East Cliff Tavern 1900 - 1914

East Cliff Tavern c1908

Folkestone Chronicle 13-2-1904

Licensing Sessions

Wednesday, February 10^th: Before Mr. W. Wightwick, Alderman Herbert, Lieut. Cols. Fynmore, Westropp, and Hamilton, Messrs. C.J. Pursey and E.T. Ward.

The Chief Constable (Mr. H. Reeve) read his annual report, which contained interesting figures with regard to drunkenness, etc. No person in Folkestone had yet been convicted a sufficient number of times to be placed on the “black list”. The Chief Constable objected to the renewal of the licence of the Swan Inn, Dover Road, and asked that the consideration of this licence might be deferred until the adjourned sessions.

The Chairman then read the Justices` Report, which stated that the number of licensed houses in Folkestone, and especially around the harbour, was out of all proportion to the population. The number of licences had not been reduced, owing to the fact that a Bill amending the Licensing Laws was shortly to be introduced in Parliament. Certain public houses – the Imperial Brewery Tap, the Hope, the East Cliff Tavern, the Victoria, the Lifeboat Inn, the Duke Of Edinburgh, and the Channel Inn had been inspected by the Justices, and recommendations with regard to their sanitary improvement and closing of back entries were made.

Mr. John Minter said that water had been laid on at the Channel Inn since the report on the bad state of the sanitary arrangements. Mr. Minter also suggested with regard to the Imperial Brewery Tap that a public bar should be made with an entrance from Mill Bay.

The Bench decided, however, that the orders made in the report should be adhered to.

Licences were then granted to the lessees of public houses and licensed premises.

Mr. Minter applied for full licences for Mr. W.T. Tame and Mr. Gregory, but no new facts were forthcoming and the Bench declined to grant them, stating that they would grant no new licences this year.

 

Folkestone Express 13-2-1904

Annual Licensing Meeting

Wednesday, February 10^th: Before W. Wightwick Esq., Lieut. Col. Hamilton, Lieut. Col. Fynmore, Lieut. Colonel Westropp, and W.G. Herbert, E.T. Ward, and C.J. Pursey Esqs.

The following was the report of Supt. Reeve: Chief Constable`s Office, Folkestone, 10<sup>th</sup> February, 1904. To the Chairman and Members of the Licensing Committee of the Borough of Folkestone. Gentlemen, I have the honour to report for your information that there are at present within your jurisdiction 139 premises licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquors, namely: Full licences 87; Beer on 11; Beer off 6; Beer and Spirits (dealers) 16; Grocers 12; Confectioners 3; Chemists 4; Total 139 – an average of one licence to every 220 persons, or one “on” licence to every 313. This is a decrease of one full licence as compared with last year`s return, the licence of the Marquis Of Lorne having been refused at the adjourned meeting in March. Twenty of the licences have been transferred during the year, namely, 14 full licences, two beer on, two beer off, and two grocers. One beer off licence was transferred twice during the year. One licence holder has been convicted since the last annual meeting of committing drunkenness on his licensed premises. He has since transferred his licence and left the house. The alterations which the Justices at the adjourned meeting last year directed to be made to the Packet Boat, Castle, Tramway, Bricklayers` Arms, Granville, and Star Inns have all been carried out in a satisfactory manner, and none of the licensed houses are now used as common lodging houses. Ten occasional licences, and extensions of hours on 21 occasions, have been granted to licence holders during the year. There are 14 places licensed for music and dancing, and two for public billiard playing. Eleven clubs where intoxicating liquors are sold are registered in accordance with the Licensing Act of 1902. For the year ending 31^st December last year, 154 persons (131 males and 23 females) were proceeded against for drunkenness. 131 were convicted and 23 discharged. This is an increase of 65 persons proceeded against, and 51 convicted, as compared with 1902. The increase is chiefly due to the additional powers given to the police under the Licensing Act, 1902. Up to the present time no person within the Borough has been convicted the necessary number of times within the 12 months to be placed on the “black list” as provided by Section 6 of the Act of 1902. With very few exceptions the whole of the licensed houses have been conducted in a satisfactory manner. The only objection I have to make to the renewal of any of the present licences is that of the Swan Inn, Dover Road, and I would ask that the renewal of this licence be deferred until the adjourned meeting. I have the honour to be, gentlemen, your obedient servant, H. Reeve (Chief Constable).

The Chairman: I think, gentlemen, you will agree that the report of the Superintendent is a satisfactory one – in fact, I may say very satisfactory – for the whole year. With your permission I well read the report we now make to you. At the adjournment of the last general licensing meeting we stated that in our opinion the number of licences for the sale of intoxicating liquor then existing in the borough of Folkestone, especially in the part of the immediate neighbourhood of the Harbour, was out of all proportion to the population, and that we proposed between then and the general annual licensing meeting of this year to obtain information on various matters, to enable us to determine what reduction would be made in the number of licences. We invited the owners of licensed houses in the meantime to meet and agree among themselves for the voluntary surrender at this general meeting of a substantial number of licences in the borough, and to submit the result of their united action to the Licensing Justices for acceptance. Failing any satisfactory proposal for reduction by the owners, the Licensing Justices last year intimated that in the exercise of their discretionary powers they would at this year`s meeting decide in a fair and equitable spirit what reduction should be made. But at the opening of Parliament last week it was announced in the King`s speech that the Government intended to introduce in the House of Commons during the present session a Bill to amend the Licensing Laws. In view of this legislation we are of opinion we ought not, pending the passage of this Bill through Parliament, exercise the discretionary powers vested in us, and take measures for effecting a further reduction in the number of licences within the borough on the ground that certain licensed premises are not required for the public accommodation. We have recently inspected certain houses known as the Imperial Brewery Tap, the Hope, East Cliff Tavern, Victoria, Lifeboat, Duke Of Edinburgh, Railway Tavern, and Channel Inn.

As to the East Cliff Tavern, there is a back entrance from a yard in the rear of the licensed premises to a public way, which renders it difficult for the police to have proper supervision over the business carried on upon the premises. We therefore direct that the holder of the licence shall, within fourteen days from this date, close the back entrance from the yard to the public way. We also object to a portion of the licensed premises being sub-let to lodgers.

Folkestone Daily News 20-6-1906

Wednesday, June 20^th: Before Messrs. Herbert, Leggett, and Pursey.

The licence of the East Cliff Tavern was transferred from Martin G. Griggs to E.F. Price.

Folkestone Express 23-6-1906

Wednesday, June 20^th: Before W.G. Herbert Esq., Major Leggett, and C.J. Pursey Esq.

The Magistrates granted temporary authority to Martin Gray Price to sell at the East Cliff Tavern.

Folkestone Herald 23-6-1906

Wednesday, June 20^th: Before Alderman W.G. Herbert, Mr. G.W. Pursey, and Major Leggett.

The licence of the East Cliff Tavern was temporarily transferred from John Grigg to Martin Price, who was instructed by the Justices to keep the back entrance closed.

Folkestone Daily News 11-7-1906

Before Messrs. Hamilton, Fynmore, and Linton.

Licence Transfer

The East Cliff Tavern from Mr. Griggs to Mr. Price.

Folkestone Express 14-7-1906

Wednesday, July 11^th: Before Lieut. Col. Fynmore, Alderman Vaughan, and R.J. Linton Esq.

This being the day fixed for the special licensing sessions, the following licence was transferred: The East Cliff Tavern, from Mr. J. Griggs to Mr. Price.

Folkestone Herald 14-7-1906

Wednesday, July 11^th: Before Councillor R.J. Fynmore, Lieut. Colonel Hamilton, and Mr. Linton.

Licence was transferred as follows: The East Cliff Tavern, from Mr. G.S. Grigg to Mr. Price.

Folkestone Daily News 15-5-1907

Wednesday, May 15^th:

Benjamin Mullett was summoned for obstructing the highway with a horse and carriage.

P.C. Prebble said at 12.35 p.m. on Tuesday, the 11^th of May, he saw the horse and carriage standing near the East Cliff Tavern. He kept it under observation, and at 1 o`clock he went to defendant and asked him if he was in charge, and he replied “Yes”. Witness then told him he should report him for obstruction.

Defendant said he went in the East Cliff Tavern while the storm was on.

Fined 2s. 6d. and 9s. costs, or seven days`.

Folkestone Express 18-5-1907

Wednesday, May 15^th: Before Alderman Vaughan and Lieut. Colonel Hamilton.

Benjamin Mullett was summoned for causing an obstruction on East Cliff with a horse and carriage on May 7^th.

P.C. Prebble said at 12.35 on May 7^th he saw a horse and carriage standing in the road near the East Cliff Tavern. He kept it under observation until one o`clock. He then went into the East Cliff Tavern and found the defendant inside. He asked him if he was in charge of the horse and carriage, and he said he was.

Defendant said he was engaged, and he went into the passage of the tavern as it was raining and squally at the time.

Fined 2s. 6d. and 9s. costs.

Folkestone Herald 18-5-1907

Wednesday, May 15^th: Before Alderman T.J. Vaughan and Lieut. Col. Hamilton.

Benjamin Mullett pleaded Guilty to causing an obstruction with a horse and cart.

P.C. Prebble deposed that about 12.35 p.m. on Tuesday, 7^th inst., he saw a horse and cab standing in the road near the East Cliff Tavern, East Cliff. Witness kept observation on it till one o`clock. He then went to the East Cliff Tavern, and found defendant inside. He asked him if he was in charge of the horse, and defendant said “Yes”.

Defendant said that he was engaged at the time.

The Chief Constable: In the public house?

P.C. Prebble said that defendant remained in the public house all the time he had the horse under observation.

Fined 2s. 6d. and 9s. costs, or seven days`. Defendant was allowed till today week to pay.

Folkestone Daily News 22-5-1907

Wednesday, May 22^nd: Before The Mayor, Messrs. Herbert, Pursey, Stainer, Boyd, Swoffer, and Leggett.

William Hall was summoned for being drunk on licensed premises, namely the East Cliff Tavern, on May the 7^th. Defendant pleaded Not Guilty. Mr. Mercer appeared for defendant.

Inspector Lilley deposed: On Tuesday, the 7^th inst., at 12.55 p.m. I saw P.C. Prebble in Radnor Bridge Road, and from a statement he made to me I kept the East Cliff Tavern under observation till 1.30. Then, in company with him and P.C. Johnson, I went into the house by the front door, where I saw defendant sitting in a chair with his back to the bar. From his appearance I came to the conclusion that he had had too much to drink. There was no-one behind the bar. I went through the passage and knocked, and the landlord`s son came, and I asked him for his father. At that time the landlord came in. I went to the bar again and said to Hall “I think you have had too much to drink, and should advise you to get off the premises”. He rose partly from the chair, and said “Do you think so?” I replied “Yes”. He said “Then I don`t”. I went outside, and in a minute or two he came out with his brother, followed by the landlord. He got into a hackney carriage, and said “You are a piece of ---- ,you are. You are a ---- rotter. I know you of old”. I said “I shall report you for being drunk on licensed premises”. He said “You can do what you ---- well like”, and continued to swear till the carriage drove away.

By Mr. Mercer: The police constables said nothing to defendant.

Where were the other constables? – They followed me.

And you did the talking? – Yes.

He made a sensible remark when you told him he had had enough? – Well, I should hardly call it sensible.

P.C. W. Prebble said: I saw the defendant in Dover Road at eleven in the morning, and had a conversation with him and his brother. Defendant was then under the influence of drink. I accompanied Inspector Lilley on the day in question. I kept the East Cliff Tavern under observation from 12.30 to 1. I saw defendant sitting in the bar with his back to the counter. Inspector Lilley called the landlord`s attention to defendant`s condition. The landlord said ”He has only had one glass here”. I then went outside, and shortly afterwards defendant came out and got into a trap that was waiting. While Inspector Lilley was talking to defendant`s brother, defendant became very excited and said to Lilley “You are a ---- rotter. I don`t care a ---- for all three of you”.

Mr. Mercer: Why didn`t you lock him up? – There was no need of it; he was in a trap.

How far is it from the door of the house to the trap? – About three or four yards.

How many were in the bar? – Three or four, I believe.

Do you know their names? – No.

How long have you known the defendant? – A long time.

P.C. Johnson said: On the day in question I accompanied Inspector Lilley and P.C. Prebble to the East Cliff Tavern. I had previously seen defendant in the morning, and he was then in a drunken condition. Defendant was in the bar of the East Cliff Tavern, and was decidedly drunk.

Mr. Mercer: You saw him in Dover Road in the morning, didn`t you? – Yes.

How was he then? – Drunk.

Defendant was sworn, and in reply to Mr. Mercer, said: I have lived in the town 25 years. On the day in question I went to see my brother, who had been left sole executor of my father`s will. My brother refused to see me, and threatened to give me into custody. I did not see the other constable Johnson, but only Prebble. I afterwards went with my brother Frederick to the East Cliff Tavern, and we had a bottle of ale together. We sat down. My brother and I drank the ale. Inspector Lilley came in, and said “Are the Halls here?”, and my brother replied “Yes, they are both here”. I had ordered a cab to meet me there at 12.30. I didn`t like the idea of being told by the Inspector that I was drunk, and I dare say I opened my mouth a little too wide. The same evening I went to Rugby to do some work.

The Chief Constable: Haven`t you forgotten to tell the Bench about another visit you paid to a certain house that same morning? – I don`t think so.

Try and refresh your memory. – Well, I might have done.

Did you go into Mr. Southall`s? – Yes, I think I did.

And you went to your brother`s house? – Yes.

How many drinks had you altogether? – One at my brother`s and one at the East Cliff Tavern.

Didn`t you have anything at Mr. Southall`s? – No, I don`t think so.

You are not quite sure? – Yes, I am certain.

Mr. Mercer, on behalf of the defendant, said it was a fact that defendant was very excitable on the day in question, and it was no doubt due to a mistake by the police that the defendant was summoned. He was labouring under very great excitement.

Frederick Hall deposed: I am the licensee of the Wheatsheaf Inn, and on the 6^th May we buried my father. On that day we went to see my brother, who had been left sole legatee under my father`s will. My brother refused to see us, and that made defendant very excited. I spoke to P.C. Prebble about the family trouble, and said we did not want any trouble. We afterwards went for a walk, and went to the East Cliff Tavern about 12.30. The police came there about 25 minutes after we got there. Lilley said to my brother “I think you have had enough”, and my brother replied “Well I don`t, and rather than make any bother in the man`s house, I`ll walk out”. He did so.

The Chief Constable: No-one accused you of being drunk? – No.

Or anyone else? – No.

Do you think his excitement misled the police? – Yes, I do.

Did you go into Mr. Southall`s during the morning? – No.

Are you sure? – Yes, I don`t think we went there.

William Featherbe deposed: I was in the East Cliff Tavern on the day in question with the defendant. I was in his company about 20 minutes, and we sat together. We talked about the ship Adriatic, and he gave me the dimensions of her. He also told me about his family affairs. The police came through the passage, and Lilley accused the landlord of having the Halls drunk in his house. Defendant then walked out of the house and got into a carriage that was waiting.

Joseph Lock, a seaman, deposed: I was in the East Cliff Tavern on the 7^th May. The defendant was also there, sitting about two feet away from me. He had a glass of ale, which he did not finish. The police came in, and one of them said “Is Hall in here?”, and the landlord said “Yes”. The constable then said “I shall report him for being drunk on licensed premises”. Hall then left the house and got into a carriage. He was not drunk.

This concluded the case, and the Magistrates then left the Bench to consider their decision. On returning, Mr. Herbert, as Chairman, said they had come to the conclusion that the charge had not been proved, and the case would therefore be dismissed.

The case against the landlord was withdrawn.

 

Folkestone Express 25-5-1907

Wednesday, May 22^nd: Before The Mayor, W.G. Herbert, C.J. Pursey, R.J. Linton, G. Boyd, J. Stainer, and G.I. Swoffer Esqs.

William Hall was summoned for being drunk on licensed premises (East Cliff Tavern) on May 7^th. Defendant pleaded Not Guilty. Mr. R.M. Mercer appeared on defendant`s behalf.

Inspector Lilley said on Tuesday, the 7^th inst., at 12.55 noon, he saw P.C. Prebble in Radnor Bridge Road, and from a communication he made to him he kept the East Cliff Tavern under observation until a few minutes past one. Then, in company with P.C.s Prebble and Johnson, he went into the house. In the bar he saw defendant sitting, and from his appearance he came to the conclusion he had had too much to drink. There was no-one behind the bar. The landlord subsequently came in through the front door. Witness told defendant he thought he had had too much to drink, and advised him to get off the premises. Defendant said “Do you think so?” Witness replied “Yes”, and defendant said “Then I don`t”. Witness went outside and defendant followed with his brother and the landlord. He got into a hackney carriage and used abusive language. Witness told defendant he should report him for being drunk on licensed premises. He had no doubt as to defendant`s condition.

P.C. Prebble said on Tuesday, May 7^th, about 11.15, he saw defendant in Dover Road with his brother. Witness had a conversation with both of them. Defendant was under the influence of drink. Later witness accompanied Inspector Lilley to the East Cliff Tavern. He had previously kept observation on the house from 12.35 to one o`clock. On entering the house witness saw defendant sitting in the bar. He heard Inspector Lilley call the landlord`s attention to defendant`s condition. He heard the landlord say that defendant had only had one glass of ale there. Witness then went outside, and shortly afterwards defendant came out and got into a Victoria that was waiting. While Inspector Lilley was talking to defendant`s brother, defendant became very excited and used abusive language towards the Inspector. Defendant was drunk.

P.C. H. Johnson said on May 7^th, shortly after eleven o`clock in the morning, he saw defendant and his brother in Dover Street. Witness did not speak to them. Defendant was under the influence of drink. About 1.15 the witness accompanied Inspector Lilley and P.C. Prebble to the East Cliff Tavern, where he saw defendant sitting in the public bar. In his other evidence witness corroborated the previous evidence.

Defendant then went into the witness box. He said he had lived in the town twenty five years and was a builder. His brother kept the Wheatsheaf. On May 7^th he went to his brother`s and had a glass of ale there. He had recently lost his father, and his youngest brother, Arthur, was left sole executor and beneficiary of the will. Witness and his brother Frederick went to the youngest brother`s house in Dover Road. There was an argument, and witness`s brother said he would give him in charge. Later witness and Frederick Hall went to the East Cliff Tavern, and Frederick Hall called for a bottle of ale. They each had a glass. Witness did not drink all of his ale. He had been in the bar about half an hour when the police came in. Witness admitted he lost his temper, but he was not drunk and did not like being told about it. He had never been drunk in his life. The same evening witness went to Rugby.

Cross-examined, witness said he was perfectly sober. When the constables came in he became excited.

Frederick Hall said he was the licensee of the Wheatsheaf. He had been in the trade six years. On May 6^th he buried his father, and on May 7^th witness, accompanied by defendant, went to see his youngest brother about the will. Defendant became excited when his brother said he would give him in charge. About a quarter to ten that morning defendant had a glass of ale at witness`s house. At 12.30 they went into the East Cliff Tavern The police entered about twenty five minutes afterwards. Witness saw defendant walk to the cab, and he walked as straight as anyone.

William Edward Featherby, a ship`s carpenter, said he was in the East Cliff Tavern on May 7^th. He was in the bar at the same time defendant was. Witness entered into conversation with defendant, and his talk was quite rational. He was perfectly sober.

Joseph Lott, a seaman, who was in the East Cliff Tavern on the day in question, said he heard defendant talking to Featherby, and he was sober.

The Magistrates then retired, and on their return the Chairman said the Bench were unanimously of the opinion that the case must be dismissed. The police had acted perfectly fairly, but had mistaken excitement for drunkenness.

The summons against Martin G. Price, the landlord of the East Cliff Tavern, for permitting drunkenness, was withdrawn on the Chief Constable`s application.

Folkestone Herald 25-5-1907

Wednesday, May 22^nd: Before Mr. W.G. Herbert, Messrs. R.J. Linton, C.J. Pursey, J. Stainer, and Councillor G. Boyd.

Wm. Hall was summoned for being drunk on licensed premises (the East Cliff Tavern). The Chief Constable prosecuted, and Mr. R.M. Mercer represented the landlord (Mr. M.G. Price). Defendant pleaded Not Guilty. All the witnesses were ordered to leave the Court until called upon.

Inspector Lilley deposed that on Tuesday, May 17^th, at 12.55 noon, he saw P.C. Prebble in Radnor Bridge Road, and from a communication he made to witness, he kept the East Cliff Tavern, East Cliff, under observation till three minutes past one. Then, in company with P.C. Prebble and P.C. Johnson, he went into the house. In the front of the bar he saw defendant, sitting with his back to the bar, in a chair. From his appearance, witness came to the conclusion that he had had too much to drink. There was no-one behind the bar. Witness went through the passage to the entrance door behind the bar, and knocked. At that moment the landlord came in the front door from the street. Witness went back to the front bar again, and said to Hall “I think you have had too much to drink; I should advise you to get off the premises”. He rose partly up out of the chair, and said “Do you think so?” Witness replied “Yes”. He said “Then I don`t”. Witness went outside, and in a minute or two defendant came out with his brother, followed by the landlord. He got into a waiting hackney carriage, and said “You are a nice lot of ---- you are. You are a ---- rotter; I know you of old”. Witness said “I shall report you for being drunk on licensed premises”. He said “You can do what you ---- well like”. He continued to swear until the carriage drove away. He had no doubt at all as to the defendant`s condition; Hall was drunk.

Cross-examined by Mr. Mercer: The constables were not with him all the time in the house. They came in after him. He thought it was a proof of drunkenness for a man to say to three police officers “You can do what you like”.

P.C. Prebble deposed that on the 7^th May, about 11.15 a.m., he saw defendant fall in the Dover Road. He was then with his brother. Witness had a conversation with both. Defendant at that time was very much under the influence of drink. Witness later accompanied Inspector Lilley to the East Cliff Tavern. He had been keeping observation on the house from 12.35 to one o`clock. Defendant did not enter the house during that time. On entering the public bar witness saw defendant sitting there with his back to the counter. He heard the landlord say to Inspector Lilley “He has only had one glass of ale here”. Witness then went outside. Shortly afterwards he saw defendant come out, and get into a Victoria which was waiting outside. While Inspector Lilley was talking to defendant`s brother, who came out with defendant, defendant became very excited, and said to Inspector Lilley “I know you Inspector; you are a ---- rotter. I don`t care a ---- for all three of you. Do as you like”. There was no doubt that defendant was drunk.

Cross-examined:  He did not see any need to arrest the man. If he had been in the road instead of in the trap he would have done so. Defendant stepped into the Victoria without assistance.

P.C. H. Johnson also stated that defendant was drunk.

Cross-examined: He saw P.C. Prebble talking to defendant in the Dover Road. Witness was standing in the middle of the road, and could not hear what the conversation was about. He thought defendant was drunk at that time, because his face was flushed, and his voice was excited, and he was moving his hands about.

This concluded the case for the prosecution.

Defendant, on oath, said he had lived in the town about twenty five years, and was a builder. One of his brothers – Frederick – kept the Wheatsheaf Inn. On the 7^th May he left home to go to his brother Fred`s, and had one glass of ale there. He then went, in company with Frederick, to see his other brother, Arthur, who lived in the Dover Road. Witness`s father had recently died, and Arthur was the sole executor and beneficiary under his will. He and his brother Frederick did not think that was right, and they were going round to see Arthur about it. Arthur would not see them, and told him (defendant) that if he did not leave his door he would give him in charge of a constable. He was very excited over the will, and had some conversation with P.C. Prebble about it. That was between 11.30 and 12. Witness then had a walk round, and afterwards went to the East Cliff Tavern with his brother Fred. There Frederick called for a bottle of ale, and defendant and his brother halved it. Each had one glass. The landlord supplied the bottle. Witness sat down when he went into the house. Defendant`s brother took the ale and poured it out, handing defendant his, but he (defendant) “did not drink more than about a couple of inches”. He was talking to Mr. Featherbe about the new White Star liner when the constable entered. There were several other people in the bar at the time. Witness had been in there about twenty minutes or half an hour before the police entered. Inspector Lilley said “Are the Halls here?”, and witness`s brother said “We are both here”. Witness got out of his chair and walked straight out, without staggering; nobody assisted him. He had ordered a cab to wait outside, and he got into it. Defendant did not like being accused of being drunk when he was not, so he lost his temper, and, he was afraid, opened his mouth a bit too wide. Witness had never been accused of drunkenness before. The same evening he went on to Rugby to some work he had to do there.

Cross-examined by the Chief Constable: He did not think he and his brother Fred called at another house before going to see Arthur. He was pretty sure they did not.

The Chief Constable: May I refresh your memory. Did you not go to Mr. Southall`s?

Witness (after hesitation): Perhaps we did. Yes we did. Continuing, he said that when the police officers entered the house, they accused nobody of being drunk. Outside they said they should report him. They did not accuse anybody else of being drunk. He did not know why they picked on him. The sight of the three policemen excited him, and frightened him. He thought he should get into trouble. Perhaps the policemen mistook his excitement over that and his family trouble for the effects of drink. He had only been in his brother`s house before that morning. He had had one glass there, and one at the East Cliff. That was all he had had that morning. He did not think he had any at Mr. Southall`s; he was certain of that.

Mr. Mercer then briefly addressed the Bench, drawing particular attention to the rational answers of defendant to Inspector Lilley in the bar. With regard to the evidence of P.C. Johnson as to defendant`s condition in the Dover Road, he said it was simply ridiculous to say that, from the middle of the road, he was such an experienced man that he could tell from the defendant`s gestures, colour, and tone of voice – although he could not hear what he was saying – that he was drunk. Nobody would hang a dog on such evidence. After referring to the fact that defendant had had family troubles with regard to the will, which had excited him, Mr. Mercer proceeded to call further witnesses.

Frederick Hall, brother of the defendant, said he was licensee of the Wheatsheaf Inn. On the 7^th inst. witness and defendant went to see their younger brother about the will. When they got there Arthur said that if defendant did not go away he would give him in charge. That made defendant very excited. Defendant came into witness`s licensed house at 10.15, and had a glass of ale only. Then they went out together. After they left Dover Road, they went over Radnor Bridge to the cliff for a walk, and then to the East Cliff Tavern. They got there about 12.30. The police came in about twenty five minutes later. Witness then corroborated defendant`s evidence as to what took place then. His brother walked quite straight to the cab, and was perfectly sober.

Cross-examined: No-one accused witness of being drunk. He supposed that the excitement as to the family trouble misled the police to think that his brother was drunk. He had no recollection of himself and his brother going into Mr. Southall`s.

Wm. Edward Featherbe, a ships` carpenter, said that he was in the East Cliff Tavern at the time in question. He was in defendant`s company about twenty minutes, sitting by him. He talked to defendant about ship-building in Liverpool. The latter was giving witness dimensions of a new liner – the Adriatic. He was perfectly sober. Defendant was quoting figures as to the size of the ship, and spoke quite rationally. When the police entered Inspector Lilley accused the landlord of having “the Halls” drunk on the premises. Defendant walked out perfectly straight; there was no sign of staggering.

Joseph Lopp, seaman, said he was in the East Cliff Tavern at the time in question. He saw defendant and some other people there. He was sitting about two feet from defendant, who had a bottle of ale to drink, but did not drink a whole glassful. The talking was quiet, and there was no disturbance. Defendant was sober, and walked straight.

Cross-examined: Defendant was a little bit excited in the bar when the police came.

The Magistrates then retired to consider their verdict, and, returning after a brief absence, the Chairman said that the Bench were unanimously of the opinion that the case must be dismissed. They considered that the police had acted perfectly fairly, but mistook excitement for drink.

There was slight applause in the Court at this decision.

The Chief Constable then asked permission to withdraw the summons against the landlord for permitting drunkenness, and he was allowed to do so.