Oddfellows Arms 1900 - 1904

Folkestone Chronicle 9-6-1900

Saturday, June 2^nd: Before Messrs. Fitness, Banks, and Wightwick, and Colonel Hamilton.

Frank Coleman, landlord of the Oddfellows Inn, Radnor Street, was summoned for permitting drunkenness on his licensed premises. He pleaded Not Guilty, and was represented by Mr. G. Haines.

P.C. Thomas Sales said: At 8.45 p.m. on May 22^nd I was on duty in Radnor Street. I saw three women on the footpath, just opposite the Star public house. There was also a man named Warman, who aws drunk and using filthy language. He struck a blow at his wife, who was standing there, and fell down on the footpath. He was “top heavy”. I got him up from the ground and advised him to go home. About 20 minutes later I was in Radnor Street, and from what Warman`s wife told me, I went to the Oddfellows Inn, in company with P.C. Earl. I there saw Warman on a chair in the bar asleep. There were two glasses containing liquor on the counter beside him. The landlord`s wife came into the bar, and I requested her to call the landlord, which she did, and I said to him “Landlord, you see the condition this man is in”. At the same time I awoke Warman, who reached for a pint glass of beer. Another customer who was present said “That is not your glass”. Warman then took up a half pint glass and drank its contents. The landlord said “That is all the beer he has had – the one half pint you have just seen him drink”. I told the landlord that I should report him for permitting drunkenness on licensed premises, and he replied “You will not be too hard on me for the sake of one half pint”. I then told Warman I should report him for being drunk on licensed premises.

Cross-examined by Mr. Haines: Warman was drunk when I saw him in the house, but not incapable. When he first went home it was through my threatening to take him to the station. If he went home quietly it was not necessary to lock him up. My duty was to report him, which I immediately did. I am not responsible for the issuing of summonses.

Mr. Haines further cross-examined the witness as to the state of Warman, but Sales refused to budge. He had taken up a strong position, and kept it most creditably under a powerful fire from defendant`s legal representative.

P.C. Earl corroborated the last witness, and said that in trying to rouse Warman he found he was drunk.

By Mr. Haines: Warman did not make use of bad language in the house. When we woke him he went off quietly.

Mr. Haines briefly addressed the Magistrates. He referred them to the section of the Act under which the summons was issued, and pointed out that the Act was rather hard upon a landlord, inasmuch as the prosecution had only to prove drunkenness on the premises, and the fact of a landlord being unaware of an inebriated customer`s condition did not avail him. His client had not shown wanton carelessness. He was not in the bar when Warman was served, and the latter`s demeanour did not lead the attendant to believe he was anything else but sober. There had been a previous altercation with some women, and they afterwards sent for the police to the Oddfellows Inn. He did not wish to imply that the police were unfair, but they, like others, could make a mistake, and he would suggest from what the women had said the officers went along prepared to find Warman drunk.

James Titty, called for the defence, said: I reside at 17, East Street, and am a carpenter. I was in the Oddfellows on the 22^nd of May, and saw Warman come in. He called for and was served with half a pint of beer. I know him well, and have seen him drunk many times. He walks with a lurch, and sometimes you would take him to be drunk when he was not. At the time in question, in my opinion, he was fit to be served with a quart of whisky instead of half a pint of beer. He was, in fact, sober. He sat in the chair and went to sleep. He made no noise, and left the house quietly when desired.

Cross-examined by the Chief Constable:  I had not seen anything of the disturbance in the street. I do not know if Warman had been to sea that day. I could not swear he was perfectly sober.

Re-examined: I had no reason to believe that he was not perfectly sober.

Edward Dalby deposed: I am a fisherman, and live at 3, Dunn`s Cottages. I was in the Oddfellows Inn on the evening of the 22^nd, and also saw Warman come in. I should say he was not drunk; he behaved himself quietly.

The Chief Constable: You say he was not drunk. How much ought he to have to make him drunk in your opinion? -  I should say that four or five pints of beer would not hurt any man after he had been to work. I would not swear that Warman was perfectly sober.

Mr. Haines re-examined the witness, but his ideas of liquid measure and its results proved very hazy.

The Bench decided that the case was proved, and warned the defendant that they could inflict a penalty of £10, but there being no previous conviction against him, they were disposed to be lenient, hoping that the present fine would be a caution. He would be fined 50s. and 12s. costs, and the licence would not be endorsed.

Folkestone Express 9-6-1900

Saturday, June 2^nd: Before J. Banks, W. Wightwick, and J. Fitness Esqs., and Liuet. Col. Hamilton.

Frederick Coleman, landlord of the Oddfellows Inn, in Radnor Street, was summoned for permitting drunkenness on licensed premises. Mr. Haines appeared for the defendant.

P.C. T.D. Sales said at 8.25 p.m. on the 22^nd ult. he was on duty in Radnor Street, where he saw a man named Warman drunk and using obscene language. He was standing on the footpath opposite the Star Inn. He was irritable, and struck a blow at his wife during an altercation, and over-reaching himself he fell on the pavement. He got up and was advised by witness to go indoors, which he did after about 20 minutes. Later on witness saw Warman`s wife, who informed him that her husband had entered the Oddfellows Inn. He obtained the assistance of P.C. Earl, and both proceeded to the defendant`s house. It was 8.55 p.m. when they entered the bar, and there saw the man Warman sitting in a chair asleep. There were two glasses on the counter containing liquor. Witness asked the landlady, who was behind the counter, to call the landlord, and he came forward. Witness said to him “You see the condition this man is in?”, and at the same time he woke him. Warman reached for the pint glass and took hold of it, when a customer intervened and told him that he had the wrong glass. Warman then drank the contents of the half pint glass. Witness told the landlord he would report him. He replied “You won`t be too hard on me for the sake of a half pint”. Witness also told Warman he would report him for being drunk, and persuaded him to go, which he did.

Witness, in answer to Mr. Haines, said Warman was drunk, and prior to his entrance to the Oddfellows Inn he was disorderly. There were four or five other customers in the bar. He did not follow Warman after he left defendant`s house.

P.C. Charles Earl corroborated the last witness`s evidence, and added that when Warman left the house he staggered as if intoxicated.

Mr. Haines addressed the Bench, saying that the defendant was Not Guilty unless he knew that Warman was drunk. The evidence which he would submit to them would show that neither the landlord nor his wife, who was serving at the time, had any knowledge that Warman was intoxicated. With regard to the staggering, he thought the police constable must have mistook it for the peculiar walk the “old salts” or fishermen had. If the Bench were satisfied that the defendant had no knowledge of Warman`s drunkenness, he asked them to dismiss the case.

James Tiddy was then called, and said he resided at 17, East Street, and was a carpenter. At the time in question he was in the Oddfellows Inn, and there saw a man named Warman, who called for half a pint of beer. He was served by the landlord`s wife. He knew Warman sometimes had the appearance of a drunken man, and he had a peculiar gait, but when he was served with the liquor his appearance was that of a sober man. It would take more than a half pint to intoxicate him. Fout times that amount of whisky was nearer the mark.

Mr. Fitness: How much?

Witness: A quart of whisky. (Laughter)

In answer to Supt. Reeve, witness said that Warman came in very quietly, and after ordering his beer he sat in a chair and dosed off. It was usual of him to do so. His opinion of Warman`s condition was that he was sober.

Edward Dalby stated he was a fisherman and was in the bar before Warman came in. When Warman called for his liquor there was noting in his appearance to indicate he was drunk. He was there about 15 minutes, and during that time Warman was perfectly quiet, and did not enter into the conversation that was going on.

The Bench considered the case proved, and fined the defendant 50s. and 12s. costs, and informed him he was liable to a penalty of £10. As it was his first offence they would not endorse his licence.

Folkestone Herald 9-6-1900

Folkestone Police Court

On Saturday last at the Folkestone Petty Sessions – Mr. Fitness presiding on the Bench – Mr. Frederick Coleman, the landlord of the Oddfellows Inn, Radnor Street, was summoned for supplying intoxicating liquor to a person when drunk, on the 22^nd May. Chief Constable Reeve conducted the case for the prosecution, and Mr. G.W. Haines appeared for the defendant. The defendant pleaded Not Guilty.

P.C. Sales deposed that about 8.25 on the night in question he was in Radnor Street, and saw three women standing on the footpath opposite the Star public house. A man named Warman was there, who was drunk, using very filthy language. He struck a blow at his wife, and tipped over, being under the influence of drink. He was top-heavy. He got up, and witness advised him to go indoors. His house was nearby. After some time he went indoors. About twenty minutes later witness was patrolling Radnor Street again, and, from information from Warman`s wife, with P.C. Earl, about 8.55, he visited the Oddfellows Arms. He there saw Warman sitting in the bar, asleep. There were two glasses containing liquor beside him, one a pint, the other half a pint. The landlord`s wife was in the bar, and on his request she called the landlord. Witness said to him “You see the condition this man is in”. At the same time he awoke Warman, who reached for the pint glass, and took hold of it. He was about to drink, when another customer in the bar said “That is not your beer”. Warman then took up the half pint glass and drank its contents. The landlord said “That is all the beer he has had here, that one half pint you have just seen him drink”. Witness told the landlord that he would report him for permitting drunkenness on his licensed premises. He replied “You won`t be hard on me for the sake of one half pint”. He also told Warman that he would report him for being drunk on licensed premises. Warman was drunk when witness found him in the house. From the time witness first saw him in Radnor Street, and found him in the house, thirty minutes had elapsed.

Cross-examined: The women at 8.25 were talking in an excitable manner, and Warman was drunk and disorderly. In that case witness considered it his duty to get the man home, and report him for a summons, which he did. Warman was not incapably drunk. He was a fisherman. There were four or five persons in the bar. Witness advised the landlord to get Warman off the premises, and he did so. Warman walked out and left the premises. He went in the direction of his home. As far as witness was concerned, it did not matter about a man being drunk if he conducted himself well in the street. Warman went away quietly. Witness reported him.

P.C. arle, who went with P.C. Sales about 8.55, gave corroborative evidence. He said that when the landlord advised Warman to go out, he went, in a staggering condition.

Cross-examined: He knew what he was called for by P.C. Sales. Warman was a fisherman, and had a big lurch, especially when he got too muc beer. (Laughter)

Mr. G.W. Haines, on behalf of the defendant, contended that the case resolved itself into a question whether the man was drunk or not. It appeared that “knowledge” on the part of the landlord was not necessary. He was entitled to put forward in mitigation, supposing the Bench found the man to be drunk, that on the landlord`s part there was no wanton carelessness, or willingly blinding himself to the fact. He did not say that the police were wrong. They were apt sometimes to make a mistake. He suggested that to all intents and purposes the man was sober. After the altercation and excitement, they might have to a certain extent been biased with the feeling, or only have expected to find a drunken man. Some of these “old salts” had a very peculiar way of walking. He submitted that the police might have been mistaken, and he might mention that the liquor was served not by the landlord, but by his wife.

James Tiddy, 17 East Street, a carpenter, deposed that he was in the Oddfellows on the 22^nd, and saw Warman come in. He bought half a pint of beer, and was served by the landlady. He knew the man, and noticed him particularly. He had seen him drunk many times, and sometimes he would be taken for drunk when he was not. He was sober. In witness`s opinion, on this occasion Warman was fit to be served if he asked for a quart of whisky. (Laughter)

Mr. Haines: You would not answer for his sobriety afterwards? (Renewed laughter)

Witness added that Warman sat in the chair and called for his beer. He did nothing until the police came.

By the Chief Constable: He could not say that the man was perfectly sober. He was fit to be served by a publican.

Re-examined: He had no reason to believe that Warman was not perfectly sober.

Edward Dalby deposed that he was in the Oddfellows and saw Warman enter. Witness would say he was not drunk. He had been in his company many a time.

By the Chief Constable: He would think that four or five pints of beer would not hurt any man after he had been to work. Warman was subject to sit down and go to sleep. He knew he had had some drink. He could not swear that he was perfectly sober.

The Chairman said that the Bench considered the case proved. The penalty might be £10, but they would reduce it to a fine of 50s. and 12s. costs, or one month`s hard labour. It being the first offence as far as they knew, his licence would not be endorsed.

   

Folkestone Chronicle 16-6-1900

Saturday, June 9^th: Before Alderman Banks, Col. Hamilton, and Messrs. Wightwick, Salter, and Fitness.

Thomas Warman was charged with being drunk on licensed premises, etc., on May 22^nd.

P.C. Thomas Sales repeated the evidence given in the case (reported at the time) against the landlord of the Oddfellows last week for permitting drunkenness.

Warman, on his part, wished it to be understood, in regard to the allegation of striking at his wife, that she struck him firt.

Fined 5s., and 9s. costs, or 14 days`.

Folkestone Express 16-6-1900

Saturday, June 9^th: Before J. Banks, J. Fitness, W. Wightwick, and W. Salter Esqs., and Lieut. Col. Hamilton.

Thomas Warman was summoned for being drunk on licensed premises on the 22^nd ult.

P.C. Sales deposed that at 8.25 in the evening of the 22^nd May he was on duty in Radnor Street and saw defendant there drunk and having an altercation with three women. He struck a blow at his wife, who was amongst them, but over-reached himself and fell on to the pavement. Subsequently he went to the Oddfellows Inn, and was there served with beer by the landlord`s wife.

The landlord, it will be remembered, was fined for permitting drunkenness on his premises.

The defendant was fined 5s. and 9s. costs, or in default 14 days` imprisonment.

Folkestone Herald 16-6-1900

Folkestone Police Court

Thomas Warman, a fisherman, pleaded Not Guilty to being drunk on licensed premises on the 22^nd May.

P.C. Sales deposed that at 8.25 p.m. he saw the defendant in Radnor Street, drunk, having an altercation with three women, using filthy language. He struck a blow at his wife and fell on the pavement. After several minutes he went indoors. Later witness went to the Oddfellows Arms and saw the defendant asleep in the bar. He called the landlord`s attention to the defendant being drunk.

The defendant said that his missus struck at him first. He went indoors, through the back door, and walked along to the Oddfellows. He called for a glass of beer, and had not been there two minutes when in came the constable. He walked out and made straight home.

Fined 5s. and 9s. costs, or 14 days`.

Folkestone Chronicle 24-1-1903

Saturday, January 17^th: Before W. Wightwick, W.G. Herbert and C.J. Pursey Esqs., and Lieut Colonel Hamilton.

Edward Mockeridge, an individual of the hawker type, was summoned for refusing to quit the Oddfellows Arms, Radnor Street, and for assaulting the landlord (Frederick Coleman) on the 10^th of January.

Mr. Rook, who appeared for the prosecutor, said his client would be content if defendant were bound over. Under the new Act a publican`s duties became very onerous; therefore he must be protected, otherwise the proper conduct of his house would be impossible.

Complainant proved making several requests to the defendant to leave his house. Defendant refused, and before being ejected struck witness over the head with a basket.

Defendant pleaded Guilty, but said he had had 16 or 17 half pints previously that day at complainant`s house.

This complainant indignantly denied.

Defendant was fined £1 and 9s. costs for refusing to quit, and for the assault bound over in the sum of £5, with 8s. 6d. costs.

The amount was paid by a fisherman.

Folkestone Express 24-1-1903

Saturday, January 17^th: Before W. Wightwick Esq., Lieut Col. Hamilton, W.G. Herbert and C.J. Pursey Esqs.

Edward Mockeridge was summoned for assault, and further with refusing to quit licensed premises. He pleaded Guilty to both charges.

Mr. Rook appeared for the complainant, and asked that the defendant might be bound over, as with the duties now required of publicans, unless they took strong measures they would soon get into trouble.

Fredk. Coleman, landlord of the Oddfellows Arms, in Radnor Street, said the previous Saturday defendant came to the bar and called for a half pint of beer. As he was drunk, witness refused to serve him. Defendant then came round the counter and threatened him. Defendant went out, but came back later with two other men. Witness served the two men, but on refusing to serve defendant he struck witness over the head with a basket. Witness then went for a policeman.

In reply to Mr. Rook, complainant said defendant had caused him a great deal of trouble.

Defendant was bound over for three months in the sum of £5 and 8s. 6d. costs for the assault, and on the other account £1 and 9s. costs; in default one month`s hard labour. The money was paid by a friend.

Folkestone Herald 24-1-1903

Saturday, January 17^th: Before Mr. W. Wightwick, Lieut. Colonel Hamilton, Mr. W.G. Herbert, and Mr. C.J. Pursey.

Edward Mockeridge was summoned for refusing to quit the Oddfellows Arms, Radnor Street, and also for assaulting the landlord of the house, Frederick Coleman on January 10^th. Defendant pleaded Guilty.

Mr. Rook, who appeared for the prosecution, said defendant went into the complainant`s house and became disorderly because Mr. Coleman refused to serve him. He was ejected by the police, but returned and struck complainant over the head with a fish basket. With regard to the assault, he would ask that defendant be bound over to keep the peace.

The complainant bore out on oath Mr. Rook`s statement, and said that defendant had been a considerable trouble to him.

The Bench bound over defendant in £5 to keep the peace for three months, and ordered him to pay 8s. 6d. for the assault. He was also fined £1 and 9s. costs for refusing to quit. The money was paid. 

 

Folkestone Chronicle 3-10-1903

Tuesday, September 30^th: Before Alderman Spurgen, Lieut. Col. Westropp, and Mr. J.Stainer.

Andrew Anderson, a powerfully-built Swede, and his friend Sven Ehrnholm, were charged with being drunk and disorderly on the previous evening. The former appeared in the dock minus his coat, and with the right sleeve and side of his shirt torn out, exposing a well-developed arm and chest.

Anderson said he was so drunk he did not remember what had happened, while his companion said he was “not much drunk”.

P.C. Weller said that at 10.40 on Monday evening he was called to the Oddfellows in Radnor Street, where he found prisoners drunk, disorderly, and challenging people to fight. With difficulty he got them to their boat in the harbour, but they returned to the road and created a great disturbance, again challenging those around to fight. With the assistance of the military picket, witness took them into custody. Had it not been for that assistance, the crowd, which was much incensed at prisoners` conduct, would have mobbed them.

The Chairman fined each of the prisoners 10s. and 4s. 6d. costs, in default seven days`.

The Chief Constable: Have you any goods?

Anderson: If you send to our Captain ....

The Chief Constable: Your Captain says he will have nothing to do with you. He is very pleased to get rid of you.

Folkestone Express 3-10-1903

Tuesday, September 29^th: Before Alderman Spurgen, Lieut. Col. Westropp, and J. Stainer Esq.

Andrew Anderson and Ivan Ernholm, two foreign seamen, were charged with being drunk and disorderly.

P.C. Weller deposed that at 10.40 the previous night he was called to the Oddfellows Arms, in Radnor Street, where he saw the prisoners challenging people to fight. Witness advised them to go away, and they returned to their ship, which was lying in the Harbour. They used obscene language, and called out to passers-by, and eventually came ashore and started hitting at everyone who went by. Witness took prisoners into custody, and with assistance brought them to the police station. Their conduct had caused a considerable crowd to collect, and it was with difficulty that witness prevented prisoners from being mobbed.

The Bench imposed a fine of 10s. and 4s. 6d. costs; in default seven days` hard labour. The prisoners were removed in custody.