White Lion (2) 1910 - 1914

Folkestone Express 2-7-1910

Hythe County Police

Thursday, June 30^th: Before Mr. E. Garnet Man, Capt. Mansell, and Messrs. F.E. Burke, A.S. Jones, H.P. Jacques, R.J. Linton, E. Tudor Johnson, and A.M. Curteis.

 

Joseph Smith, a groom in the employ of an officer in the Artillery at Shorncliffe, was summoned by his brother-in-law, John Allen, of 2, Somerset Road, Cheriton, for assaulting him on Saturday night.

 

Complainant`s story was that on Saturday afternoon he went home and complained to his wife about a pair of trousers and a shirt being washed. He went out, and returned shortly after eleven o`clock, when his son-in-law hit him three times in the chest, knocking him down once.

 

The Clerk: Does he live with you?

 

Complainant: Yes, he does, worst luck.

 

Continuing, he said he was sober, but the defendant never was. He picked up a jug for self-protection, as the defendant said he would kill him. Smith was a common soldier, at eight “bob” a week. It was not the first time he had knocked him down.

 

Defendant went into the box and said the house was now in his name. On Saturday night he saw his father-in-law being turned out of the White Lion by Mr. Smiles, because he was drunk. He therefore took his (Allen`s) fish barrow home. Complainant arrived home five minutes after him, and he commenced to use bad language. As there were children about, he (defendant) told him he ought to be ashamed of himself. Allen then picked up a jug to aim at him, and it broke, with the result that his (defendant`s) finger was cut. Allen`s daughter got between them, and she pushed her father down. It was untrue that he put a hand on the man.

 

Lily Allen, the complainant`s daughter, corroborated her brother-in-law`s story, and when she was giving her evidence her father frequently interrupted her, and he would not be quiet until the Magistrates told him he would be ejected from the Court. The witness said her father was drunk, and she denied that her brother-in-law struck him.

 

The Bench dismissed the case, and ordered the complainant to pay 3s. costs.

Folkestone Daily News 19-6-1911

Local News

On Wednesday the Justices were occupied for two hours in adjudicating whether John Lilley, a military policeman, stationed at Shorncliffe Camp, was the father of a female child that Emily Jane Atkins, formerly a servant at the White Lion Hotel, had given birth to in October last.

Mr. H. Myers appeared for the young lady, and Mr. W.G. Haines defended the policeman. The facts were simple, and a number of letters were put in, which furnished the necessary corroboration. Defendant displayed some levity, laughing at the plaintiff, who was in a highly nervous state, which called forth a stern and severe rebuke from Mr. Herbert, the chairman of the Bench.

Plaintiff`s story was that she walked out with Lilley on several occasions, which resulted in the birth of a female child on the 21<sup>st</sup> of October, 1910. When she told him of her condition, he promised to marry her as soon as he was able, and in the meantime sent her money amounting to  about £4 or £5 at various intervals. This was borne out by the letters that were produced. He had also bought her an engagement ring at Joseph`s, in Tontine Street. An elder sister corroborated her evidence as to an interview both before and after the child was born.

Lilley admitted walking out, etc., with the plaintiff, but disputed various dates. He also charged her with walking out with a Lance Corporal named Hawkes. A military police regulations book was produced by a Corporal from the Camp, which tended to prove that he was on duty on the dates on which Atkins swore she was walking out with him.

The justices, after retiring for some time to consider the matter, adjudicated defendant the father of the child and ordered him to pay 2s. 6d. a week until it is 16 years of age, and also to pay the costs. 

Folkestone Express 24-6-1911

Wednesday, June 21^st: Before W.G. Herbert Esq., Lieut. Colonel Hamilton, and J. Linton, J. Stainer, G.I. Swoffer, and G. Boyd Esqs.

Corpl. Lilley, of the Military Foot Police, was summoned to show cause why he should not contribute towards the support of the illegitimate child of Emma Jane Atkins, a single woman, formerly in service at Cheriton. Mr. Myers appeared for the complainant, and Mr. G.W. Haines for the defendant.

Complainant stated that she was now residing at 27, St. John`s Road, Folkestone. On the 21^st of October she gave birth to a female child, of which defendant was the father. She first met him in February, 1910. She detailed the various interviews she had had with the defendant, who promised to marry her and had paid her several sums of money, amounting altogether to about £4. She produced several letters the defendant had sent her.

In cross-examination the complainant appeared to be quite unable to fix the year when she first met defendant, but it was eventually accepted that it was in 1910, and not 1909. She admitted that she had walked out with Lance Corporal Hawkes, but her relations with him were not similar to those she had with the defendant. She never told the defendant that she was sorry she had put it on to him. Defendant had spoken to her about Hawkes, and since then he had paid 15s. for the child and 5s. for herself.

Elizabeth Atkins, of Linton, said she was sister of the complainant. She saw the defendant at Maidstone in September, and he said he would find a home for the girl and do the best for her. Defendant said they would settle down and look after her. He also mentioned a man named Hawkes. She had received several postcards from the defendant, who had told her that the child did not belong to him. In February last, at her home, the defendant offered to pay 2s. 6d. a week towards the maintenance fo the child.

Corpl. F. Green, of the Military Foot Police at the Camp, said he produced Army Book 125, which related to the duties of the military police. The entries were in his handwriting. In the details as to duty on Sunday, Feb. 6^th, 1910, Lilley was on duty from eight p.m. until the streets were cleared – about half past eleven. He was on duty in uniform.

Defendant, on oath, said he first knew the complainant on 30^th March, 1910. He fixed that date because it was the day after his birthday. Prior to that date he had never been out with her.

Cross-examined by Mr. Myers, defendant said the second time he went out with the complainant was on April 6^th, and he walked out with her several times up to May 8^th. He was not the father of the child. He thought once he was the father, but he discovered in October that he was not. Since that date he had sent her money. He thought a lot of the girl, and that was the reason he sent it. In February last he promised to assist her, as she said she was “hard up” and had no clothes until she got employment. He told her on several occasions that she should apply to the right man for the maintenance of her child.

The Bench retired, and on their return the Chairman announced that the Bench were unanimously of the opinion that the case was proved against the defendant, who would have to pay 2s. 6d. a week from that day until the child was 16 years of age.

Folkestone Herald 24-6-1911

Wednesday, June 21^st: Before Mr. W.G. Herbert, Lieut. Col. Hamilton, Major Leggett, Messrs. G.I. Swoffer, J. Stainer, R.J. Linton and G. Boyd.

William John Lilley was summoned by Emily Jane Atkins to show just cause, etc. Mr. Myers appeared for the plaintiff, and the defendant was represented by Mr. G.W. Haines.

Complainant stated defendant was a Lance Corporal in the Military Police, and she first knew him in Frbruary of 1910.

Defendant denied the paternity, but he was ordered to pay 2s. 6d. a week till the child was 16 years of age, and also the costs of the case.

Folkestone Express 28-10-1911

Elham County Bench

Thursday, October 26^th: Before E. Garnet Man, J. Du Boulay, F.E. Burke, A.S. Jones, J.E. Quested, R.J. Linton, M. Curties, T. Maltby, and H. Lee Esqs.

William Newington, a private in the 11^th Hussars, was summoned under the Bastardy Act. Mr. De Wet appeared on behalf of the defendant, and pleaded Not Guilty.

Florence Wilson, a single woman, of 144, High Street, Cheriton, said the defendant was the father of her child. She first met him in August of last year, and on the 14^th December she told him of her condition. He said he could not pay anything while he was in the Army, and refused to have anything to do with the child. The child, a female, was born on the 14^th September last. Defendant admitted the paternity of the child in witness`s mother`s presence, but he had not paid anything.

Eliza Finn, of 77 Ashley Avenue, Cheriton, said the last witness was her daughter. When she found out her daughter`s condition, she wrote to the defendant. He came to see her and said he would see the complainant righted. On Whit Sunday night he promised to marry her, but could not until he was out of the Army. Witness put in a letter in defendant`s handwriting, in which he said he would take the matter to the civil court and see the case right through.

Mrs. Wise said she lived with Mrs. Finn and had seen the defendant and complainant at the house.

Defendant then gave evidence. He said he was a private in the 11^th Hussars, stationed at Aldershot, and was an officer`s servant. Continuing, he said he was introduced to complainant at the White Lion, Cheriton, on the first Thursday evening in August, and they went to 104, High Street, and he stopped there all night. The next morning the regiment went off to manoeuvres, returning in October. On the 18<sup>th</sup> December he went away on furlough for eleven weeks. He came back on March 14<sup>th</sup>, and was quartered at Sandgate. Complainant visited him at Sandgate on three occasions, but he told her he could do nothing, because it was nothing to do with him. He had never made any admission of the paternity, and there was no truth in the statement that he was the father of the complainant`s child.

Ernest Morris, private in the 11^th Hussars, corroborated.

This concluded the case, and the Magistrates retired. On their return the Chairman said they had come to the conclusion that there was not sufficient corroborative evidence to support the summons, and therefore they dismissed it.

The complainant said she should appeal.

Folkestone Herald 18-5-1912

Elham County Bench

Thursday, May 16^th: Before Mr. E. Garnet Man, Commander A.B. Mansell, Mr. J. Du Boulay, Mr. F.E. Burke, Mr. A.M. Curties, Mr. R.J. Linton, Mr. E. Tudor Johnson, and Mr. W.G. Tester.

Edwd. Dorrell was summoned for being drunk and disorderly on the 12^th inst. at Cheriton.

P.C. Kenward stated that he saw the defendant from his house. Dorrell was acting in a very disorderly manner, and on going to him he found that he was drunk.

The Chairman: Where did he get his liquor from?

Witness: Well, I have since found out that he had visited the Working Men`s Club, and afterwards went to the White Lion, where, it appears, some customer put whisky in his beer.

The Chairman: Then he didn`t get drunk purposely. Do you know who the customer was?

Witness: No, sir. I couldn`t find out.

The Rev. John Daniel, Baptist Minister at Cheriton, said defendant was a member of his church, and they had missed him lately. He could speak for his good character.

The Chairman said the Bench would not convict in this case, but defendant would have to pay the costs (6s. 6d.). And Mr. Garnet Man added “And mind you keep out of the public houses in future, but it was a Working Men`s Club, wasn`t it? Well, keep away from that, too”.

Folkestone Daily News 23-4-1913

Extract from The Cheriton News

 

Why should Cheriton wait for more adequate licensing accommodation? There are at present only three licensed houses in Cheriton proper, one being a very small off licence, which can hardly be taken into account.

The White Lion Hotel practically possesses a monopoly unequalled in England. It is situate on the main road, and also faces the main road to the Camp. It has front and side frontages, and bar accommodation of about 150 feet, five splendid bars fitted up equal to those in the best London and suburban thoroughfares. It is equipped with five or six registered tills and staffs in the bars that can cope with four or five hundred customers. It also owns and has control of the frontage apart from the main road, and the enormous amount of business that we have noticed on Sunday evenings in the summer has been marvellous.

It now adjoins the only picture palace in Cheriton, and is also surrounded with laundries and other manufactories; in fact, on the north side of the railway it may be said to be the only place of public accommodation.

When population, rateable value, and everything is considered it seems marvellous that such a monopoly could exist.

In the exercise of our duty of looking into public matters, we imagined that this large hotel would probably be very valuable and would contribute largely towards the rates of Cheriton. We imagined that it would have been an asset to the ratepayers of Cheriton somewhat in comparison with the large hotels in Folkestone, and that it would command a somewhat similar rent.

By reference to a column of the Folkestone Daily News, which appears in this paper, it will be seen that the Queen`s Hotel is rated at £850 per year. We really thought that the White Lion Hotel, with all its facilities, would have been valued at something approaching that figure. On making enquiries we were amazed to find that the gross annual figure fixed by the Overseers of Cheriton for this magnificent hotel was only £210 per annum gross, and only has to pay rates on £168 per year.

Where are the enterprising brewery companies, wine and spirit merchants, etc.? They are complaining of depression of trade. We should think that with such premises so low rated they might be induced to erect buildings, obtain licences, and provide Cheriton with the increased hotel and licensed accommodation that is necessary.

We are so amazed and startled at the figures of this hotel that we visited the only other hotel, viz., the Victoria, which is situate in Risborough Lane on the main road to the Camp. This is a modern hotel, well fitted with two bars, and capable of accommodating about 100 persons. The frontage is a little over 50 feet, and we consequently thought that, taking the assessment of the White Lion as a basis for Cheriton`s rateable value, this place should have been assessed at about £60 per annum.

Oh, ye Gods! Judge our surprise at finding that the Victoria Hotel is rated at £200 per year gross and £160 rateable, within £8 of its competitor, which is practically three times as large, and maintains such a unique position.

We are only interested in these matters for the public, but we can imagine brewery companies and others fighting shy of Cheriton, and declining to provide necessary accommodation, when the assessment is carried out on such lines.

How do the Overseers and others arrive at their figures, and how do they draw their comparisons? What is the excise valuation of the White Lion? Surely those authorities would not be content with such a moderate assessment.

Folkestone Express 15-11-1913

Elham County Bench

Thursday, November 13^th: Before E. Garnet Man Esq., Dr. Tyson, A.S. Jones, F.E. Burke, R.J. Linton, and W.G. Tester Esqs.

Jesse Jaye, a builder`s labourer, was summoned for refusing to quit the licensed premises of the White Lion Hotel, Cheriton. He was further summoned for assaulting Henry Ward, the manager of the hotel. Mr. A. Atkinson represented Mr. J.G. Smiles, the proprietor of the hotel, and Mr.H.W. Watts appeared for the defendant.

Harry Ward, the manager of the hotel, said on Friday evening, the 17^th October, the barman called his attention to Jaye, who was worse for drink. He had had trouble with the defendant before, and they had had to eject him four or five times since July. He asked Jaye to leave the bar, and he opened the door. He refused to go, so he asked him altogether three times to leave. Witness went towards him, and the defendant went out. Five minutes after, the defendant said “You`re no man; come outside”. He (witness) told him not to come back again, or he would get into trouble. He (witness) went behind the bar, and the defendant remained on the premises. Defendant came up again, and remained at the corner of the front of the house. Defendant took his coat off, and they eventually had a struggle.

Cross-examined, witness said they did not want the defendant on the premises at all, whether he was drunk or sober. He did not push the defendant as he was going out of the door. Jaye, when he came back, looked in the door, but he was on licensed premises. When P.C. Kenward told the defendant to go away, he went.

Frederick Hogben, barman, said on the evening of October 17^th he saw the defendant come into the house the worse for drink, so he called the manager`s attention to him. Defendant had on many occasions been ordered to leave the house. He heard the manager three times request the defendant to go out of the house.

Cross-examined, witness said Jaye did not ask for any drink.

Mr. J.G. Smiles said the defendant was well-known to him, and was a nuisance to everyone when he had a little drink. He had had to eject the defendant no less than twenty times. The defendant was all right when he was sober.

Cross-examined, witness said he had forbidden the man the house, as he had jeopardised his licence.

P.C. Kenward said about 10 p.m. on October 17^th he went to the east end entrance of the White Lion Hotel, where he saw the defendant and Mr. Ward. Jaye was the worse for drink, and he (witness) advised him to go home.

Cross-examined, witness said no-one went home with defendant.

Edward Philpott, who was called by the defendant, said he was in the White Lion when Jaye came in. The defendant was sober, and spoke to him about some work. Ward came up and ordered the defendant out of the house. He opened the door, and as Jaye was going out of the door, Ward gave him a violent push. Jaye offered no resistance. Later, the defendant looked in at the bar again, and afterwards he saw Jaye and Ward struggling on the ground.

Cross-examined, witness said he heard the defendant requested to leave the bar on other occasions.

Arthur William Stapleton, an insurance agent, said he saw the “scrap” between Ward and Jaye. He walked home with the latter, who was excited, but quite sober.

George Knight, a painter, said he was in the White Lion Hotel, when he heard Ward ask Jaye to leave the premises. Jaye was asked three times altogether to leave. Defendant was excited, but he could not say that he was drunk; he might have had a glass or two of beer.

Cross-examined, witness said he had known trouble in the Lion with the defendant before.

Defendant said he might have had two pints of beer before he went into the White Lion Hotel. He was speaking to Mr. Philpott when Mr. Ward told him to go outside. As he was going out of the house Mr. Ward pushed him out. He admitted he returned, but only put his head in the doorway.

The Bench retired, and on their return into Court the Chairman said the Magistrates had decided to convict.

Supt. Hollands proved three previous convictions against the defendant for being drunk and disorderly, the last occasion being on October 2^nd.

The Magistrates decided to bind defendant over to be of good behaviour for twelve months, and made it a condition that he was not to go into the White Lion Hotel.

The summons against Jaye for assault was withdrawn.

Folkestone Herald 15-11-1913

Elham County Bench

Thursday, November 13th: Before Mr. E. Garnet Man, Mr. A.S. Jones, Mr. R.J. Linton, Dr. Tyson, Mr. F.E. Burke, and Mr. W.G. Tester.
Jesse Jay was summoned for refusing to quit licensed premises when requested. There was a further summons for assaulting Mr. Harry Ward, the manager of the White Lion, Cheriton, but this was withdrawn. Mr. A. Atkinson represented complainant, and Mr. H.W. Watts, defendant.

Mr. Harry Ward, manager of the White Lion, Cheriton, under Mr. J.G. Smiles, at whose instance the summons was taken out, said he remembered Friday evening, October 17th, when the barman called his attention to prisoner, who was very drunk. Prisoner was not a stranger to witness; he had had trouble with him four or five times since July. Witness requested him to leave the premises, but he did not go. Witness went to the door and opened it, and again asked him to go. When he had been asked three times, prisoner went out. Five minutes afterwards he returned and said to witness “You`re no man. Come outside”. Witness told him not to come back again, or he would get into trouble.
Cross-examined by Mr. Watts: Defendant did not call for a drink; he was talking to a man named Edward Philpott. Witness told him to leave the premises because he was drunk, and because he had had instructions not to allow him on the premises. If he had been perfectly sober, he would have been told to go. Witness did not push defendant out into the street.

Mr. Fredk. Hogben, a barman at the White Lion, said he called Mr. Ward`s attention to defendant, who was drunk. Defendant had been in the house many times before, and had on several occasions been a nuisance. For that reason the house was barred to him. Whenever he came in he nearly always started an argument, whether sober or drunk; he was a nuisance to the other customers.

Mr. J.G. Smiles, the proprietor of he White Lion, said defendant was one of the best of men when he was sober. It did not take very much to make him drunk, and he would drink. When he was under the influence of drink he was very argumentative. He bore the man no malice, but he jeopardised his (Mr. Smiles`) licence, and for that reason he had given orders that he was not to be allowed to use the house.

P.C. Kenward stated that he went to the east entrance to the hotel, where he saw Jay, who was drunk. Later he saw defendant having a “scrap” with Ward. He advised defendant to go home, which he did. He stumbled in his walk, and his speech was not coherent. Witness did not know that Mr. Stapleton accompanied defendant to the end of his street.

This ended the case for the prosecution.

Mr. Edward Philpott, a labourer, said that defendant came into the bar to speak to him about some work for witness. He was perfectly sober. After he had been there about five or ten minutes Mr. Ward asked him to go out, which he did immediately. As he was going through the door Ward gave him a violent push, which nearly knocked him on his face. Jay offered no resistance, and he walked quite steadily.

Mr. Arthur Stapleton, an insurance agent, living at Cheriton, said that he walked with defendant to the end of his street. He was perfectly sober, and his talk was quite sensible.

Mr. George Knight, a painter, said he was in the bar when Jay came in. Ward asked him to go out, which he did. As he was going through the door, Ward pushed him.

Cross-examined by Mr. Atkinson, witness said Jay might have had a drink or two. He was not drunk. He did not have anything to drink in the White Lion, to witness`s knowledge.

Defendant, on oath, said he was a builder`s labourer. On the day in question he went into the White Lion to speak to Philpott about some work he was doing for him. He did not call for a drink, and did not have any while he was in there. When he had been in there for about five or ten minutes Ward asked him to go out, which he immediately did. As he went out Ward pushed him very violently.

It was stated that the last time prisoner was convicted was in October, when he was charged with being drunk and disorderly. Previous to that he had not been before the Court for twelve months.

Prisoner was bound over in his own recognisances in the sum of £5 to keep the peace for twelve months, a condition being that he did not enter the White Lion.

Folkestone Express 3-10-1914

Elham County Bench

Thursday, October 1^st: Before E. Garnet Man, F.E. Burke, A.S. Jones, A.M. Curties, E.J. Bishop, H.P. Jacques, and W.G. Tester Esqs.

Edwin Goldsmith, 110, High Street, Cheriton, was summoned by William Dowley for assaulting him. Defendant pleaded Not Guilty.

Prosecutor said he lived at 7, Albert Road, Cheriton. On September 22md, he had been out, and stood at the bottom of the road at 9.05, when defendant and his wife came along. Defendant struck him, but the defendant said nothing to him, only he said to Goldsmith “You are an old man, and short-sighted”. Defendant struck him again, and he remembered no more until he was picked up. Defendant called him a “Dirty dog”. He had never spoken to the man in his life, and had given him no provocation whatever.

P.S. Curties said he received information that a man was lying in Albert Road. He went to the spot, and there saw three of Lord Kitchener`s Army, who had lifted the man up and taken him to his lodgings in Albert Road. He went to the house and saw the complainant, who had a good deal of blood about his face. He was the worse for drink.

Defendant said at 8.15 the complainant was in the White Lion, abusing a woman with whom he (Dowley) at one time lived. A soldier told him if he did not go away he would give him a good hiding. Complainant went away, but came back again about ten minutes afterwards. The soldier went for him, and punched him, when the plaintiff bolted up Sidney Street. When he (defendant) went along Albert Road, complainant said to him “I will give you a ---- good hiding, as you are the cause of all the trouble”. He struck at him, but he stopped the blow and hit the complainant, knocking him down. Dowley got up, but he (witness) hit him again.

The Chairman said it was clear Dowley got a tremendous hammering. The defendant, however, was not satisfied with knocking him down once. He would have to pay a fine of 5/- and 12/- costs.

A fortnight was allowed for payment.

Folkestone Express 14-11-1914

Elham County Bench

Thursday, November 12^th: Before E. Garnet Man Esq., Sir Clarence Smith, F.E. Burke, A.S. Jones, W.G. tester and E.J. Bishop Esqs.

Alfred Freed, of Cheriton, was summoned for refusing to quit the licensed premises of the White Lion Hotel, Cheriton, on October 26^th, and also for assaulting Charles Palmer, the manager of the hotel, on the same day. He pleaded Not Guilty.

Mr. H. Stainer, who appeared on behalf of the licence holder (Mr. J.G. Smiles), said he wished to emphasise the fact that with so many troops about that support should be given by the Magistrates to licence holders who endeavoured to conduct their business properly.

Mr. Palmer said he was manager of the White Lion Hotel for Mr. J.G. Smiles, the licence holder. On October 26^th the defendant had been in the house some time with some others, and they began to get a little merry. He gave instructions that they were not to be served with any more drink. The defendant was refused, and he leant over the bar and pushed a nine gallon jar of ginger beer over, and broke the corner. He told the defendant he would not have that sort of nonsense there, and asked him to go out. He tapped him on the shoulder, but the man refused to go, so he called in P.C. Saunders. The man then went out. About half an hour after he came back again, so he (complainant) went outside to look for a constable. He defendant followed him in the street and struck him in the mouth, knocking him into the road. Freed was not under the influence of drink, but he had had enough.

George Clayson, barman at the White Lion Hotel, said Mr. Palmer gave him orders not to serve the man and others with him. He refused to serve him, and just afterwards the defendant pushed the ginger beer jar on to the floor. Mr. Palmer asked the man to go out, but as he would not a police constable was fetched. Defendant came in again about 20 minutes later.

P.C. Saunders gave evidence of being called to the White Lion Hotel, and having to order the defendant off the premises.

Defendant, in the witness box, said he admitted he was a little stubborn in refusing to quit the licensed premises. With regard to the assault, the manager of the hotel pushed him, and somehow or other he hit him (defendant) under the chin. He thereupon struck him. That was all he did, and it was really nothing but a schoolboys` fight. The reason he went back into the house a second time was to ask what damage had been done by the ginger beer jar.

Mr. Stainer said Mr. Smiles did not press for a heavy penalty.

The Chairman said the Magistrates felt it their duty to protect publicans in a case such as that. The defendant would have to pay a fine of 5/- and 10/- costs in each case, or 30/- in all.

Folkestone Herald 14-11-1914

Elham County Bench

Thursday, November 12^th: Before Mr. E. Garnet Man, Sir Clarence Smith, Mr. F.E. Burke, Mr. A.S. Jones, Mr. W.G. Tester, and Mr. E.J. Bishop.

Alfred Preed was summoned for refusing to quit the White Lion at Cheriton, and for assaulting Vincent Charles Palmer. Mr. H. Stainer prosecuted.

Mr. V.C. Palmer said that he was the manager of the White Lion for Mr. Smiles. On October 26^th the defendant was refused drink at about 12.45 p.m., whereupon he reached out and pushed over a nine gallon ginger beer barrel. P.C. Saunders was called in, and defendant then went out, but he came back in about half an hour. He was again refused drink, and as he would not leave, witness went out to look for a policeman. Defendant went out also, and met him; witness said to him “Now, be a good fellow, and get off home”, and at the same time tapped him lightly on the shoulder. Thereupon defendant hit him in the mouth. Preed was not drunk, but had had enough.

Geo. Chason, barman, corroborated part of the manager`s evidence.

P.C. Saunders said that when he was called to the White Lion the defendant went out after some hesitation.

Defendant, on oath, admitted being a little stubborn, but said he went out. He met Mr. Palmer, who pushed him a bit, and that led up to what he might term a little childish play. He had gone back to the house to ask the manager what damage had been done, but the manager would have nothing to do with him.

Mr. Stainer said the prosecutor had no wish to press the charge, and did not want a serious fine imposed; it was simply desired to stop this kind of thing at a time when a licence holder had special difficulty.

The Chairman said the Bench felt it their duty to support publicans when they tried to conduct their houses properly. Defendant would be fined 5s. for each offence and the costs (£1), 30s. altogether.

A month was allowed for payment.