Ship Inn 1900 - 1904

Folkestone Chronicle 19-1-1901

Wednesday, January 16^th: Before Mr. J. Fitness and Mr. W. Wightwick.

Richard Pay, landlord of the Ship Inn, Radnor Street, was charged with having opened his house during prohibited hours on the 6^th of January. Mr. Minter appeared for the defendant.

Inspector Lilley said that on Sunday, the 6^th, in company with P.C. Sales, he watched the Ship Inn, Radnor Street, and about 7.45 a.m. the landlord opened the door and took in a milk can. At 8 o`clock he again opened the door, looked up and down the street, and admitted a man. Four minutes later the door was opened and the man let out. At the same time a woman went in. At 8.06 the same procedure was gone through. The woman was let out, and another woman went in. Two minutes later she came out, and at 8.14 the door was opened by the landlord, and a fisherman named Boom went in. At 8.19 Boom was let out, but a minute previous to that another man, named White, had been let in by the landlord, and he came out at 8.22. At 8.27 another man, who he believed was the postman, was let in by the landlord, who remarked that he had been looking for him. At 8.36 two milkmen were let in by the landlord, and came out again in two minutes. The door was then opened by defendant`s daughter, and a woman went in. She was let out at 8.45 by the daughter. At 8.50, two men, one of whom was the fisherman Boom, were let in by the landlord`s son, and they came out again at 8.58. At 9.20 a man named Hall was let in by Pay`s daughter, and came out at 9.28. At 9.32 another man, whom I had not seen go in, was let out by the landlord, and at 9.41 a woman was let in, and stayed two minutes. Two men, named Starling and Bliss, were let in by the landlord at 9.45, and at 10 a woman went in, but came out at 10.02. At 10.22 Starling and Bliss were let out by Pay, and the milkman Bailey went in for the second time. Before letting the men out, the landlord looked up and down the street. At 10.45 a man came along the street, tapped the window, and was let in by the landlord, and at 10.53, when the landlord opened the door, witness and P.C. Sales went in. Behind the landlord in a passage was a man named Warman, who endeavoured to push past, but was stopped. Witness asked the landlord what the man was doing on the premises, and the landlord replied “I asked him in to have some breakfast”. On the bar counter were a number of freshly cleaned glasses, and standing by itself was a glass with a quantity of froth in it. Witness said to the landlord “I shall report you for opening your house during prohibited hours”. Pay replied that he asked Warman to have a bit of breakfast and the beer he had himself. All the people, witness added, were let in in answer to a signal, either by a rap on the window or the door, or by walking past. He saw 13 men and 5 women enter and leave. Warman was the last.

P.C. Sales went into the box to give corroborative evidence, when Mr. Minter said he had been instructed to defend the case, and his defence would have been as to the man Warman having his breakfast there. But it was impossible, as he had just pointed out to defendant, that Inspector Lilley had deliberately perjured himself with regard to all the other people visiting the house. Defendant had committed the offence, and the only excuse he could urge was previous good character. Defendant had been in the house three or four years, and Messrs. Flint, of Canterbury, for whom he also appeared, had recently rebuilt the house, and had spent a large sum of money on it, and he need hardly say, on their behalf, that they would only have a respectable tenant there. Defendant in this case was a publican and a sinner, but there was perhaps no reason why they should not temper justice with mercy to the publican. The brewers would be willing to get rid of the present landlord, but he appealed to the Magistrates not to endorse the licence, thereby giving Pay another chance, as by losing the house he would be practically turned into the street.

The Chairman said the Bench had paid due attention to Mr. Minter`s eloquent appeal. They would not on this occasion be the means of turning defendant into the street, but they hoped this would be a warning to him. He would be fined £7 10s. and 17s. 6d. costs, and the licence would not be endorsed.

Folkestone Express 19-1-1901

By The Way

They are thirsty souls in Radnor Street, and not less so on Sunday than on Saturday mornings, evidently. Quite a little army of ladies and gentlemen boarded the old “Ship” on Sunday morning, and when they took up a glassful of beer they must have “put it down at once”, so quickly did they reappear. I cannot understand a publican being so foolish as to run such a terrible risk. In this case again, if Mr. Minter had not pleaded so eloquently for his client he would certainly have got into a worse mess. “Go, and sin no more” was the virtual judgement, but the defendant had to pay £8 odd for his foolish kindness to his thirsty customers.

Wednesday, January 16^th: Before J. Fitness and W. Wightwick Esqs.

Richard Pay was summoned for opening his house, the Ship Inn, Radnor Street, during prohibited hours for the sale of liquor on Sunday, the 6^th Jan. Mr. Minter appeared for the defendant.

Supt. Reeve asked that all the witnesses should leave the Court, and his request was granted.

Police Inspector Lilley said: On Sunday the 6^th I watched the Ship public house in company with P.C. Sales. About 7.45 the landlord opened the door and took in a milk can. At eight the landlord opened the door and looked up and down the street. A man went in. At four minutes past eight the landlord let the man out and a woman went in. Two minutes later the woman was let out and another woman went in. Two minutes later she was let out. At 8.14 the landlord admitted a man named Boorn, a fisherman. He remained five minutes and left. A minute previous a man named White was let in, and left at 8.22. At 8.27 another man was let in by the landlord, he believed a bona fide assistant of the landlord. At 8.36 two men named Ball and Bailey, milkmen, were let in by the landlord, and remained two minutes. At 8.39 the door was opened by a young woman and a woman was admitted, and she left at 8.41. At 8.50 two men were let in by the landlord, one of whom was Boorn, who had been in previously. They were let in by the landlord`s son, and remained eight minutes. At 9.10 a man named Cook was let out. They had not seen him go in. At 9.20 a man named Hall was let in by the daughter, and let out at 9.28. At 9.32 a man left who they had not seen go in. At 9.41 a woman was let in by the landlord, and she left at 9.43. At 9.52 two men named Starling and Bliss were let in by the landlord. At 10.00 a woman went in who remained two minutes. At 10.22 Starling and Bliss were let out by the landlord, and at the same time the milkman Bailey again went in.

Mr. Minter: The second delivery of milk, I suppose.

Witness: He remained two minutes. At 10.45 a man tapped the window and was let in by the landlord.

Defendant: Ain`t you afraid the house will drop in on you?

Witness: At 10.53 the landlord opened the door and I and the police constable went in. In the passage there was a man named Warman, who endeavoured to push past me to get out. I stopped him and said to the landlord “What is this man doing on the premises?” The landlord said “I asked him in to have some breakfast”. I walked through into the bar, and on the counter there was a quantity of freshly-cleaned glasses near the engine, and on the counter standing by itself was a glass which had recently contained freshly drawn beer, and there was froth reaching from the top of the glass to the bottom. Warman, the landlord, and P.C. Sales followed me into the bar. I told the landlord I should report him. He replied “I asked this man in (pointing to Warman) to have some breakfast, and the beer I had myself”. I asked Warman for his address, and he said he had none. All the people were let in in answer to some signal.

In answer to the Bench, witness said there were really three entrances, counting the cellar entrance.

Witness, in answer to the Superintendent, said they saw 13 men and five women enter and leave, and two men they found in the bar.

Mr. Minter asked no question.

P.C. Sales was called to corroborate Lilley`s evidence, but Mr. Minter, having consulted with the defendant, said he would withdraw the plea of Not Guilty and plead Guilty. He urged in an eloquent address the defendant`s previous food conduct, both as a master mariner and as the holder of a licence. He said he foolishly served the people as it was very inclement and cold weather, and gave an assurance that he would not offend again. Under all the circumstances he asked the Bench to deal leniently with the defendant, as it was his first offence.

The Bench imposed a fine of £7 10s. and 17s. 6d. costs, but did not endorse the licence.

Folkestone Herald 19-1-1901

Wednesday, January 16^th: Before Messrs. J. Fitness and W. Wightwick.

Richard Pay, landlord of the Ship Inn, Radnor Street, was charged with having opened his house during prohibited hours on the 6^th January.

The Chief Constable asked that the witnesses be ordered out of Court, and this was done. Mr. Minter appeared for the defence.

Inspector Lilley said on Sunday, the 6^th inst., in company with P.C. Sales, he watched the Ship Inn, Radnor Street. About 7.45 a.m. the landlord opened the door and took in a milk can. At 8 o`clock he again opened the door, looked up and down the street, and a man went in. About four minutes past the door was again opened by the landlord, and the man let out. At the same time a woman went in. Two minutes later the same procedure was gone through, the woman was let out, and another woman went in. Two minutes later she was let out. At 8.14 the door was again opened by the landlord, and a fisherman named Bourne went in. At 8.19 he was let out. A minute previous to that, another man, named White, had been let in by the landlord, and he was let out at 8.22. At 8.27 another man was let in by the landlord, who remarked that he had been looking for him. He believed the last man was the potman. At 8.36 two milkmen were let in by the landlord, and after two minutes came out. At 8.39 the door was opened by a young woman – defendant`s daughter -  and a woman went in, being let out by the daughter at 8.45. At 8.50 two men, one being Bourne, who had previously been in, were let in and out again at 8.58 by the landlord`s son. At 9.10 a man named Cook was let out by the son. They had changed their position just previous, and it was possible they did not see the man go in. At 9.20 a man named Hall was let in by the daughter, and let out by her at 9.28. At 9.32 a man whom they had not seen go in was let out by the landlord. At 9.41 a woman was let in by the landlord, and left two minutes later. Two men, named Staling and Bliss, were let in by the landlord at 9.45, and at 10 o`clock a woman went in, coming out at 10.02. At 10.22 Starling and Bliss were let out by the landlord. The milkman Bailey again went in as they went out. At 10.45 a man came along the street, tapped the window, and was afterwards let in by the landlord, and at 10.63 the landlord opened the door and witness and P.C. Sales went in. Behind the landlord in the passage was a man named Warman, who endeavoured to push past witness to get out. He stopped him and said to the landlord “What is this man doing on the premises?” The landlord said he asked him in to have some breakfast. Witness walked into the bar, and on the counter were a large number of freshly-cleaned glasses in a lump near the engine, and standing by itself was a glass with a quantity of froth reaching from the top to the bottom. Warman, the landlord, and Sales followed him into the bar, and he told the landlord he would report him for opening his house during prohibited hours. He replied that he asked Warman to have a bit of breakfast, and the beer he had himself. Warman refused his address, saying he had not got one. He told Warman he would be reported. All the people were let in in answer to a signal, either a rap on the window or the door, or by walking past. He saw thirteen man and five women enter and leave. Warman was the last man he saw enter.

P.C. Sales was giving corroborative evidence, when Mr. Minter said he had been instructed to defend the case, and his defence would have been as to the man having his breakfast there. It was impossible, as he had just pointed out to defendant, to suggest that Inspector Lilley had gone into the box and deliberately perjured himself with regard to all those people being there. It was no use taking up their time. Defendant had committed that offence, and the only excuse he could urge was his previous good character. He had been in the house three or four years, and Messrs. Flint, of Canterbury, for whom he also appeared, had recently rebuilt the house. They had spent a large sum of money on it, and he need hardly say, on their behalf, that they would only have a respectable tenant there. If the Magistrates decided that the man should be turned out, Messrs. Flint would fall in with their decision. There had been no previous complaints about the house. It was the dreadful snowy weather, and he dared say the people induced the landlord to let them have what was really a breach of the law. It was not worthwhile to go into the question of the truth of the statement as to Warman breakfasting there, although he could prove it. Here, although the defendant was a publican, he was a sinner, but there was perhaps no reason why they should not temper justice with mercy to the publican.

Superintendent Reeve said he could prove Warman had his breakfast at his son-in-law`s house.

The Chairman said on this occasion they would not endorse the licence, or turn the man into the street. He would be fined £7 10s. and 17s. 6d. costs, and they hoped it would be a warning to him.

     

Folkestone Chronicle 15-6-1901

Wednesday, June 12^th: Before Messrs. Hoad, Pursey, Wightwick, and Pledge, and Lieut. Col. Westropp.

The following licensing transfer was granted: Mr. George Prior, late landlord of the Warden Inn (sic) (actually Wonder), is going into fields and pastures new, the Ship Inn being his new venture.

Folkestone Express 15-6-1901

Wednesday, June 12^th: Before J. Hoad, J. Pledge, C.J. Pursey, and W. Wightwick Esqs., and Lieut. Col. W.K. Westropp.

Mr. John W. Prior, late of the Wonder Tavern, was granted temporary authority for the Ship Inn.

Folkestone Express 10-8-1901

Wednesday, August 7^th: Before W. Wightwick, C.J. Pursey, W.G. Herbert, and G.I. Swoffer Esqs., and Colonel Keily Westropp.

The following licence was transferred: the Ship Inn to Mr. Fryer (sic).

Folkestone Herald 10-8-1901

Wednesday, August 7^th: Before Messrs. W. Wightwick, W.G. Herbert, C.J. Pursey, G.I. Swoffer, and Lieut. Colonel Westropp.

The following licence was transferred: Mr. Fryer (sic), the Ship Inn  

 

Folkestone Chronicle 24-8-1901

Licensing Sessions

Wednesday, August 21^st: Before Messrs. Hoad, Pursey, Wightwick, Herbert, and Hamilton.

The Chief Constable said: I offer no objection to the renewal of any of the present licences, the holders generally appearing desirous of  conducting their houses in accordance with the law. I have received notice from four persons of their intention to apply for new licences.

Mr. Hoad (the Chairman) asked the Chief Constable if, in his opinion, any new licences were required.

The Chief Constable: I do not think so, sir. There are, in my opinion, already too many.

In the case of the licence of the Ship Inn, objection was taken to the renewal by the Temperance Council (represented by Mr. Bradley, of Dover), on the ground of a conviction against a former tenant, who was fined £7 for serving customers during prohibited hours. The present applicant (Mr. Prior) being a licence holder of some years` standing, being formerly landlord of the Wonder, and the police having no complaint of him, Mr. Haines made a formal application for the renewal. The objectors also took the ground that the locality was more than amply supplied with licensed houses.

Mr. Minter, on behalf of the owners of the house, commented on the “audacity” of the attack of the Temperance Council.

The Chairman said that undoubtedly the former licence holder had been punished, and it was clearly not the intention of the Magistrates to take away the licence, or it would have been endorsed. The renewal of the licence would be granted. (Applause).

Mr. Hall`s last application was for a spirit and beer licence in respect of the premises, No. 15, Broadmead Road (the old Agnes Inn), the applicant being Mr. Theodore Wm. Player.

Mr. Haines and Mr. Bradley opposed on behalf of their respective clients.

The usual evidence was taken, and the Bench decided that the necessity for the licence was shown, and granted the application.

Folkestone Express 24-8-1901

Annual Licensing Meeting

Wednesday, August 21^st: Before J. Hoad, W. Wightwick, W.G. Herbert, C.J. Pursey, and Lieut. Col. Hamilton.

The existing licences were renewed, with the exception of that of the Ship Inn.

Mr. M. Bradley, of Dover, on behalf of the Folkestone Temperance Council, and Mr. James Walker opposed the renewal of the licence of the Ship Inn to Mr. Prior. Mr. G.W. Haines appeared for the applicant.

The grounds of opposition were that there was a conviction against the house in the year just passed, and that the house was not required.

Mr. Wightwick: Was the licence endorsed?

Mr. Bradley said it was not, but the fact taht a penalty of £7 10s. was imposed showed that it was not a trivial offence. It was true the licence had been transferred to a new holder, but that, he contended, did not remove the effect of the offence against the house at all. It was no injustice to the owners if they put in tenants who disobeyed the law. As to the allegations that the house was not required, he said there were eight licensed houses in Radnor Street, two in North Street, seven in Beach Street, and three in Seagate Street – in all about 20.

Formal evidence was then given of the notice.

Mr. Walker (in answer to Mr. Haines) said he should not mind if all the licensed houses were closed. It would be for the good of the town.

Mr. Haines then addressed the Bench on behalf of the applicant, urging that before the licence of that particular house was refused the Bench would require some further evidence. Had the convicting Magistrates felt it was a case which ought to have been dealt with by the Licensing Justices, the conviction would have been endorsed on the licence. The applicant was a man of good character, who had held a licence for 12 years, and had paid £250 to go into the Ship, upon which the owners had just expended £900. It was felt in the country that the number of licences should be decreased, but the method of doing so had not yet been arrived at. Taking all the circumstances into consideration, he asked the Bench to renew the licence.

Mr. Minter, on behalf of the owners, denied most emphatically the false suggestion of Mr. Bradley that they got rid of the old tenant a few days before the licensing day in order that there might be a new tenant to make the application. As a fact, the new tenant took possession in June. He was a respectable tenant, who was entitled to the confidence of the Bench. If those whom Mr. Bradley represented had not been so bigoted in their view that no compensation should be given when a licence was taken away, it was probable the difficulty of too many houses being in existence would have been got over, He cited the case of the Tramway with a view to show that the appellate Court in East Kent had decided that it was not sufficient ground for refusing a licence that there were too many in existence.

The Chairman said the Bench had fully considered the matter. The former holder of the licence had been convicted and fined for what he did wrong. They saw no reason why the objectors should select that particular house. It was admitted that it was a subject that wanted dealing with. Everywhere there were too many licensed houses in certain localities – more than were required for the wants of the people – but unless they could bring a stronger case than that against the Ship Inn, they could not refuse a licence. To teh best of his belief, the Ship had always been a well conducted house, but the conviction referred to he knew nothing about. The man was punished, and it appeared the Magistrates did not think the conviction should be endorsed on the licence. The Committee considered they could not refuse the licence, and therefore they granted the renewal.

Folkestone Herald 24-8-1901

Annual Licensing Meeting

Wednesday, August 21^st: Before Messrs. J. Hoad, C.J. Pursey, W. Wiightwick, W.G. Herbert, and Lieut. Colonel Hamilton.

Mr. Prior applied for the renewal of the licence of the Ship Inn, Radnor Street, which was opposed by the Folkestone Temperance Council. Mr. Haines supported the application, and Mr. Montagu Bradley opposed.

Mr. Bradley said the grounds on which his clients opposed was that in January the then licence holder was convicted for having sold intoxicating liquors on a Sunday morning, and that the licence was not required. The Magistrates must have considered that the case against the previous licence holder was strong, or they would not have imposed such a heavy penalty. In the interests of other holders, it was necessary to take notice of such cases to encourage them to conduct their houses properly. The Superintendent had said there were too many licences in the town. In Radnor Street there were eight; North Street two; Beach Street seven; and Seagate Street three; making about twenty licences within a very narrow area.

Mr. Haines asked what evidence the Bench had before them that the house should be the one to be struck out if there were too many in the town. He thought it was a piece of impertinence, if they would pardon the word, asking the Magistrates to come to that decision. His client had held a licence in the town twelve years, and during that time had had no complaint against him.

Mr. Minter, on behalf of the owners, said it was common knowledge that there were too many licensed houses in every town in the kingdom. It was not the rule in East Kent that because there were too many licences in the town one should be taken away. That was upheld by the Appellant Court at Canterbury.

The Chairman said they saw no reason why they should select that house to take away the licence. They were all aware that there were too many licensed premises in certain localities. As far as his memory served, the Ship had always been a well-conducted house, and the licence would be renewed.

Folkestone Programme 26-8-1901

Local News

The Folkestone Annual Licensing Meeting was held on Wednesday.

The report of the Chief Constable showed that at present there are in the borough 140 houses licensed for the sale by retail of intoxicating drink, being an average of one licence for every 219 persons. Four licence holders had been convicted during the year for offences under the licensing acts, and eighteen licences had been transferred during the same period. 116 persons were convicted of drunkenness, and it is satisfactory to know that of this number only fifty four were residents in the borough. The Chief Constable stated that he did not intend to offer any opposition to the renewal of the existing licences, since the licensees showed a desire to conduct their houses according to law.

The Chairman stated that it was the opinion of the Bench that the report was altogether satisfactory. In reply to the Chairman (Mr. John Hoad), the Chief Constable gave it as his opinion that new licences were not necessary, and that there were already too many licences for the requirements of the town.

This was the opinion, too, of those who petitioned against the renewal of some of the existing licences. The Licensed Victuallers` Association protested against certain statements made with regard to the conduct of the houses in the town. The Bench merely received these petitions without comment.

Considerable discussion took place, however, with regard to the renewal of the licence of the Ship Inn. It would appear that the last landlord had been convicted of an offence against the licensing law, but his licence was not endorsed. Since then the house had been well conducted, and, the Chief Constable having no objection, this licence was renewed.

Southeastern Gazette 27-8-1901

Brewster Sessions

The annual Brewster Sessions were held on Wednesday, before J. Hoad, Esq., and other Magistrates.

All the existing licences, with the exception of that of the Ship Inn, were renewed. Mr. M. Bradley, of Dover, on behalf of the Folkestone Temperance Council, and Mr. James Walker opposed the renewal of the licence to the Ship Inn to Mr. Prior. Mr. G. W. Haines appeared for the applicant. The grounds of opposition were shat there was a conviction against the house in the year just passed, and that the house was not required. The renewal was granted.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 23-5-1903

Saturday, May 16^th: Before Alderman G. Spurgen, Mr. J. Pledge, Lieut. Col. Westropp, Mr. W.C. Carpenter, Mr. T.J. Vaughan, Lieut. Colonel Fynmore, Mr. G. Peden, and Mr. J. Stainer.

James May, a mariner, appeared to answer a summons for assaulting another mariner, names Charles Taylor. Mr. G.W. Haines appeared for May.

Complainant said he resided at 15, East Street. On Monday, the 11^th inst., he went to the Ship Inn. Defendant came in after him, and brought up an argument about some rope, which he alleged complainant lost for him some 18 months ago. Witness denied losing the rope, and asked why that should be brought up after all that time. On going out into the street, defendant hit him in the eye and knocked him down. He was unconscious for a minute, and his eye remained closed until Thursday night. He had not been able to go to sea for a week, and reminded the Bench that he had a wife and three children to keep.

Cross- examined: Witness denied that the injury to his eye was caused as he fell down. He also denied annoying the defendant by arguing and pushing close up to him.

Fredk. Bayley, another mariner of the same address, corroborated the complainant, but in answer to Mr. Haines that they all left the Ship arguing about the rope. They were all perfectly sober, he added.

Mr. Haines said it was not denied that his client did push complainant, but defendant would go into the box and state that there was an argument about some lost rope. Complainant annoyed his client by becoming offensive and pushing up close to him. Defendant thereupon pushed him and complainant fell down. In that way his eye was injured.

May went into the box and bore out this version of the case, but added that it was only 12 months ago that the rope was lost.

This the Chairman cut short by saying the Bench considered the case proved, and defendant would be fined 5s. and 12s. costs.

Folkestone Express 23-5-1903

Saturday, May 16^th: Before Aldermen Spurgen and Vaughan, Lieut. Cols. Westropp and Fynmore, G. Peden, J. Pledge, W.C. Carpenter and J. Stainer Esqs.

James May was summoned for assaulting Chas Taylor. Mr. Haines appeared for the defendant.

Complainant stated that on Monday night he was in the bar of the Ship Inn, Radnor Street, about 6.20. Shortly after, defendant came in and started an argument about some lines that were lost at sea about 18 months ago.

Complainant remarked that it was rather late to bring the matter up. Thereon defendant struck him a violent blow in the eye, which knocked him down. Defendant was about to strike complainant as he lay on the ground, when a man named Bailey said “Don`t hit him while he is on the ground”. Defendant then struck Bailey.

Witness, who was examined at some length by Mr. Haines, denied that he insulted defendant.

Frederick Bailey corroborated.

Defendant then entered the witness box and stated that he met complainant and Bailey in the bar of the Ship Inn. A dispute arose about some nets which were lost some time previously. High words ensued, and witness pushed complainant, who fell down, and struck his eye on the ground.

The Bench considered the case proved, and inflicted a fine of 5s. and 12s. costs.

Folkestone Herald 23-5-1903

Saturday, May 16^th: Before Aldermen G. Spurgen and T.J. Vaughan, Councillor G. Peden, Lieut. Colonels Westropp and Fynmore, Messrs. W.C. Carpenter, J. Pledge, and J. Stainer.

James May was summoned by Charles Taylor for assault. Defendant, who pleaded Not Guilty, was represented by Mr. G.W. Haines. Both parties are fishermen.

According to complainant`s evidence, they were in the Ship Inn, Radnor Street, shortly after six o`clock the previous Monday night, when a dispute occurred between tem respecting “some belongings” which May alleged complainant had lost at sea. Taylor resented this, whereupon May struck him a blow in the eye with his fist, knocking him down. Owing to the occurrence he (Taylor) had not been able to go to sea.

Replying to Mr. Haines, witness said he did not make himself very offensive to defendant. There was a little bit of argument, but nothing to speak of.

Frederick Bailey, a fisherman, gave corroborative evidence.

On oath, defendant stated that as defendant kept sticking his nose in his face he pushed him away. Taylor fell to the ground, but got up again with the intention of striking, and he (defendant) only struck back in self defence.

The Bench considered the case proved, and imposed a fine of 5s. with 12s. costs, or, in default, seven days` imprisonment.

The money was paid.