the police saw the position of the vehicles. Mr. Hogben, the veterinary surgeon, was sent for, and he ordered the horse to be shot. The motor was about five or six yards from him when the horn was sounded. He (witness) was going about four or five miles an hour.

Cross-examined, witness said he saw no other motor car close to the kerb. At the time of the accident he was in the middle of Guildhall Street, with the horse turning down Shellons Street. The skin of the horse`s leg was not caught. The roads were a little greasy that day. The off-side wheel and the engine of the car were on the pavement, but had not the near side wheel caught the kerb it would have gone further. He told the police constable who came that the horse cost 35 guineas. He did not tell him the motor was going fast. He (witness) was not going at a considerable pace. He was going to a cab stand, and had no job to which he was going.

Re-examined, he said if he had not pulled up the motor would have caught him broadside.

Graham Bell, of Lyndhurst Road, Peckham, said he was going from the Drill Halls up Shellons Street, when he saw the fly crossing at the top of the street and the motor coming down Cheriton Road. The driver of the fly pulled his horse facing him and the motor car, which came rather quickly, ran into the horse. The car ran onto the pavement, and both off wheels of the car were on the pavement. The fly was going slowly. He was not able to say whether the motor skidded. He could not say that he formed an opinion of who was responsible for the accident.

Miss Margaret Wylie, 1, Cornwall Terrace, Regent`s Park, London, said on December 23<sup>rd</sup>, at half past twelve, she was in Strood`s shop, looking out of the window. She saw a motor car coming far too quickly for a wet day down Cheriton Road. The motor never “tooted” at all until it got to the corner. It was too late, and it caught the horse, which the driver had pulled with its head down Shellons Street. She afterwards gave her name to the driver of the fly. She was noticing the car because she was intending to go to Hythe by one of them, but she did not go by one of them afterwards.

Cross-examined, witness said she did not notice any motor standing near the Shakespeare Hotel.

Archibald Edwards, a carrier, of 12, Gladstone Road, said he was coming down Cheriton Road when he noticed the motor coach passing him. The motor car driver sounded his horn when on the corner, and, no doubt, when he saw the horse. He did not see the fly until the two vehicles were pretty well on to each other. The fly could not have been going very fast by the manner in which it was pulled up. The car was going fron six to eight miles an hour. There was a drop in the road halfway across Guildhall Street.

Cross-examined, he said he did not see any other vehicle near the Shakespeare Hotel.

Frederick George Mercer, a builder, of 33, Tontine Street, said he asked the fly driver how the accident happened, and the driver of the coach said he could not help it, because the road was slippery and the car skidded.

Frederick Tritton, a fishmonger, of 20, East Cliff, said he was crossing Guildhall Street at the time of the accident. The motor coach came straight down Cheriton Road. It was going fast, while the fly was going at a jog trot, as though the driver was looking for a job. There were two off fore wheels of the coach on the pavement, and it seemed to him that half of the car was on the pavement.

Henry Dawkins, of 2, Ingles Mews, a coachman in the employ of Alderman Banks, said Mr. Clarke asked him to examine the horse before he purchased it, and he told him, when he advised him to buy it, it was dirt cheap at £45. Later he (witness) asked him to sell it to him for £55.

Cross-examined, he said the horse was six years old next spring. It was bred by Mr. Heritage, who evidently did not know its value.

John Murphy, a horse dealer, of Ingles Mews, said he should value the horse at £50. If he had had him he would not have taken that for him, because he was fit for a weight-carrying hunter.

This concluded the plaintiff`s case.

Richard Littlehales, the driver of the coach, residing at 17, Bradstone Avenue, said he had been driving for four years. On December 23^rd he was driving down Cheriton Road. It had been raining and the road was greasy. In Cheriton Road there was a motor by the Shakespeare Hotel. He had no passengers in the coach, and before he got to the corner he was going about four or five miles an hour. He pulled up when he saw the horse. He sounded the horn twice, the first time just a little lower down than Leney`s yard, and the second time just before he saw the horse. When he got to the corner he saw the horse coming along at rather a fast pace. He put his brakes on and, he supposed, owing to the roads being slippery, they locked and the wheels skidded. When he saw the horse he kept straight on and he went on to the pavement. He thought they were blocking the traffic, and he suggested they should move, but he did not move until P.C. Kettle came. After the horse hit his nearside wheel the back of the cab was towards Guildhall Street. His brakes were in perfectly good order. From the time he saw the horse until he pulled up he covered about eight yards. The horse was not knocked down.

Cross-examined: The witnesses who said he was going at a fast pace were wrong. It was right the horse was going at a fast pace. The fly man had more chance of avoiding the accident than he had. His coach weighed 2 tons 13 cwt., and the driver of the fly really drove into him at a fast pace. Two days before that case he had a little collision with a fly, and he paid the damage for it because he thought people were prejudiced against motors. He did not run into a team of horses in Dymchurch Road last year. He had had two accidents before, but he had not done so much damage as he had done in that case. He was always careful about his driving.

Re-examined, he said the near side front wheel caught the horse.

William George Want, the conductor of the coach, said he was sitting on the front seat with the driver. They were going to the garage. When they came down Cheriton Road he saw another motor near the Shakespeare Hotel. The driver sounded his horn twice, for it was a dangerous corner. He did not see the horse until they got to the corner and the coach ran on to the pavement. The horse was coming along far too fast for it to be pulled up, and its leg shot out and went under the wheel.

Cross-examined, witness said they had not time to turn into Guildhall Street. They were going about four miles an hour. He had only been on the car once when they had an accident. That was when they ran into a cab coming out of Cheriton Gardens.

Robert Charles Hind, a motor car driver, of Cheriton, said he had nothing to do with the defendant company. He was outside the Shakespeare Hotel with his car at the time of the accident. He heard the driver sound the horn twice, and he saw the horse strike the coach. The coach came past him at about five miles an hour and when the brakes were applied it seemed to swerve. Only one wheel of the car went on to the pavement. The horse, which was going at a brisk trot, was struck by the front wheel of the coach.

Cross-examined, he thought the driver of the fly was really the cause of the accident, for the horse was going at eight miles an hour. The coach could have been pulled up in its own length, but the horse ran into it. He had a little sympathy for a motor having had an accident. In that case it was a landau.

P.C. Kettle said he did not see the accident. He saw the vehicles after the accident. The front wheel of the coach was on the pavement. The roads were wet. He did not see Hind`s motor near the Shakespeare Hotel.

Both Mr. Dodd and Mr. Matthew addressed the jury, and his Honour, in summing up, said there was no doubt the burden of proof was on the plaintiff. It was not for the defendant to disprove the case, but it was incumbent upon the plaintiff, if he was to succeed, to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that it was caused through the negligence of the driver of the coach.

The jury retired to consider their verdict, and on their return they announced they had found for the defendant, and his Honour gave judgement in accordance with the jury`s finding.

Folkestone Herald 22-2-1908

County Court

Tuesday, February 18^th: Before Judge Shortt.

Alfred R. Clark v London and South Coast Motor Service Ltd: Claim for damages amounting to £70, for loss alleged to have been caused by negligence on the part of the defendant Company. A jury was empanelled in this case.

Mr. Theodore Matthew, barrister, appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. F. Dodd, barrister, for the defendant Company.

Mr. Matthew said it would be for the jury to judge as to whether or not the defendants were guilty of negligence, and whether a horse was worth £70.

Mr. George B. Phillips, of 15, Darlington Street, said that he was employed by the plaintiff, who was a fly proprietor. He had been in that employ for eight years. On Monday, December 23^rd, he was out driving, and after dinner, about 12.30 p.m., he was returning by way of Guildhall Street to the Town Hall. Within a few yards of the Shakespeare Hotel he saw a motor car coming from the Cheriton Road. Witness thought the only thing to do was to pull his horse`s head to the left. He did so, and the car ran into the horse`s foreleg, which was broken. The driver said that he could not stop, as his car skidded. The police and a veterinary surgeon were sent for, and by the advice of the veterinary surgeon the horse was shot. When witness first saw the motor it was five or six yards away from the corner. Witness then pulled to the left, but notwithstanding that, the car ran into him, and on to the pavement, on the right side of Shellons Street.

Cross-examined: There was no other vehicle standing on the corner, or opposite to the Shakespeare. The horn was only sounded once. Witness was going about four miles an hour. In Guildhall Street, and on the north side of Shellons Street there was a cab rank, but there were no vehicles there. When he turned down Shellons Street, he was in the middle of that road.

Witness pointed out on a plan to Mr. Dodd the positions of the vehicles at the time of the occurrence and before. He added that the skin on the horse`s leg was not cut. The roads were a little greasy that day. The engine and off-side wheel wee on the pavement. P.C. Kettle came to the scene, and examined the horse. He told the policeman that the horse cost 35 guineas. He did not tell him that the motor bus was driving furiously. The horse was kept where it was struck until the arrival of the veterinary surgeon and the policeman. Witness did not on that day have a job to go to. He was going to the cab stand.

Re-examined: Had he not turned his horse`s head down Shellons Street, he would have been run into broadside on, and probably would have been killed.

Mr. Graham Bell, living at Peckham, said that he was coming up Shellons Street at the time of the accident. He saw the head of the motor coming across the head of Shellons Street. The cab driver pulled his horse`s head round facing witness, and the motor ran into the horse`s legs. The fly was going slowly. He could not tell whether the motor skidded. He did not form any opinion at the time as to whose fault the accident was.

Cross-examined: Witness said that he was on the Drill Halls side of Shellons Street at the time. Both off-side wheels of the motor were on the pavement. Plan produced by Mr. Dodd was not a correct one. The wheels of the motor and cab were locked.

Re-examined: The two vehicles were a little farther down the road than the corner.

Miss Wiley, of 1, Cornwall Terrace, Regent`s Park, London, said at the time of the accident she was in Strood`s shop in Guildhall Street, looking out of the window. She saw a motor coming down the road opposite. It was coming far too quickly for a wet day. The fly was coming along Guildhall Street. The motor man never “tooted” till he got to the corner, when he ran into the horse. She gave her name to the driver of the fly.

Cross-examined: She was in the Shellons Street side of the shop, right inside. She did not see the cab coming along, and did not see them until they were nearly in contact. She had only seen the motor bus a moment before the impact – about 15 yards before it came to the corner.

Mr. Archibald Edwards, 12, Gladstone Road, said that at the time of the accident he was coming down Cheriton Road, when he saw a motor coach pass him. He saw it crossing Guildhall Street; He was about five yards away at the time. The motor driver sounded his horn as he saw the horse. He did not see the fly until they were pretty well hitting one another. The fly could not have been going very fast. He saw the fly man pull up, and then pull round. If he had gone right on, the coach would have gone into him. The coach was going at about six or eight miles an hour.

Cross-examined: The horse was not knocked down at all. It was hit between the knee and the first joint.

Mr. George Mercer, of 33, Tontine Street, builder, said that at about the time of the accident he was coming up Shellons Street. He saw the fly and the motor just after the accident. He said to the fly driver “What is the matter?”, and the flyman said “The car ran into me”. The car driver said “Yes, the road was so slippery I could not help it”.

Mr. Tritton, 20, East Cliff, said he was crossing Guildhall Street towards Shellons Street at the time of the accident. He was coming across from Singer`s to Strood`s. He saw a cab coming along at a jog trot. The motor came fast down Cheriton Road and dashed into the fly. The fly driver pulled his horse round to avoid the accident if he could, but the motor was coming too fast. He should say that there were two wheels and half the car on the pavement.

Cross-examined: His view of the accident was an instantaneous one. He was about half way across the street. When both the vehicles were at rest the cab was slightly inclined towards Shellons Street – more towards Guildhall Street – but the horse was turned right down Shellons Street.

Mr. Hy. Dorkins, of 2, Ingles Mews, coachman for over thirty years, said that he examined the horse before Mr. Clark bought it. He told him it was “dirt cheap” at £45.

Cross-examined: The horse would have been six years old next spring.

Mr. Job Murphy, horse dealer, of 52, Coolinge Lane, valued the horse at £50. If he had had it he would not have sold it at that price.

This concluded the plaintiff`s case.

Mr. Richard Littlehales, 17, Bradstone Avenue, said he was a driver in the employ of the defendant Company. He had been a driver for four years. At the time of the accident he was driving down Cheriton Road to Shellons Street. There had been rain, and the road was slippery. There was a slight drop in Cheriton road, and a bigger one in Shellons Street. There was another motor by the Shakespeare Hotel in charge of a man named Hynes. He had no passengers in the coach, and was going at about four or five miles an hour to the garage. When he saw the horse he put his brakes on. He sounded his horn in Cheriton Road, just below Leney`s yard, and also just before he saw the horse. Just as he came to the corner he saw the horse coming along at a rather fast pace. He put all his brakes on rather suddenly. The road being slippery, the brakes locked the wheel, and the car ran a little down before stopping. When he saw the horse coming along he went straight on, and one wheel only ran on to the pavement opposite Strood`s. He suggested that they should move because he thought they were blocking the road. At the time everything was at a standstill; the horse was turned right down Shellons Street, and the back of the cab was towards Guildhall Street. The brakes of his motor were in perfectly good order. After seeing the horse he travelled about eight yards before stopping.

Cross-examined: The witnesses who said that he was coming down at a rapid rate were wrong. The flyman had more chance of avoiding the accident that witness. He drove into witness. Witness`s coach weighed two tons 13 cwt.

Mr. Matthew: Have you had an accident before?

Witness: I should like to see the motor driver who had not. (Laughter) In further reply, witness said that a few days before the accident he had a slight accident, and paid compensation. Guildhall Street was a dangerous place to cross.

Re-examined: Having had accidents before he was specially careful now. The nearside front wheel came in contact with the horse`s leg.

Mr. Wm. George Want, conductor of the motor coach, said that at the time he was sitting on the front seat with the driver. There was another motor opposite the Shakespeare. He was certain that the driver sounded the horn twice before coming to the corner. The horse was coming too fast to pull up. The coach ran on to the pavement, and the horse`s front leg shot out and went under the wheel.

Cross-examined: They did not have time to turn into Guildhall Street. The coach was travelling at about four miles an hour. They would have run into Strood`s shop if they had turned. He had only been on the coach once before when there was a slight accident.

Mr. Charles Hynes, 83, High Street, Cheriton, motor driver to another Company, said that he was outside the Shakespeare Hotel at the time of the accident. The horn was sounded twice. The coach came down at about five miles an hour. By the sudden application of the brakes the coach swerved a little. Only one wheel of the coach went on to the pavement. The horse was coming along at a brisk trot, and the driver pulled his horse back when he saw the coach. The near front wheel of the coach hit the horse`s leg.

Cross-examined: It was entirely the fault of the fly, which was going at about 8 miles an hour. The car could have pulled up in less than its own length, but the horse ran into the motor. The horn was sounded just opposite witness, and again when the driver saw the horse. Witness had some sympathy with motor drivers who had accidents.

P.C. Kettle said that he did not see the accident occur. He was called to it, and found the vehicles at rest. The horse was standing, and one front wheel of the motor was on the pavement opposite Strood`s.

After Mr. Dodd and Mr. Matthew had addressed the jury, his Honour complimented them on the brevity with which the case had been conducted. He pointed out that the burden of proof was entirely upon the plaintiff. It was not for the defendant to disprove liability; it was for the plaintiff to prove, beyond all reasonable doubt, that the cause of the accident was some negligence on the part of the motor driver.

The jury retired at 3.40 p.m. to consider their verdict, and after an absence of ten minutes they came back, and returned a verdict for the defendant company.

Judgement was accordingly entered for the defendant company.