Folkestone
Express 29-5-1915
Thursday, May 27th: Before E.T. Ward Esq.,
Alderman Spurgen and Colonel Owen.
Samuel Matthews was charged with being drunk and
incapable the previous evening. He pleaded Guilty.
P.C. Cheyney said about 6.35 p.m. he saw the prisoner
in company with two or three soldiers. He was very drunk, and went into the
East Kent Arms, where he was refused drink, and had to be ejected. The soldiers
refused to have anything to do with him, so he (witness) took him into custody.
Fined 5/-.
Folkestone
Herald 9-9-1916
Friday, September 8th: Before Mr. G.I.
Swoffer and other Magistrates.
Frank Funnell, landlord of the East Kent Arms, was
summoned for selling intoxicating liquors on licensed premises during
prohibited hours.
Mr. Rutley Mowll appeared for the defence, and stated
at the outset that an adjournment might be necessary because he had to call for
the defence several officers who were not present now. He did not know whether
the Bench would prefer to adjourn at once, in order that the officers might be
subpoenaed to appear, or if they would hear as much as possible of the case and
then adjourn.
The Chief Constable intimated that he had no objection
to an adjournment.
The Bench decided to hear the prosecution. Mr. Mowll
said he would plead Not Guilty.
Major Sir Herbert Raphael, Assistant Provost Marshal, deposed
that at about 9 p.m. on the 31st August he went with Sergt. Major
May, of the Military Police, to the East Kent Arms. He rang the bell
repeatedly, but could get no answer. The bell was at the side of the gate
giving access to the yard, and the only bell on the front of the premises. He
then looked through a slit in the gate, and saw a man standing in the lighted
room opposite. In about ten minutes` time the man came out. Witness called to
him to leave the gate open, whereupon he immediately slammed it behind him.
Witness had a conversation with him in the street. About ten minutes later
witness heard Sergt. Major May calling him, and saw a lady at the gate, which
the Sergeant Major pushed open. Witness entered the premises, and went into a
room adjoining the bar, where he saw five officers in uniform, a civilian, and
the defendant. On the table were five glasses containing whisky and water or
whisky and soda. On another table was a number of empty glasses, which had been
used. Witness took the names and regiments of the officers present, and left
the room. Almost at once he returned and examined the glasses, which all smelt
of whisky. By their appearance the whisky must have been recently served. When
he was leaving the room the second time, Lieutenant Cotton said to witness
“We`re all right; I`m a bit of a lawyer myself. We ordered the drinks before
eight o`clock”. Witness told him that had nothing to do with the matter, and
that he was not there to argue the legal aspect of the case with him. Defendant
accompanied witness from the room, and said “I am very sorry. I hope it is not
serious”. Witness said “It is extremely serious”.
By the Magistrates` Clerk: It must have been about 9.25
when he actually entered the house.
By Mr. Mowll: Witness did not hear the bell ring when
he pressed the button. When he got through the gate he found the door of the
house open. Witness knew defendant was also a jobmaster, and could quite
imagine he would have business with officers. Whilst he was in the room a young
lady entered, but he did not hear her say “Supper is ready”, nor did he go into
the coffee room and see the supper. He officers were still there when he left
the premises. According to a standing order for troops, they had no right to be
there. Witness did not ask defendant for any explanation as to why the men were
there or whether they had consumed intoxicating liquors since closing time.
In reply to Mr. Andrew, witness said the whisky, from
its aeration, was certainly freshly served.
Sergt. Major May, of the Military Foot Police,
corroborated, and said when he entered the room he saw four officers, a warrant
officer, a civilian and defendant. On the table were four glasses containing
liquor, and some empty glasses. Whilst Sir Herbert was taking the names, one of
the officers rose from his chair at the table, holding a glass at his side, and
placed it on teh table while Sir Herbert`s back was turned. The glass contained
whisky. Witness also smelt another glass, and found it, too, contained whisky.
This closed the case for the prosecution.
Mr. Mowll submitted that this case was inder the Liquor
Control Order, and therefore certain onuses of proof imposed upon the licensee
by the Licensing (Consolidation) Act, 1910, did not apply. The summons was that
the defendant had permitted the consumption of intoxicating liquor at 9.20 p.m.
It was for the prosecution to prove that such consumption took place at the
time named. The mere presence of the liquor, which under the Licensing Acts
would have thrown on the licensee the onus of proving that no liquor was
consumed, did not apply to this case. He submitted that the prosecution had not
proved any case against defendant.
The Magistrates overruled this point.
Mr. Frank Funnell said he had been the landlord of the
East Kent Arms since March, 1914. On August 31st Lieut Cotton, who
was a personal friend of witness, came to the house about 7.45. There also came
a Major Mitchell, who frequently had meals at the house, and who ordered supper
for that night. There was also at the house Lieut. Cameron (who lived with
Major Mitchell), who frequently used defendant`s telephone four or five times
in a night, and did a good deal of writing in defendant`s office. Lieut.
Jenkins was also present. At 8 o`clock witness cleared the rest of the company
out, but the officers remained in the bar parlour, waiting for supper, with the
exception of Lieut. Cameron, who was in the office telephoning. From 8 o`clock
onward no intoxicating liquor of any kind was served to the officers or anyone
in the house. Witness had his supper, and then sat in the bar parlour with the
officers, telling them their supper would soon be ready. Witness had not
cleared the bar, and there were about 25 glasses of all kinds standing about.
Just when Sir Herbert was in the bar, witness`s daughter came to say supper was
ready.
Mr. Mowll: Was any liquor consumed in the house after 8
o`clock? – I didn`t see any.
Was there any opportunity of anyone to consume any
after hours? – Not unless they had it in their glasses before, and I certainly
didn`t see any.
By the Chief Constable: Witness saw the Assistant
Provost Marshal smell one large glass. Lieut. Cotton never said a word; it was
Lieut. Jenkins who spoke. Witness thought he said “Why don`t you taste it?”. He
also said “You`re wrong. We`ve had nothing to drink here since 8 o`clock”.
Three of the officers frequently had supper at the house, but never had
anything to drink after hours.
By the Magistrates` Clerk: Witness was in the dining
room for supper from 8.20 to 9.05, leaving the officers alone in the parlour.
Witness could not say what they had to drink before 8 o`clock, as he was not
serving them.
Suppose they had got served with liquor before 8
o`clock, what was there to prevent them consuming it after 8 o`clock? – I take
it there is nothing to prevent them.
In reply to Mr. Mowll, defendant said the bell at the
gate could be heard all over the house, the yard, and in the street if it was
in order. The bell never rang that night. The bar was locked, and the officers could
not have had anything to drink without witness knowing it. It might be possible
for them to have drink left over after closing hours, but he would trust them
as honourable gentlemen not to drink after hours. After the Major had gone, the
officers had supper together at the house.
Lieut. J.D. Cotton, C.E.F., stationed at Folkestone,
said that on August 31st he went to the house at 7.45. He had two
Scotches before closing hour, but consumed nothing after that time. Witness was
in the parlour till the Major came, and could confidently say no-one consumed
any drinks there after 8 o`clock.
By the Chief Constable: Five officers and one civilian
sat down to supper. The civilian was a Mr. Ross, whom he had met at the house
before. Witness never spoke to the Major, except to give him his name. There
was some conversation, but he could not swear as to who spoke or what was said.
The case was then adjourned until Tuesday next.
Folkestone
Express 16-9-1916
Friday, September 8th: Before G.I. Cwoffer
Esq., and other Magistrates.
Frank Funnell, of the East Kent Arms, Sandgate Road,
was summoned for an alleged breach of the Liquor Control Order.
Mr. Rutley Mowll, who appeared for the defendant and
pleaded Not Guilty, mentioned that it might be necessary to ask for an
adjournment, as a number of officers he proposed to call were not all then
present.
The Chief Constable said he had no objection to an
adjournment, but he did object to opening the prosecution, thus showing the
whole of their cards, and there being an adjournment of the case after that.
The Bench decided to hear the prosecution.
Major Sir Herbert Raphael, A.P.M., said about nine
o`clock on the evening of the 31st, in consequence of information
received, he went with Sergt. Major May, of the Military Police, to the East
Kent Arms. He rang the bell repeatedly without being able to get any answer.
This bell was at the side of the gate giving access to the premises, and was
the only bell in front. He looked through a slit in the gate, and saw a man
standing in a lighted room opposite. In about ten minutes` time this man came
out. He called out to him to leave the gate open, and he immediately slammed
it. Witness had a conversation with him. Witness again rang repeatedly, and ten
minutes later he heard Sergt. Major May call to him. He turned round and saw a lady
at the gate, and then the Sergt. Major pushed the gate open. Witness thereupon
entered the premises, and went into a room adjoining the bar. He saw there five
officers in uniform, a civilian, and Mr. Funnell. They were all sitting down.
On the table were five glasses containing whisky and soda or whisky and water.
On another table were a number of empty glasses. He took down the names and
regiments of the officers present. Witness left, but returned to ascertain what
was actually in the glasses, and satisfied himself that they contained whisky.
When leaving the second time, a Lieut. Cotton said to him in defendant`s
presence “We`re all right; I`m a bit of a lawyer myself (or words to that
effect); we ordered the drinks before eight o`clock”. Witness told him that
that had nothing to do with the matter, and he (witness) was not there to argue
the legal aspect of the case with him. When he left, Mr. Funnell accompanied
him, and said “I am very sorry; I hope it is not serious”. Witness replied “It
is extremely serious”.
The Clerk: What time was it that you actually entered
the house?
Sir Herbert: It must have been at twenty five minutes
past nine.
Cross-examined by Mr. Mowll: When he pressed the button
he could not hear the bell ring. The door of the premises after he passed
through the gateway was open. Mr. Funnell was a job-master besides being the
holder of the licence, and he could quite imagine he would have business to do
with the officers. While he was in the house a young lady came in from the bar,
but he did not hear her say that supper was ready. He did not go into the
coffee room and see that supper was ready. When witness finally went away he
left the officers there. He was not able to admit that the officers had a right
to be there if they were not consuming intoxicating liquor. He asked Mr.
Funnell no questions.
By the Clerk: The liquor he saw in the glasses had been
freshly served.
Sergt. Major May, M.F.P., attached to the Town
Commandant`s staff, corroborated. He said in the room he saw four officers, a
warrant officer, and two civilians, one of whom was the defendant. One of the
officers rose from his chair, and witness noticed he had a glass in his hand.
He put the glass on the table, and witness noticed it contained some liquor,
which he subsequently ascertained was whisky. When they were leaving, defendant
said to sir Herbert “This is serious”, but witness did not catch Sir Herbert`s
reply.
Mr. Mowll, pointing out that his client was charged
with permitting a certain gentleman to consume intoxicating liquor at twenty
five minutes past nine, submitted that there was no evidence to support that
charge.
The Bench overruled this view, and Mr. Mowll proceeded
to apply for an adjournment in order to call witnesses.
The Bench held that Mr. Mowll should call what evidence
he already had.
Defendant, in the box, said he had held the licence of
the East Kent Arms since March, 1914. On the night in question he was in the
house all the evening. Lieut. Cotton came in about a quarter to eight. He was a
personal friend of witness, and had meals with him nearly every Sunday. Another
officer present was Major Mitchell, who frequently took his supper at the
house. That evening he had asked if he could have supper for himself and
friends. There were also present Lieut. Cameron, who lived with Major Mitchell,
and Lieut. Jenkyn. When eight o`clock arrived witness cleared the house, the
officers remaining in the bar parlour, with the exception of Lieut. Cameron,
who was in witness` office writing. From that time no intoxicating liquor was
supplied. It was necessary for defendant and his family to have supper first,
and meanwhile the officers remained in the parlour. Having finished his supper
he came into the parlour and sat with the officers. Witness` niece came into
the room and said “Major, supper`s ready”.
Mr. Mowll: Now, was any intoxicating liquor consumed
after eight o`clock or not? – I never saw any consumed.
Cross-examined by the Chief Constable: The A.P.M. smelt
one large glass. Lieut. Cotton did not speak, but Lieut. Jenkyn said “Why don`t
you taste it?” He also thought Lieut. Jenkyn said “You are wrong. We had
nothing to drink here since eight o`clock”, but he did not take much notice.
By the Clerk: Witness could not say what the officers
had to drink before eight o`clock, as he did not serve them. There was nothing
to prevent them consuming after eight o`clock drink that was supplied to them
before eight.
Re-examined by Mr. Mowll: He did not hear the bell ring
on this evening. He would trust them as honourable gentlemen not to consume
drink after eight o`clock. After the A.P.M. had gone the officers sat down and
had supper.
By the Clerk: The bell was not in order on the night in
question.
Lieut. J.D. Cotton, C.E.F., who had been wounded at the
Front, said he had been a personal friend of the defendant`s for two years. On
August 31st he went to the East Kent Arms at a quarter to eight and
had two Scotches and soda water. These drinks were consumed before eight
o`clock. He had nothing to drink after eight; nor did the other persons in the
room have anything to drink after that hour. After the A.P.M. left witness and
the other officers sat down to supper.
Cross-examined by the Chief Constable: He paid 5d. for
each whisky. He went to the house alone. Six of them sat down to supper
including one civilian. He said nothing to the A.P.M. about being a bit of a
lawyer. Something was said to that effect, but he did not know who said it. He
was sitting in the room from 8 till 9.30 and did not have any drink, nor did
the others in the room.
The case was adjourned till Tuesday.
When the hearing of the case was resumed on Tuesday
(before Mr. G.I. Swoffer and other Magistrates), Mr. Mowll called Dorothy
Hogben, Mr. Funnell`s niece, who said she was in charge of the bar on the
evening in question. She closed the bar at eight o`clock. After this she went
into the dining room and had supper with her uncle and his children. Having
finished, she got supper ready for the officers and going into the room where
the officers were, she said “Supper is ready”.
From eight o`clock onwards, was any drink served in the
house? – No, sir.
Could they have got any drink without your knowledge,
you having locked up the bar? – No, sir.
Cross-examined by the Chief Constable: She was the only one who had the keys of the
bar. She did not know what happened during the time she was having her supper.
She did not remember serving drinks to the officers.
The Clerk: Might you have served them without you
remembering?
Witness: Oh, yes, sir.
Regimental Q.M.S. Hugh Sinclair Duncan, C.E.F., said on
the evening in question he met Major Mitchell about a quarter to eight. In
Canada they had worked together, witness having been a Dominion Express Customs
agent. He had not seen the Major since the outbreak of the War, and they had a
good many old times to talk over. They went into the East Kent Hotel, and Major
Mitchell ordered supper there, witness staying. They did not have anything to
drink after eight o`clock; nor, to his knowledge, did he see any drink consumed
after eight o`clock.
Cross-examined by the Chief Constable: Before eight
o`clock he had some Scotch and water, which was served by a lady. He had two
drinks in a quarter of an hour, and none afterwards. He did not see any drink
in glasses when the A.P.M. came in. There were, however, some slops in some
glasses, he believed. He did not see the A.P.M. examine the glasses. They sat
in the room from eight o`clock till 9.30 and had no drink whatever.
What did you have to drink with your supper? – Tea,
sir.
Hot? – Hot.
Rather a change after whisky and water.
Lieut. David Jenkyn, C.E.F., said in civil life he held
the position of chief court reporter in the Supreme Court of Alberta. He was
not a qualified lawyer. On the night in question he went into the East Kent
Hotel, and at eight o`clock the bar was closed. After that he had no
intoxicating liquor whatever. He remained in the bar parlour with the other
officers until the A.P.M. came in, and saw no intoxicating liquor consumed.
After the A.P.M. took the names of the officers, witness said “Hadn`t you
better taste it?” (the liquor in the glasses). The Sergt. Major said something,
and the A/P/M/ picked up a glass and smelt it. Witness said something to the
effect about them being perfectly justified in being there under the
circumstances, and the A.P.M. said he was not there to argue the matter.
Witness also said something to the effect that he knew a little of the legal
aspect of the matter.
Cross-examined by the Chief Constable: He was positive
that he did not say that he was a lawyer and that the drinks were bought before
eight o`clock. Witness consumed his drink before eight o`clock, and so far as
he knew, all the other officers did the same. Witness had tea and some water
with his supper.
By the Clerk: Witness was aware that it was against the
law to consume liquor on licensed premises after eight o`clock.
Major George Mitchell, C.E.F., said on August 31st
he went into the East Kent Hotel about a quarter to eight and had two drinks
before the bar closed. The bar was closed at eight o`clock. He had met Duncan,
an old friend, and witness ordered supper. From the time the house closed until
the A.P.M. came in he had no intoxicating liquor, nor, to his knowledge, did
any of the others consume intoxicating drink.
Cross-examined by the Chief Constable: Witness paid for
the supper, which worked out at 2s. a head. No intoxicating drinks were served;
they had tea. He saw the A.P.M. pick up a glass which he (witness) presumed
contained slops.
By the Clerk: Witness knew they were not entitled to
consume intoxicating drink after eight o`clock.
It was explained that Lieut. Cameron could not be
present, as he was ordered to London on military duty.
Mr. Mowll, addressing the Magistrates, said if there was
any prima facie evidence of actually permitting consumption of intoxicating
liquor on these licensed premises after eight o`clock, that prima facie
presumption had been overwhelmingly displaced by the volume and weight of
evidence the Court had heard. If the Bench thought these gallant officers, who
had left their home in Canada, had come here to perjure themselves in order to
help Mr. Funnell, then the Bench would convict; but, if not, he claimed an
acquittal.
The Magistrates having retired to consider the case,
the Chairman (Mr. G.I. Swoffer) on their return said: The Bench have given
careful consideration to this case, which they feel is one of great gravity.
The evidence of the prosecution establishes a strong prima facie case of
defendant`s guilt, but in view of the evidence of defendant`s witnesses we feel
there are elements of legal doubt in this case, and we are bound to give the
defendant the benefit of that doubt. The case will be dismissed.
Folkestone
Herald 16-9-1916
Tuesday, September 12th: Before Mr. G.I.
Swoffer and other Magistrates.
Mr. Frank Funnell, landlord of the East Kent Arms,
appeared on an adjourned summons for an alleged infringement of the Liquor
Control Board`s Order, by allowing intoxicating liquors to be consumed on his
licensed premises during prohibited hours. Mr. Rutley Mowll represented
defendant, who pleaded Not Guilty.
When the case was last before the Bench, Sir Herbert
Raphael, A.P.M., stated that he visited the defendant`s premises at 9 p.m. and
found there five officers, a civilian, and the defendant, with several glasses
containing whisky on the table. Defendant denied that any whisky or other
liquor was consumed after hours, and the case was adjourned for Mr. Mowll to
call further evidence.
Dorothy Hogben, niece of the defendant, now said she
was in charge of the bar on the night in question. She closed the bar at 8
o`clock, and finally closed the house about 10 o`clock. The bar was locked
during the whole of that interval. Witness got the supper ready for the
officers and called them for supper. The A.P.M. was there when she called and
after he had gone the officers had their supper. No drink was consumed after
eight o`clock, and no-one could have got any drink without her knowing it.
By the Chief Constable: Mr. Funnell had no keys to the
bar. Witness took the keys direct to her bedroom when she locked the bar. She
was away at supper for an hour, and could not say what went on during that
time.
By the Magistrates` Clerk: Mr. Funnell was present all
the time witness was having supper. She did not remember serving the officers before
eight o`clock. The other girl in the bar might have done so.
Quartermaster-Sergeant Hugh St. Clair Duncan, of the
C.E.F., said at 7.45 p.m. on August 31st he met Major Mitchell, who
had worked with him in the Dominion Customs for several years, and who asked
him to come into the East Kent Arms with him. Witness stayed with him and had
supper in the dining room. He had nothing to drink after eight o`clock, and saw
no drink consumed by anyone.
By the Chief Constable: Witness had tea to drink with
his supper.
The Chief Constable: How many cups of tea? – One, sir.
Lieutenant Jenkyn, C.E.F., said that in civil life he
was chief court reporter of the High Court of Alberta, and had had considerable
legal training. He went into the house about 7.45 and had two drinks, but had
none whatever after 8 o`clock. He remained in the parlour with the other
officers till the A.P.M. came in, and could say that no-one consumed any liquor
there. Witness said to the A.P.M. “Hadn`t you better taste it?”, whereupon Sir
Herbert Raphael smelt at a glass near witness. Witness said “I know something
of the legal aspect of the thing” and the A.P.M. told him he was not there to
argue. Witness had a faint recollection that he told Sir Herbert that nothing
had been bought since eight o`clock.
By the Chief Constable: They were not all empty glasses
there, but there were no “heel taps” there. By “heel taps” he meant drinks.
By the Magistrates` Clerk: Witness knew it was illegal
to consume after hours liquor which was bought during hours. The glass on the
table was a glass of dregs.
The Magistrates` Clerk: Then your object in asking the
A.P.M. to taste it was to convince him it was dregs? – Well, I just wanted to
see him taste it. (Laughter)
Major Mitchell, C.E.F. stated that he went to the East
Kent Arms about 7.45 and had some drinks before the bar closed. He had met
Duncan previously, and asked him to stay for supper. No drinks were consumed
after hours.
By the Chief Constable: The glass the A.P.M. picked up
contained liquor, which he believed was slops.
Mr. Mowll, addressing the Bench, said he believed the
question of consumption had been overwhelmingly dispelled by the weight of
evidence. The case depended entirely on evidence, and if the Bench thought
these gallant Officers, who had left their homes as volunteers, had come to
Court to perjure themselves to save Mr. Funnell, then let them convict him.
Otherwise he (Mr. Mowll) claimed an acquittal.
After retirement, the Chairman announced that the Bench
had given serious consideration to the case, which was one of considerable
gravity. The evidence for the prosecution had established a strong prima facie
case against defendant, but owing to the weight of evidence for the defence an
element of legal doubt was introduced of which they must give the defendant the
benefit. The case would accordingly be dismissed.
Folkestone
Express 30-6-1917
Local News
About 10.45 a.m. on Monday, P.C. Smith was on duty in
Sandgate Road and noticed smoke coming from the East Kent Arms yard, and
finding the Fire Brigade had not been called, he gave the alarm by telephone
from the police station at 10.50, another call being given immediately
afterwards from Messrs. Lambert Weston. The motor tender was at once turned out
with five men, arriving four minutes afterwards. Chief officer Jones, who was
at the Corporation Offices, arrived just before them. Pending the arrival of
the Brigade, the stable staff, with Mr. A.J. Camburn, Mr. Carter, and the
police, endeavoured to keep the fire, which was in a servant`s bedroom on the
first floor, in check with chemical extinguishers and pails of water, but the
walls and ceiling of the room being of woodwork, had got well alight, and a jet
from the first aid pump on the motor was found insufficient to extinguish the
flames. A line of hose was therefore attached to the hydrant in Sandgate Road,
and the fire was got under control in about a quarter of an hour after the
Brigade arrived, but not until damage to the estimated extent of £50 to £60 had
been done to the room and its contents. The cause of the fire was an old
opening made into the kitchen flue (which ran though the bedroom) in a previous
tenancy of the premises, to take an iron flue from a stove in the bedroom,
removed before Mr. Frank Funnell occupied the premises, and not efficiently
blocked up, so allowing the heat from the kitchen fire to get though the wall
and ignite the back of a chest of drawers standing in front of the flue. The
existence of the opening in the flue was quite unknown to Mr. Funnell, as it
had been covered with a thin iron plate fixed to the wall. Had the outbreak not
been quickly noticed and smartly extinguished the whole range of lofts and
stabling would have been involved, as so much woodwork was present in the
construction of this part of the premises.
Folkestone
Herald 30-6-1917
Local News
On Tuesday between 10 a.m. and 11 a.m. smoke was seen
to be issuing from the rear of the East Kent Arms, and it was found that a fire
had broken out through an old flue which ran through one of the bedrooms. In
less than five minutes the new motor engine of the Fire Brigade was on the spot
under Chief Officer Jones. Previously to this, Mr. Carter, the hall porter of
the Queen`s Hotel, ran across to the East Kent yard with some extinguishers,
and with these did excellent service, Mr. A.J. Camburn and Mr. F. Funnell`s
workmen also rendering assistance. The fire obtained a good hold, but there
being a plentiful supply of water it was soon got under. Mr. Funnell was away
from the town at the time. Miss Hogben, his niece, who was in charge, desires
to thank all those who helped to extinguish the fire.
Folkestone
Express 6-9-1919
Friday, August 29th: Before Mr. G.I.
Swoffer, Councillor Harrison, and Councillor G. Boyd.
Frank Funnell, of the East Kent Arms, was summoned for
selling two bottles of ale at 9.20 p.m. on the 23rd August for
consumption off the premises. The defendant said he had no defence.
P.C. Fox said that at about 9.20 p.m. on the 23rd
August he was outside the Town Hall, when he saw a lad employed at the Victory
Cafe come out of the Cafe and enter the East Kent Arms. A few minutes later he
came out carrying two bottles in his hand. He stopped the lad, and from what he
said he took him back to the East Kent Arms, and asked to see Mr. Funnell. He
said to Mr. Funnell “This lad has just come out of your premises with these two
bottles. It is now 9.25”. Defendant said “I don`t know anything about it”.
Defendant went inside, and returned again, and took the bottles away from the
lad, who then went inside and had his money returned.
Mr. Funnell said he had not seen the boy in his house,
and it aws against his wishes. His wife was ill, and the girl had lost her
father on Saturday night.
Fined £2.
No comments:
Post a Comment