Folkestone Express
2-10-1920
Tuesday, September 28th: Before Messrs. G.I.
Swoffer, G. Boyd, E.T. Morrison, W. Hollands, and W.R. Boughton.
George Dunlop Manger, licensee of the Prince Albert Hotel,
was summoned for acting in contravention of the Beer Prices Restriction Order.
He pleaded Not Guilty. Mr. Misken (Maidstone) prosecuted on behalf of the
Divisional Food Officer, and Mr. G.W. Haines defended.
William M.S. Packe, an Inspector under the Divisional Food
Commissioner for Horsmonden area, said on July 31st he visited the
Prince Albert Hotel accompanied by Inspector Alcock. They went into the public
bar, where he saw the barman, whom he asked for two bottles of Bass. Witness
was served with two half pint bottles, and he then tendered the barman 2s. He
received a sixpenny piece and a penny in change. The man therefore charged him
1s. 5d. for the two bottles, which should have been 1s. 3d. He told the barman
he had been overcharged to the extent of twopence. The barman then wished to
refund him the twopence, but he refused to take it.
Cross-examined, witness said he called for the beer and paid
for it. He did not lay information, because it was not n his area. They simply
went into the bar to see if they were charged correctly. He told the barman he
was an Inspector of the Food Control Office, and said “Have you not made a
mistake?” It was then the barman took the twopence out of the till and offered
it to him. He later saw the licensee. He (witness) did not drink the whole of
the beer.
Ernest Frederick Alcock, of Ramsgate, said he was an
Inspector under the Divisional Food Commisioner. He had heard the evidence of
the last witness, and he corroborated it in every detail.
The defendant`s barman, Waters, said he had been in the
employ of Mr. Manger for 13 months in Folkestone. On July 31st he
served Mr. Packe with the two bottles of Bass. He gave him 7d. change out of
the 2s. He then went across to another customer, and Mr. Packe shouted across
to him “Young man, have you not made a mistake?” Witness went to him, and on
seeing the change he said “I am sorry, I have”, and then handed him the twopence.
It was then Mr. Packe said he was an Inspector under the Food Control.
Defendant said when the barman called him he saw some money
on the counter, and Inspector Packe asked him if he had received enough change
out of the 2s. for the Bass. He immediately called Waters, who said he had made
a mistake in charging 8½d. for each bottle instead of 7½d.
Mr. Haines contended that the sale of the beer had not been
completed when the twopence was offered by the barman to the Inspector for the
beer, and the original change had been untouched up to that time. He also
commented on the fact that after the war had been finished two years such
restrictions should be kept in force, and that millions of money should be
continued to be spent on a Food Ministry. In that case, he added, just to set a
trap for the defendant, the expenditure had been incurred of two Inspectors
coming to Folkestone, and also of bringing them, together with a solicitor, to
the Court that day. Then there were five Magistrates and the Clerk of the Court
to assist in that blood-curdling drama. (Laughter) It was said that while Rome
was burning Nero fiddled. That day they had a fiddling prosecution.
The Magistrates retired to consider their decision, and on
their return the Chairman said the public must be protected, and the defendant
would be fined £10 and £3 3s. special costs.
Folkestone Herald
2-10-1920
Tuesday, September 28th: Before Mr. G.I. Swoffer,
Councillor G. Boyd, Councillor E.T. Morrison, Councillor C. Ed. Mumford, Mr.
W.R. Boughton, and Councillor W. Hollands.
George Dunlop Manger, licensee of the Prince Albert, was
summoned for a breach of the Beer Prices Order by charging more than the
maximum price fixed for beer.
Mr. Misken prosecuted on behalf of the Divisional Food
Commission, and Mr. G.W. Haines appeared for the defendant, who pleaded Not
Guilty.
Inspector William Stephen Pack, an inspector under the
Divisional Food Commissioner, said on July 31st he visited the
Prince Albert public house at 6.30, accompanied by Inspector Alcock, also of
the Food Control. He went into the public bar and asked the barman for two
small bottles of Bass, meaning two half pint bottles. The barman having served
him, witness tendered 2s. in payment, and received 7d. in change. The barman
therefore charged 1s. 5d. for the two bottles. Witness said he had been
overcharged to the extent of 2d., and the barman wished to refund the money,
but he refused to accept it. Later he saw the licensee.
Cross-examined by Mr. Haines, witness said they went there to
see if they were served correctly. He did not taste the beer at first. Witness
said to the barman “Have you not made a mistake?”, and then the barman said he
had and he was sorry, and offered to give back the 2d. When he said “Haven`t
you made a mistake? I am an inspector under the Ministry of Food”, the barman
wanted to give the money back. They did not drink the whole of the beer.
Ernest Fred. Alcock, of Ramsgate, an inspector under the
Divisional Food Commissioner, corroborated.
Cross-examined, witness said Inspector Pack was not acting
as his agent.
The barman, named Waters, said he had been barman for
defendant for three years at Gravesend. He came with defendant to Folkestone
some thirteen months ago. After giving Inspector Pack 7d. change he went to
serve other customers, and then Pack said “Young man, have you not made a
mistake?” Witness said “I have. I am sorry. I thought I was serving you in the
private bar”. Pack said he was a Food Control Officer after witness had put the
twopence on the counter.
Defendant said when he came into the bar some money was
lying on the counter. Pack asked if that was enough change for two Basses out
of 2s., and witness told Waters to correct it.
The Chairman said they considered the case proved and the
public had to be protected. A fine of £10 and £3 3s. costs would be imposed.
Folkestone Express
18-12-1920
Inquest
On Wednesday afternoon Mr. G.W. Haines (the Borough Coroner)
held an inquiry into the circumstances of the death of Robert Albert Bateup,
aged 20 months, who died as a result of scalds the previous day.
Eva Esther Bateup said she resided at the Prince Albert
Hotel, Rendezvous Street, and was a cook there. Deceased was her son, and was
one year eight months old. Her employer allowed her to have the boy at her
house. On Sunday morning about 11.30 she was in the kitchen working. Mrs.
Swallow, another servant, was also there. Witness was preparing the dinner.
Mrs. Swallow drew off from a boiler a pail three parts full of hot water, and
placed it under the draining board. The boy was playing about in the kitchen at
the time, and within a few minutes she heard her boy scream, and on looking round
the pail was overturned and the boy was lying on the floor by the side of it.
He was crying, and she could see the water had gone over him. Mr. Manger, her
employer, came in, and they got the baby undressed as quickly as possible. They
saw the back and buttocks were very red, as if they were scalded. Dr. Lewis was
sent for, and arrived in ten minutes. In the meantime they put some oil on the
scalded part. The doctor saw him on Monday and Tuesday, and on the latter day
the boy was unconscious. The skin on the child`s back was broken. He died on
Tuesday afternoon.
Mrs. Elizabeth Jane Swallow, a domestic servant, employed at
the Prince Albert, said on Sunday she drew a pail of hot water for the purpose
of cleaning, and placed it under the drainer in the kitchen for a few moments
in order that she might fill the boiler up again. The boy was standing buy her
side, and he was holding up the ball for her to play with him. She noticed
nothing further until the boy screamed, and she then saw the pail had been overturned
and that his clothes were wet. She assisted the mother in undressing him, and
she saw that he had been scalded.
The Coroner found that the child died from shock after being
accidentally scalded.
Folkestone Herald
18-12-1920
Inquest
An inquest was held at the Town Hall by the Borough Coroner
(Mr. G.W. Haines) on Wednesday, on the body of Robert Albert Bateup, aged
twenty months, who died from scalds the previous day.
Eva Esther Bateup, a cook at the Prince Albert Hotel,
Rendezvous Street, stated that she was the mother of the child, who lived at
the hotel with her by permission of her employer. On Sunday morning Mrs.
Swallow, another servant, drew a pail of hot water water from the kitchen
boiler and placed it under the drainer. The child was in the kitchen at the
time. A few minutes later witness heard him scream, and looking round saw that
the pail had been overturned, and that the boy was lying on the floor.
Evidently the hot water had gone over him. Mr. Manger, her employer, came in,
and the boy was undressed. The back and buttocks were very red, and the injured
parts were dressed with oil. Dr. Lewis was called in, and he also attended the
child on Monday and Tuesday. The infant died on Tuesday at 5.20 p.m.
Mr. Swallow, a servant, employed at the Prince Albert,
stated that on Sunday morning she drew a pail of hot water and placed it under
the drainer in the kitchen for a few minutes, whilst she filled the boiler
again. The little boy was on the floor on the other side of the room. She did
not notice him again until she heard a scream, and then saw that the pail had
been overturned and the baby was alongside crying. His clothing was wet.
Witness assisted his mother to undress him. His back and buttocks had been
scalded.
Mr. Manger, licensee of the Prince Albert, stated that
hearing a noise on Sunday, his wife and he went into the kitchen, where they
saw the deceased in his mother`s arms. The mother said the child had fallen
into a pail of hot water. He could see that the infant was very severely scalded.
The skin was peeling off. He at once telephoned Dr. Lewis, who arrived in about
ten minutes. A lady speaking through the telephone told him to put oil on the
scalded parts pending the arrival of the doctor. Everything possible was done
for the child then and since. The doctor said it was a very serious case, and
children sometimes died from the shock.
The Coroner found that deceased died from shock as a result
of being scalded.
Folkestone Express
12-2-1921
Annual Licensing Sessions
Wednesday, February 9th: Before The Mayor,
Alderman Sir S. Penfold, Alderman Pepper, Rev. H. Epworth Thompson, Councillor
Miss I. Weston, Miss Hunt, Councillor Boyd, Mr. Swoffer, Mr. Blamey, Councillor
Boughton, Councillor Hollands, Councillor Stace, and Colonel Owen.
The Chief Constable (Mr. H. Reeve) presented his annual
report as follows:- I have the honour to report that there are at present
within your jurisdiction 114 places licensed for the sale of intoxicating
liquor by retail, viz.: Full licences 71, beer on 7, beer off 6, beer and
spirit dealers 15, grocers etc. off 6, confectioners wine on 3, and chemists
wine off 6. This is an increase of one full licence compared with the return
submitted last year, a licence having been granted to the Grand Hotel at the
adjourned licensing meeting held on 10th March last. This gives an
average according to the Census of 1911 of one licence to every 293 persons, or
one on licence to every 429 persons. Thirteen of the licences have been
transferred during the past year. Three occasional licences have been granted
to licence holders to sell drink on special occasions elsewhere than on their
licensed premises, and 36 extensions of hours have been granted to licence
holders when dinners, etc., were being held on their licensed premises. Two
licence holders have been convicted during the year, viz.: The licensee of the
Prince Albert Hotel was fined £10 and costs on 28th August for
selling beer at a price exceeding the maximum price under the Beer (Prices and
Descriptions) Order. The licensee of the Alexandra Hotel was fined £10 on 5th
October for allowing the consumption of intoxicating liquor on his licensed
premises after 10 p.m., contrary to the Order of the Liquor Control Board.
During the year ended 31st December last 37 persons (28 males and 9
females) were proceeded against for drunkenness; 27 were convicted and 10 were
discharged after being cautioned by the Bench In the preceeding year 46 persons
were proceeded against for drunkenness, of whom 34 were convicted and 12
discharged. Twelve clubs where intoxicating liquor is supplied are registered
under the Act. This is an increase of one since last year`s report. Proceedings
have been taken against the steward of one of the registered clubs for allowing
consumption of intoxicating liquor after 10 p.m., but the case was dismissed on
the payment of costs. There are 24 premises licensed for music and dancing, one
for music only, and two for public billiard playing. As a result of the reports
received from my officers, who have made numerous visits at irregular intervals
to the licensed premises and places of entertainment, I am able to report that
the houses generally have been conducted in a satisfactory manner.
The Mayor said it was a great source of satisfaction to the
Bench that Mr. Reeve had been able to make a report so favourable as the one he
had submitted, especially in respect to the last paragraph. It was also a great
source of satisfaction to the Bench to know that the charges for drunkenness
were less during 1920 than during 1919. Forty six persons were proceeded
against in 1919, and 37 in 1920, showing a decrease of 9. The Magistrates had
reason to believe from the report that the licensed houses during the past
year, in the main, had been well conducted.
Mr. Reeve: Yes, sir.
The Mayor said the Bench recognised that the licensees had a
difficult task to perform. There were many Acts of Parliament and Orders from
different Boards which they had to adhere to and carry out. Speaking
personally, he preferred to see himself the Continental cafe system, which
would be a much easier system to carry out than their public house system, and
he did not know why it had not been tried in this country. He hoped some day
someone would make the experiment. At the Continental cafes they saw any amount
of people having a pleasant time and social intercourse, and taking their wines
or coffee, and spending a very happy time. They had to deal with the English
system, but he hoped that some day the Continental system would be tried, and
that it would be a success on this side. He hoped that during the coming year
the licensees would exercise the same caution and vigilance as they had during
the past, and that cases of drunkenness would continue to decrease annually.
All the licences would be renewed with the exception of the Prince Albert. The
licence of the Alexandra Hotel had passed into fresh hands since the
conviction, and that would be renewed from that day. The Prince Albert would be
referred back to the adjourned meeting.
The adjourned sessions were fixed for the 9th
March
Folkestone Herald
12-2-1921
Annual Licensing Sessions
Wednesday, February 9th: Before The Mayor, Sir
Stephen Penfold, Mr. G.I. Swoffer, Councillor G. Boyd, Colonel G.P. Owen,
Councillor A. Stace, Alderman A.E. Pepper, the Rev. H. Epworth Thompson, Mr.
J.H. Blamey, Councillor W.H. Boughton, Councillor W. Hollands, Miss A.M. Hunt,
and Councillor Miss E.I. Weston.
The report of the
Chief Constable (Mr. H. Reeve) was read. (See Folkestone Express for details).
The Mayor said it was a great source of satisfaction to the
Bench that the Chief Constable had been able to make a report so favourable,
especially the last paragraph, where it was stated that all licensed houses had
been conducted in a satisfactory manner. It was also a great source of
satisfaction to the Bench that charges of drunkenness were less in 1920 than in
the preceding year. Forty six persons were proceeded against in 1919, and thirty
seven in 1920, showing a decrease of nine. That was satisfactory. They had
reason to believe, from the report, that all licensed houses had been well
conducted. The licensees had a difficult task, because there were so many Acts
of Parliament and Orders to which they had to adhere and carry out. Speaking
personally, he would prefer to see the Continental cafe system, as it would be
much easier to carry out than the public house system. He did not know why it
could not be tried in this country, and he hoped somebody would try to
introduce it some day. On the Continent they saw any amount of people having a
pleasant time, having wine or coffee or whatever they wanted, and going home
afterwards none the worse for it. Anyhow they had got their own system in this
country, and they had got to take it as they found it. He hoped the licensees
would exercise the same vigilance this year as they had exercised in the past,
and that drunkenness would show a decrease. The Licensing Committee had had the
report before them, and with the exception of the Alexandra Hotel and the
Prince Albert Hotel, the whole of the licences would be renewed. The Alexandra
Hotel had passed into fresh hands since the conviction, and the licence would
be renewed that morning. The Prince Albert Hotel licence would be referred back
to the adjourned meeting next month.
The date of the Adjourned Licensing Sessions was fixed for
Wednesday, March 9th.
Folkestone Express
12-3-1921
Adjourned Licensing Sessions
Wednesday, March 9th: Before Mr. G.I. Swoffer and
other Magistrates.
The licence of the Prince Albert Hotel, which was deferred
from the annual meeting, was renewed.
Folkestone Herald
12-3-1921
Adjourned Licensing Sessions
Wednesday, March 9th: Before Mr. G.I. Swoffer, Councillor
G. Boyd, Councillor W.J. Harrison, the Rev. H. Epworth Thompson, Mr. J.H.
Blamey, Councillor W.R. Boughton, and Councillor W. Hollands.
The renewal of the licence of the Prince Albert Hotel had
been adjourned from the Annual Sessions. It was now renewed.
Folkestone Express
8-10-1921
Local News
On Wednesday the Folkestone Magistrates at the special
transfer sessions had before them the question of hours for the sale of drink.
The Bench refused the application of Mr. Manger for a certificate
to serve supper drinks at the Prince Albert.
Folkestone Express
21-4-1923
Local News
The licence of the Prince Albert Hotel was on Tuesday at the
Police Court transferred to Mr. Samson George Roberts, who has conducted a
licensed house in London, from Mr. Manger.
Folkestone Herald
26-5-1923
Wednesday, May 23rd: Before Mr. G.I. Swoffer, Mr.
J.H. Blamey, and Miss A.M. Hunt.
The licence of the Prince Albert Hotel was transferred from
Mr. George Dunlop Manger to Mr. Samson Ernest Roberts.
Folkestone
Express 14-8-1926
Tuesday, August 10th: Before Col. Owen,
Messrs. G. Boyd, J.H. Blamey, and Miss A.M. Hunt.
Robert Fisher was charged with having been drunk and disorderly in Grace Hill,
arid he pleaded guilty
to being drunk,
Inspector Pittock said that at 10.15 p.m. on Monday
he was walking past the Prince Albert Hotel when a glass was thrown from the door, narrowly missing
him. He went to look in the bar, and saw prisoner being ejected by a man named
Whiting, a bricklayer. Prisoner was- making use of disgusting language. He
stepped inside the bar to ascertain the cause of the trouble, and prisoner went
in again, and he (witness) put him outside. Prisoner walked across the road, a crowd
collected, and he took Fisher into custody. He was bleeding from a cut on the
right hand, which was dressed at the Police Station. Whiting suffered from
small cuts on the back of the head.
Defendant said he went to get a glass of beer. He
went straight to the counter, called for the beer, and his usual custom was to take three
or four paces back to allow customers to go to the bar. A man, who was a
stranger to him, rushed over to him and said "I am the man for you, I will
have a go”. He said “All right, then,” and the glass caught the top of the
man's head and cut his (prisoner`s) hand.
Prisoner was fined 5s.
Folkestone Herald
14-8-1926
Tuesday, August 10th: Before Colonel G.P. Owen,
Mr. G. Boyd, Mr. J.H. Blamey, and Miss A.M. Hunt.
Robert Fisher was charged with being drunk and disorderly in
Grace Hill on the previous evening. He pleaded Not Guilty.
Inspector Pittock said that at 10.15 the previous night he
was passing the Prince Albert public house, when a glass was thrown from the
door and narrowly missed him. He looked inside, and saw that prisoner was being
ejected by a man named Whiting. Accused was making use of the most disgusting
language. Witness was in plain clothes, but he told prisoner that he was a
police officer and advised him to go away. Fisher again went into the public
house, using filthy language. He again put prisoner outside, and later took him
to the police station, where he charged him. Prisoner was bleeding from a cut
on the right hand, which was dressed at the police station.
Prisoner said that on the previous evening he went into the
public house to get a glass of beer. He went over to the counter and called for
his beer. His usual custom was to take three or four paces back to allow
customers to get to the bar. As he was going back an unknown man rushed before
him and said “I am the man for you. I will have a go”. He replied “All right
then”, and then the glass caught the top of his head, and cut his hand.
The Chief Constable (Mr. A.S. Beesley) said that prisoner
had three previous convictions for being drunk and disorderly against him, but
none since 1921.
Defendant was fined 5s.
At the Folkestone
Police Court on Wednesday morning the licence of the Prince Albert, Rendezvous
Street, was transferred from Mr. S.E.G. Roberts to Mr. Christopher Andrews.
Folkestone
Express 7-1-1928
Local News
Folkestone
Express 24-3-1928
Tuesday, March 20th: Before Col. G.P. Owen, Miss A M.
Hunt, Mr. J. H. Blamey, Mr. A. Stace and
Col. Broome-Giles.
Christopher Andrews, the licensee of the Prince Albert Hotel, was summoned
for sup-plying intoxicating drink during prohibited hours. Mr. Rutley Mowll, who appeared
for Mr. Andrews, pleaded not guilty.
Inspector Pittock said at 10-20 p.m.
on Friday, March 2nd, he saw three men enter
the Prince Albert Hotel by the private entrance.
He recognised one man, Wasley, as
being a private resident. At 10-30 he went
to the Hotel accompanied by
P.C. Halse.
He rang the bell and the door was opened by a barman. He walked into the
saloon bar of the premises and saw the three men whom he had seen enter
previously. Two were in the act of drinking from glasses containing what appeared to be beer. The third man, whose name was Trinder,
had a glass in his hand Mr. Andrews and his wife were in the bar, near the
entrance to the service bar. He asked Wasley what his glass from when he drunk
contained and he said “It is ale." The other man, named Allen, said “It is
ail right, he is our guest. We are staying here”. He (witness) turned to Wasley and said “You
are not staving here?” He replied “No.”
He then took their names and addresses. He told Mr. Andrews he should report
him for supplying intoxicating drink for consumption during prohibited hours,
and Mr. Allen, he informed, he should report him for aiding and abetting. Mr.
Andrews replied “I was in the
cellar when they came in and I
suppose my wife served them without thinking”. Mrs. Andrews said “I served them. I thought it was quite in
order as these two gentlemen (Allen and
Trinder) are staying”. He left the premises but shortly after he returned and told Mr. Andrews he would like to make sure that Mr. Allen and Mr. Trinder were
staying at the hotel. He then found both were staying there. Mr Allen’s name
was in the register and Mr, Trinder entered his name in it during the time he was there. There was
a clock in the room and it
showed that the time was 10-30 when he entered. The clock compared with the
Town Hall clock. Mr. Wasley was a local man.
Mr. Rutley Mow.ll, for the defence, said that as the law now stood the serving was not correct. Of
course the licensee himself was entitled
to entertain his own friends and the two
commercial travellers lodging in the hotel
were entitled to have their drinks as they liked, but unfortunately the two commercial travellers came in with a friend and they treated
him. As the law stood that was not legal
and the friend was not entitled to have his drink, although the two others were because they were residents of the hotel. That case did not need a long
explanation because it was to he
found in the evidence that Inspector Pittock had given, as he always did, very fairly.
The Inspector told them that when he
entered the premises the licensee had been down in the cellar. He could not think the licensee
would have made such a mistake as was made by serving the
friend. He would like to ask whether that was a
serious case. He understood the defendant
had been a licensed victualler for a
great many years, and had an irreproachable
character. He had only been in Folkestone a short
time and he thought
he was right in suggesting that when a man had had a very long career of rectitude as
that man had, for 14 years, and had never been in trouble before, it was a case when
a good record should stand him in good stead. He, therefore, left the
case in the hands of
the Bench, who, he was sure, would not want to be severe on a man who apparently had made a mistake, not by himself but who, through someone else, had made a little legal slip.
The Chairman said they had decided on the defendant’s plea that he was guilty of the offence, but
before they came to a final decision they would like to hear the
other two summonses in connection with the case.
Albert Allen was then summoned for aiding and abetting Mr. Andrews, and William Wasley was summoned for
consuming intoxicating liquors during prohibited hours on licensed premises.
Both defendants pleaded Guilty.
No further
evidence was given by the police.
Allen said
Mr. Trinder and he had been playing snooker at the Esplanade Hotel, where they
met Mr. Wasley, who was a friend. They suggested that they should have Mr.
Wasley with them at the hotel where they were staying. He always entertained
his friends at what he took to be his temporary home, and he always thought he
was entitled to so entertain anyone. He had no idea that he was making a breach
of the law, or he would not have done it. He had been on the road 33 years and that was the first time
that he had been in a Police Court.
Wasley said he thought he was right in gcing
with his friends. He would not have come had he known it was a breach of the
law. It was the first time that he had appeared before the Magistrates in his
life, and he was very sorry.
The Chairman said the Magistrates said there was
no doubt the defendants had been straightforward in that matter. They admitted
they broke the law. Though the Bench were bound to say that the defendants were guilty, they did not consider it necessary to
impose a penalty.
That, doubtless, would be a lesson to the defendants and the Magistrates were, as he had said,
pleased with the straight straightforward
way in which they had met the case.
The defendants would be discharged
under the Probation of Offenders` Act. That would not be a conviction against
them.
Folkestone
Herald 24-3-1928
Local News
A Folkestone licensee, Mr. Christopher Andrews, of the
Prince Albert Hotel, was summoned before the Folkestone Magistrates on Tuesday
for having supplied intoxicating liquor after hours. William Wasley was
summoned for consuming and Albert Allen for aiding and abetting.
Evidence for the police was given by Inspector Pittock,
who stated that at 10.20 p.m. on Friday the 2nd inst., when passing
the Prince Albert Hotel, he saw three men enter by the private entrance. He
recognised one of them, William Wasley, as a local man. At 10.30, accompanied
by another officer, witness found the door locked, and was admitted by a
barman. In the saloon bar at the back of the premises witness saw the three men
he had seen enter. Two were in the act of drinking ale from glasses – a man
named Tinder, and Allen – and a third man, Wasley, had a glass in his hand also
containing ale. All were in the bar, one seated in a chair. Wasley said his
glass contained beer and witness tasted the contents and found it to be ale.
The licensee was present, and Allen said “It is quite all right. He (meaning
Wasley) is our guest. We are staying here and are paying for these drinks”.
Witness asked Wasley if he was staying there and he said “No”. Witness told
them he would report them, and the licensee said “I was in the cellar when the
men came in and I suppose my wife served them without thinking”. Mrs. Andrews
said she thought it was quite in order as the three gentlemen were staying
there.
Mr. Rutley Mowll, defending, said the licensee was, of
course, entitled to entertain his own friends, and the two commercial
travellers who lodged in this hotel were entitled to have their drinks as they
liked. But these commercials came in with a friend of theirs and they treated
him, and as the law stood at present that was not legal. He was not entitled to
have his drinks given him by these two gentlemen, although they were entitled,
as residents of the hotel, to have drinks if they liked all night long. Mr.
Mowll went on to mention that the licensee had been in tha business a great
many years, and had an absolutely irreproachable character.
The defendant Allen said he had been out with Mr.
Trinder, and Mr. Wasley had been with them. They had no idea they were breaking
the law.
Wasley said he thought there was nothing wrong in going
to the hotel with his friends. He certainly would not have gone in if he had
known he was breaking the law.
The Chairman (Colonel Owen) said defendants had all
been perfectly straight and had admitted that they had broken the law, and the
Bench were there to enforce the law. They were bound to say they were all
Guilty, but did not consider it necessary to impose a penalty. The Bench were
pleased at the straightforward way in which they had met the summonses, and
they would be discharged under the Probation Act.
No comments:
Post a Comment