Brewery Tap 1910 - 1914

Folkestone Daily News 5-1-1910

Wednesday, January 5^th: Before Messrs. Herbert, Leggett, Stainer, Swoffer, and Linton.

Arthur Taylor, landlord of the Brewery Tap, was charged with permitting drunkenness on his premises on Christmas Eve. Mr. G.W. Haines defended.

Lance Corporal Edmunds, of the Military Police, deposed to being called by the landlord to eject an artilleryman who was making a disturbance, and had broken a picture. The landlord only wanted him to go out of the house, and did nor want to charge him with any offence. Witness swore that the Artilleryman was very drunk, and had to be handcuffed, while it took five of them to get him to the station. A great disturbance was caused in the street at the time. After being conveyed to the police station he was handed over to the military authorities to be dealt with.

Corporals Pollard and Kirk, and Private Rose, of the Oxfordshire Regiment, deposed to being in the Brewery Tap from 8.15 to 9.45 and seeing an Artilleryman named West there. He was very excitable and wanted to fight, Corporal Kirk alleging that he went out of the Tap, leaving West there, to avoid a quarrel. They swore that he was drunk.

Inspector Lawrence and Constable Taylor deposed to seeing the man West ejected and conveying him to the station, where he was afterwards handed over to the military authorities. It was elicited in evidence that he had pleaded Guilty to being drunk, and was sentenced to 10 days` cells for that offence.

Albert Taylor, the landlord, was sworn, and deposed that with his wife he was attending the bar the whole of the evening. He instructed his barman to take particular notice that if anyone came in the worse for drink not to serve them. His only object in getting this man ejected was that he was quarrelsome. He did not believe he was drunk.

He was corroborated by Privates Nash and Parker, of the Artillery, and his barman named Brooks.

The man West was called, and swore that he was not drunk, although he had pleaded Guilty to the offence in order to avoid being court martialled on a charge of assaulting his superior officer.

Mr. Haines then addressed the Bench for the defence, submitting that if the man was drunk the landlord had taken all reasonable precaution to avoid the offence.

The Bench retired for some time, and on their return the Chairman announced that they were unanimous in their opinion that the offence had been committed. The full penalty was £10, but they fined him in the mitigated of £2 and one guinea costs.

Arising out of the same offence was a charge against a young woman named Alice Marsh, who was engaged to the Artilleryman West, for assaulting the military police in the execution of their duty.

In the melee it transpired she was knocked down on the pavement and laid insensible in Tontine Street for a quarter of an hour.

The evidence in this case was so conflicting that the Bench decided to dismiss it.

Mr. Haines also defended in this case.

Folkestone Express 8-1-1910

Local News

The Magistrates at the Borough Police Court on Wednesday were engaged for some considerable time in hearing a summons against Albert Taylor, landlord of the Brewery Tap, Tontine Street, for permitting drunkenness on his premises on Dec. 24^th. Mr. Haines defended, and pleaded Not Guilty.

Lance Corporal G. Edmunds, of the military foot police, said he was on duty on Christmas Eve in Tontine Street. At 9.45 p.m. he was called to the Brewery Tap. He went into the bar and found an artilleryman, named West, with his coat off, and he was very drunk. He saw the landlord, who told him he wanted the man ejected, as he was creating a disturbance and had broken a picture. He asked him if he wanted to charge him, and he said he did not; all he wanted was to get him out of the house. He took West into custody, and he became very violent. Witness called for assistance, and West was taken to the police station. He had no doubt as to the man being drunk. The picquet took him from the police station.

Corporal Pollard, of the Oxfordshire Light Infantry, said he went into the Brewery Tap at about 8.15, and saw West there. Witness remained there until 9.45, and West was there the whole time. He was either drunk or acting drunk. He did not see West supplied with anything to drink. He tried to take his coat off and could not. He wanted to fight half a dozen men. The landlord was not there when the picture was broken, but the barman was. It was about ten o`clock when the police were called in. He did not see any blows struck.

Pte. Thomas Rose and Corpl. Kirk, of the same regiment, said West was drunk.

Insptr. Lawrence said on Dec. 24^th he was called to the Brewery Tap, in Tontine Street, and saw West being ejected by the military police. He was called upon by Corpl. Edmunds to assist him, and he and P.C. Taylor and Corpl. Edmunds took West to the police station. The latter was drunk and very violent, and had to be carried. He called at the Brewery Tap on December 27^th, and saw the landlord respecting the disturbance. He told him he had made enquiries, and that he should report him for permitting drunkenness on his licensed premises. Taylor replied that he was sorry; the soldier did not appear to be any the worse for drink that he had had there, for he was in the bar all the evening except just before the disturbance occurred, when he was called up. West was then struggling with a young woman who was with him. He was not drunk, and if it had not been for the man`s temper he should not have had him removed. The disturbance arose through a man in the Oxfordshire L.I., as far as he could make out.

P.C. Taylor said he was on duty in Tontine Street on Dec. 24^th, and saw the military police at the Brewery Tap. He was called upon to assist in conveying West to the police station. The man was very drunk and violent, and had to be carried to the police station.

The defendant said he did not serve West. He was in the bar and his wife was assisting. He had given instructions to his barman with regard to keeping order. He was downstairs, and was called up and informed about West, and asked him to leave. There was nothing about West to suppose that he was drunk. He (Taylor) had not heard of any row with the man Kirk. He never had any row if he could help it. West touched the picture and the glass fell out. It was quite an accident, and anyone could have done it. He offered to help West on with his coat before he was put out.

Arthur West, of the Royal Artillery, said West was not drunk.

E. Jones, of the O. and B.L.I., also said that West was not drunk.

J.F. Knight, a seaman in H.M. Navy, said he was in the Brewery Tap on Christmas Eve for about ten minutes, and there was nothing in West`s appearance to show that he was drunk. He appeared to be upset about something.

---- Brook, the barman, said he had instructions from the landlord as to keeping order, and if anything went wrong he was to call Taylor. He saw West, and there was nothing in his condition to suppose that he was drunk. He was having an argument, and was asked to leave.

Mr. Haines made an able speech in defence of Taylor.

The Magistrates then retired to consider the case, and on returning announced that they had decided that the offence was proved against the landlord, who was liable to a fine of £10. They fined him £2 and 21s. costs.

Arising out of the same case was a charge against a young woman, named Alice Marsh, for assaulting the military police in the execution of their duty.

The evidence in this case was so conflicting that the Bench decided to dismiss it.

Folkestone Herald 8-1-1910

Local News

At the Folkestone Police Court on Wednesday, before Mr. W.G. Herbert, Messrs. J. Stainer, E.T. Leggett, G.I. Swoffer, and R.J. Linton, two casse of special interest were heard.

Alice Marsh was summoned for assault. Mr. G.W. Haines appeared for the defence.

George Edmunds stated that he was a corporal of the Military Foot Police, stationed at Shorncliffe. He was on duty in Tontine Street on the 24^th December, 1909, at about 9.40 p.m. He was called into the Brewery Tap to eject an artilleryman, and whilst in the execution of his duty, the defendant (who was with the soldier) ran at him several times and struck him about the left eye. She clung round witness, and was trying to release the soldier from him. Witness called on Inspector Lawrence and P.C. Taylor, and they assisted him.

Cross-examined by Mr. Haines: When he called for help it was to keep the defendant off, and also to keep the crowd back. They left the door of the bar clinging to him, and they all fell on the pavement together. He did not know whether he left defendant senseless on the pavement.

Pte. F. Jones, of the 1^st Leicestershire Regiment, stated that he was on duty with lance corporal Edmunds on Christmas Eve, in Tontine Street. They went to the Brewery Tap, and witness saw Edmunds eject an artilleryman. The defendant hung on to Edmunds, but witness only saw one blow struck, and he was not sure whether that was struck by the defendant or another woman behind.

Cross-examined by Mr. Haines: Corpl. Edmunds wanted the soldier to leave the bar, and he did not refuse. The defendant fell right out on to the pavement. Witness was there to help Lance Corpl. Edmunds, and if he had seen him attacked by the defendant he would have interfered.

A statement signed by the witness was here produced. Witness acknowledged that the signature was his, but denied that it had been read to him before he signed it. It was written by Lance Corpl. Edmunds.

Lance Corpl. Edmunds stated that the statement was read over to the witness before it was signed.

George Pollard, of the Oxford and Buckinghamshire Light Infantry, deposed that there was an argument between the soldier in question and another man, and when they were putting the soldier out the young lady stood in front of the door and hit Corpl. Edmunds several tyimes over the left eye.

Cross-examination elicited the information that the disturbance was caused by the soldier nudging his knee against a man named Kirk. Kirk told him to stop, and on that the artilleryman wished to fight him. Kirk then went out.

Thos. Rose, of the Oxfords, deposed to seeing the defendant strike Corpl. Edmunds several times over the left eye.

Inspector Lawrence deposed to seeing the defendant, the artilleryman and Lance Corpl. Edmunds all come “flying on to the pavement together”. The defendant was clinging on to Edmunds. Edmunds called witness and P.C. Taylor to his assistance, and they helped to bring the artilleryman up to the police station.

Defendant gave evidence on oath. She said she was with the artilleryman, and was helping him on with his coat when Lance Corpl. Edmunds came in. He did not give him time to put his coat on, but pushed him outside. He pushed witness outside, and she fell on the pavement, and was unconscious for a quarter of an hour. Witness did not say anything at all. She never struck Edmunds or hung on to him.

John Thomas Knight, of the Royal Navy, also gave evidence denying that the defendant struck Edmunds.

Wm. John Franks deposed to seeing the defendant come “flying from the door of the Brewery Tap”, and a few seconds later the artilleryman and Edmunds came out together. The defendant was lying on her back to the right side of the door, and remained so until they got the artilleryman away.

Ed. Brook, barman at the Brewery Tap, and the landlord, Albert Taylor, corroborated defendant`s story.

The Chairman said that the evidence was very conflicting, and they did not want to decide which of the two parties was right. One or the other was telling an abominable and deliberate lie. The case would be dismissed.

Albert Taylor was then summoned for permitting Gunner West, R.F.A., to be drunk on licensed premises.

Lance Corpl. Edmunds deposed to being called on the 24^th December to eject a soldier from the Brewery Tap. West was very drunk and quarrelsome, and had his coat off. Eventually witness ejected him from the house. When he was taken into custody, West became very violent; he required the assistance of three others, and they were also compelled to use handcuffs.

Cross-examined by Mr. Haines: His violence and the manner in which he was staggering about were evidence of West`s drunkenness. He did not ask to walk on the way to the station. They had to carry him, as he would not walk.

George Henry Pollard, of the Oxfords, said West was either drunk or acting drunk.

A statement was produced signed by the witness, in which he deposed conclusively that West was drunk. Witness eventually said that West was drunk.

Ptes. Rose and Kirk also gave evidence.

Pte. Jones denied that West was drunk, and said that he was only excited. He asked to walk up to the station, but was not allowed.

Witness admitted that he signed a statement produced, but said it had not been read to him.

Inspector Lawrence swore that it was read to him before he signed it.

P.C. Taylor stated that West was drunk.

Mr. Taylor, on oath, denied that West was drunk.

Cross-examined by the Chief Constable, defendant said he wanted him to leave the house because there had been a disturbance with another man, and he did not want there to be a repetition of it. When witness helped West on with his coat he was cool, but he became very excited when he was ejected from the house.

Gunner Arthur Nash, of the R.F.A., and Arthur Parker, also testified to West being sober. They had both been in company with him earlier in the evening.

Cross-examined by the Chief Constable: They did not know that West had pleaded Guilty to the charge of being drunk at the Camp when he was tried before his Colonel.

J.S. Knight again gave evidence corroborating the statement of the landlord as to West`s condition.

Thomas West, a gunner in the R.F.A., denied the charge of drunkenness.

Cross-examined by the Chief Constable, he denied pleading Guilty to being drunk at the Camp, stating that he only admitted at that time that he had had a couple of drinks.

Ed. Brooks also gave evidence for the defence.

Mr. Haines maintained that the evidence was not conclusive enough to convict. The man was very excitable, and his violence was caused by seeing his young lady pushed from the door as she had been.

The Magistrates retired to consider their decision, and on their return the Chairman announced that they were unanimously of opinion that the case was proved, and a fine of 40s., woth 21s. costs, would be imposed.

Folkestone Express 15-1-1910

Local News

At the Police Court on Wednesday Mr. G.W. Haines applied to the Magistrates to fix the amount of the sureties in the matter of an appeal against the conviction recorded last week for permitting drunkenness on the licensed premises of the Brewery Tap. The Magistrates fixed the sums at £25 for Mr. Taylor, the landlord, who was convicted, and another surety of £25.

Folkestone Daily News 31-1-1910

Monday, January 31^st: Before Messrs. Herbert, Swoffer, Linton, Stainer, and Leggett.

Sydney Arthur Smith, a tall young fellow, was charged with committing an indecent assault on Ellen Staples on Saturday night.

Prosecutrix deposed that she was the wife of Edward Staples, an engine fitter, residing at 7, Garden Road. On Saturday night at 11.30 she was going home through Bradstone Road, and when near the Viaduct she saw the prisoner coming in front of her. As he passed her he said “Goodnight” and she replied “Goodnight”. She looked round to see who it was. Prisoner was a stranger to her, and she had never seen him before. He commenced to follow her, and overtook her just through the arch. He took hold of her by the shoulder and spoke to her. She replied that it would pay him better to go about his business as she was a married woman. He then dragged her across the road towards the passage in Kent Road, near Bradstone Avenue. She resisted him, and said she was not going along there. Finding he was getting the best of her she commenced to scream and threatened to give him in charge. He then put his hand over her mouth to prevent her from screaming, but she bit his hand, and he threatened to choke her. He then put a cap, or bag, or something in her mouth. At this time prisoner had got her near the back gates of the second house in the passage. Her clothes were disarranged. She screamed “Murder” and “Police”, and he pushed the cap further into her mouth so that she could not holler. He lifted her clothes and assaulted her. Someone then called from a house in Bradstone Avenue, asking what was the matter, and prisoner then ran away in the direction of Foord Road. Constable Waters came up, to whom she complained of what had taken place. She then saw P.C. Butler near Kain`s shop in Foord Road, and asked him if he had seen a tall man about. Prisoner came up and said “I am the tall man you are looking for”. She then gave him into custody. She had been down the town shopping with her husband, whom she left at 8.30 in the High Street. From that time she had been in the company of two girls who worked in the laundry with her. She left them in South Street at ten minutes to eleven, when she went to look for her husband. The whole affair of the assault lasted about ten minutes. Nobody passed along during that time.

In reply to prisoner: She did not see him in the Brewery Tap. She had never been in the Brewery Tap in her life. She denied speaking to him in Bradstone Road. She did not ask him for a shilling, and did not say she would tell his wife.

P.C. Waters deposed that he was in his bed at his lodgings, 5, Bradstone Avenue, at 11.30 on Saturday night, when he heard screaming shouts of “Murder” and Police” from the passage mentioned leading into Kent Road. He opened his window and asked what was the matter. He then heard someone run away. He also heard a woman`s voice saying “Won`t someone come to help me?” He dressed and went down into the passage and saw the prosecutrix, who was excited and bleeding from the lips. She complained to him of the assault, saying she did not know the man, but he had gone in the direction of Foord Road, where he accompanied her. They met P.C. Butler, whom the prosecutrix asked if he had seen a tall man go that way. Just then prisoner crossed the road and said he was the tall man they were looking for. Prosecutrix replied “That`s the man”. Witness and Butler brought prisoner to the police station and charged him. He made no reply at that time. He was taken below by Butler, and on his way down he said he gave the woman a shilling to go up the passage with him. He also said he had been in the Guildhall Vaults with her during the evening.

P.C. Butler corroborated the previous witness, also testified as to the evidence of a struggle having taken place in the passage, where he found a bag belonging to prisoner. On being charged at the police station prisoner said he went out with the bag to get some coal. Prisoner`s hand was bleeding. Both prosecutrix and prisoner appeared to be perfectly sober.

Prisoner was committed for trial at the Quarter Sessions.

Folkestone Express 5-2-1910

Monday, January 31^st: Before Messrs. W.G. Herbert, J. Stainer, G.I. Swoffer, and R.J. Linton, and Major Legget.

A young man named Sidney Alfred Smith, married and living at Folkestone, was charged with indecently assaulting Ellen Staple on Saturday evening. The court was cleared and the case was heard in camera.

Ellen Staple said she was the wife of Edward Staple, an engine fitter, and lived at 7, Garden Road. On Saturday evening, about 11.30, she was in Bradstone Road. She was returning home alone. She was near the Viaduct, when she saw the prisoner walking towards her. As he was passing he said “Goodnight”. Witness answered “Goodnight” and looked round to see who it was. Prisoner was a stranger to her. As she looked round, prisoner also looked round, and then turned and followed her. She continued to walk on. Prisoner overtook her near the Corporation gate, just through the Viaduct, and caught hold of her by the shoulder. He said something to her, and she replied “It would pay you better to go about your business. I am a married woman”. The prisoner then dragged her across the road towards Kent Road, in the direction of the passage which runs at the rear of Bradstone Avenue. Witness resisted him, and said she was not going along there. Finding he was getting the better of her, she screamed and told prisoner if he did not let her go she would give him in charge. Prisoner then put his hand over her mouth and she bit his hand, which caused him to remove it. Prisoner then said that if she screamed he would choke her, and he placed some soft substance in her mouth. He was carrying a bag under his arm. Prisoner and witness at that time were in the passage at the rear of the second house in Bradstone Avenue. Witness screamed “Murder” and “Police”, and prisoner then pushed the soft substance further into her mouth. He then indecently assaulted her. Someone called from one of the windows of the houses in Bradstone Avenue “What`s the matter over there?” and prisoner ran away in the direction of Foord Road. Witness walked to the top of the passage, where she met P.C. Waters. She made a complaint to him as to what had happened. P.C. Butler was at the corner of Kent Road and Foord Road, and witness went across to him and said “Have you seen a tall man about?” Prisoner immediately came from the direction of the Viaduct, in Foord Road, and said “I`m the tall man you`re looking for”. Witness then gave him into custody. Witness had been in the town with her husband shopping, and met two young women who worked in the same laundry. She left her husband at 8.30 in High Street, and from that time until ten minutes to eleven she was in company with the two women. She left them in South Street, and then went to look for her husband, but she did not find him. The affair with the prisoner lasted about ten minutes. Nobody passed during that time.

Cross-examined by prisoner, witness said she did not see him in the Brewery Tap in the early part of the evening, and she did not ask him to treat her. She did not see him outside of his house in Bradstone Road and ask him for a shilling.

P.C. Waters said at about 11.30 on Saturday evening he was in bed at his lodgings, 5, Bradstone Avenue, when he heard screaming and shouting coming from the passage at the rear of Bradstone Avenue. He got up and opened the back window and shouted out “What`s the matter out there?” He then heard footsteps running away up the passage into Kent Road. He also heard a woman`s voice say “Oh, won`t someone come to help me?” Witness partly dressed and ran down into the passage, and as he did so he tripped over the sack produced. He saw the last witness at the top of the passage. She was very excited and bleeding from the lips. She told him a man had dragged her up the passage and had assaulted her. Witness asked her if she knew the man, and she replied “No”. He asked her in what direction he had gone, and she replied “Out in the Foord Road”. Witness accompanied her to the Foord Road end of Kent Road, where they met P.C. Butler at the corner of Kent Road. The last witness ran across the road and asked Butler if he had seen a tall man run along that way. Almost immediately, just across Foord Road, prisoner came up to them and said “I am the tall man you are looking for”. Mrs. Staple said “That`s the man”, and P.C. Butler then took him into custody on the charge of indecently assaulting Staple. Prisoner made no reply. On the way to the police station prisoner said he gave the prosecutrix a shilling to go up the passage with him. He further said he had been in the Guildhall Vaults with her during the evening, and also in the Honest Lawyer public house.

P.C. Butler corroborated. He gave evidence of finding the bag, and spoke of seeing marks of a struggle in the passage in Kent Road. In reply to the charge at the police station, prisoner said he went out with his bag to get some coals. Witness noticed prisoner`s clothing was disarranged, and that he had a slight cut on the knuckle of his right hand, which was covered with blood. Prosecutrix and prisoner both appeared to be perfectly sober.

The Chairman advised Smith to reserve his defence, which he did.

Prisoner asked for bail, as he had a wife and three little children. He was committed for trial at the next Quarter Sessions. Bail was allowed, himself in £20 and one surety in £20, or two in £10.

The Chairman commended P.C. Waters on his prompt action in the matter.

Folkestone Herald 5-2-1910

Monday, January 31^st: Before Mr. W.G. Herbert, Major Leggett, Messrs. G.I. Swoffer, J. Stainer, and R.J. Linton.

Sidney Arthur Smith was charged with indecently assaulting Emily Ellen Staple, a married woman. The Chairman ordered the Court to be cleared.

Mrs. Staple stated that she was the wife of Edward Staple, and she lived at 17, Garden Road. Last Saturday, at about 11.30, in Bradstone Road, as she was returning home alone, prisoner, who was a stranger to her, spoke to her, caught hold of her by the shoulder, and dragged her across the road towards the passage in Kent Road. She resisted him, and finding he was getting the better of her, she commenced to scream. She said “If you don`t let me go, I`ll give you in charge”. He then held his hand over her mouth and tried to stop her from screaming. She bit his hand, which caused him to remove it. He said “If you scream, I`ll choke you”. He then placed some soft substance in her mouth, either his bag or cap. She screamed “Murder” and “Police”. He tightened the substance which was in her mouth so that she could not scream. Prosecutrix deposed to the nature of the assault alleged, and, proceeding, said someone shouted out of a window at the back “What`s the matter over there?”, which caused accused to run away. She only had time to get to the passage before P.C. Waters saw her. She then told him what had occurred, and accompanied him to the corner of Kent Road and Foord Road, where they met P.C. Butler. She said to him “Have you seen a tall man about?” Prisoner then came from the direction of Foord Road, and said “I am the tall man you are looking for”. She then gave him into custody. She had been out shopping. She met two young women that worked with her in the laundry. She left her husband at 8.30 p.m. in the High Street, and she was with her companions until 10.50. She left them in South Street, and then she looked for her husband, but missed him.

In answer to the accused, Mrs. Staples said she had never seen him before. She did not ask accused to “treat” her, and she did not see him at the Brewery Tap. She did not ask accused for a shilling.

P.C. Waters stated that at about 11.30 p.m. on Saturday evening he was in bed at his lodgings, at 5, Bradstone Avenue, when he heard someone screaming “Murder”, “Help”, and “Police”. The sound came from the passage at the rear of Bradstone Avenue, at the beginning of the Kent Road. He opened his window and shouted “What is the matter out there?” He heard a woman shouting “Oh, won`t someone come to help me?”, and he heard someone running away. He then partly dressed and ran down into the passage. He tripped over something which was lying there. He then saw complainant at the Kent Road end of the passage. She appeared to be very excited and was bleeding from the lips. She told him that a man had assaulted her. He asked her if she knew the man, and she replied “No”. He then asked in which direction he had gone. She replied “Out into Foord Road”. She then accompanied him to the corner of Kent Road and Foord Road, and he there met P.C. Butler. The prosecutrix asked “Have you seen a tall man run along this way?”. Almost immediately the prisoner crossed the Foord Road. He came right up to them, and said “I am the tall man you are looking for”. He was then told by P.C. Butler that he would be brought to the police station and charged with indecently assaulting Mrs. Staples. Prosecutrix, when she saw the prisoner, said “That`s the man”. Prisoner made no reply at the time.

Prisoner: I said I was innocent.

Witness, continuing, said that P.C. Butler took accused away, and he (witness) accompanied him. Prisoner said on the way that he gave prosecutrix a shilling. He also said that he had been in the Guildhall Vaults with complainant during the evening, and also in the Honest Lawyer public house.

Prisoner: If I was Guilty, why did I come back again? She asked me for 1s.

P.C. Butler also gave evidence. He said he went to the passage and saw evidence of a struggle. He found the bag owned by accused. In reply to the charge, accused said “I went out with my old bag to get some coal”. He noticed a slight cut on the right knuckle of prisoner`s hand. His hand was covered in blood.

Prisoner, who protested his innocence, was committed for trial at the next Quarter Sessions for the borough, and was allowed bail, himself in £20, and one surety of £20, or two of £10.

The Chairman said the Bench complimented the constables on their very smart conduct.

Folkestone Herald 12-2-1910

Local News

In reference to the charge of assault heard before the Folkestone Magistrates last week, we are requested to state that Mrs. Staple, the prosecutrix, does not live at 17, Garden Road, but at another house in the road.

Folkestone Daily News 2-4-1910

Quarter Sessions

Saturday, April 2^nd: Before J.C. Lewis Coward Esq.

Sidney Alfred Smith was charged on the 31^st January with indecently assaulting Mrs. Ellen Staple, a married woman. He was also charged with a common assault.

Mr. Dickens, who prosecuted, elected not to proceed with the serious charge.

Mr. Pitman advised accused to plead Guilty to the common assault, which he did, and was bound over to be of good behaviour for six months.

The Brewery Tap Appeal Case

Mr. T. Matthew appeared for the Justices, and Mr. Pitman for Mr. Albert Taylor, the landlord.

This was a charge for permitting drunkenness on Christmas Eve, whereby the appellant, Albert Taylor, was convicted by the borough Justices, and fined £2. A full report of the case appeared in our columns at the time.

Mr. Matthew pointed out that the onus of proof was on the licensee to show that precautions were taken, and submitted that the man West ought to have been turned out before, and thus a disgraceful scene would have been avoided.

Ernest Edmonds, of the Military Police, deposed to being called to the Brewery Tap and finding West very drunk. The landlord said he had broken a picture, but he did not want to charge him with that offence. West would not put his coat on, and he had to get the assistance of Inspector Lawrence to eject him. West was very drunk.

Corpl. Kirk, examined by Mr. Matthew, said he was a Corpl. In the 2^nd Oxford Light Infantry. At 8.15 on Christmas Eve he was in the Brewery Tap with two comrades, Pollard and Rose. West was then in the bar in company of a young lady. West was served with drink, but by whom witness did not know. West commenced to push witness, who at once remonstrated. West at once wanted to fight. In witness`s opinion West at that time was sober. To save any further trouble, witness walked out of the bar. He returned later, and West was then against the partition with several people round him. West attempted to rush at witness, but was prevented by those standing round. Witness at onve left the house.

In reply to Mr. Pitman, witness said West made a suggestion that he had spoken to his young woman, but that was untrue.

The Recorder: You have given your evidence very well, Kirk.

Private Thomas Rose corroborated.

Private Pollard further corroborated, and gave an opinion that West was drunk at 8.15.

Cross-examined: He might have been acting drunk; they do that sometimes out of swank.

Inspector Lawrence repeated the evidence given before the Justices that he took West, who was very drunk, to the police station. He reported the case to Albert Taylor the next day and told him he would be summoned. Taylor replied that he did not want any bother. West was not drunk from anything he had at the Brewery Tap, and he should not have sent for the Military Police, but for his temper.

Cross-examined: West was very drunk.

William Rye, Arthur Goddard, and Sergt. Dunster were fresh witnesses called.

Mr. Pitman said he would commence calling his witnesses first, and asked the learned Recorder to consider the point whether the appellant had not taken all reasonable precautions.

After hearing the evidence of the appellant and his barman, the Recorder quashed the conviction, deciding the point that the appellant had taken all reasonable precautions.

Conviction quashed with costs.

Folkestone Express 9-4-1910

Quarter Sessions

Saturday, April 2^nd: Before J.C. Lewis Coward Esq.

An appeal was heard from Albert Taylor, landlord of the Imperial Brewery Tap, against a conviction by the Magistrates for permitting drunkenness on his premises on Christmas Eve.

Mr. T. Matthew (instructed by Mr. A.F. Kidson, the Town Clerk) appeared to uphold the conviction, and Mr. Pitman (instructed by Mr. G.W. Haines) appeared for the appellant.

Mr. Matthew, in opening, said the charge was made under section 13 of the Licensing Act, 1872, and section 4 of the Licensing Act, 1902. The former prohibited drunkenness on licensed premises, but the section of the Act of 1902, which was the important one for his purpose, shifted the onus on the licensed person to prove that he and persons employed by him took all reasonable steps to stop drunkenness on the premises. He noticed that one of the grounds of appeal was that the man was not in fact drunk, but he thought there was ample evidence that the man, in fact, was drunk. The military police were sent for to eject the man from the house, and his submission would be that the man was in such a state that the military police or the police ought to have been sent for long before the step was taken, and that the licensee or his servants ought to have got rid of the man at a much earlier hour in the evening.

George Edmonds, a lance corporal in the military foot police, said about 9.40 in the evening of Christmas Eve he was sent for to the Brewery Tap, and he went there with Pte. Jones of the Garrison Police, who was on duty with him. On arriving at the Brewery Tap he saw in the private bar Gunner West of the Royal Field Artillery. The man was drunk, quarrelsome, and it appeared to him he wanted to fight. He had his overcoat off. West was trying to stand, but he could not stand steady. Mr. Taylor, the landlord, asked him to remove West from the house, as he had broken a picture. He asked him to leave, but he would not. He was fumbling about with his coat, trying to put it on, and was staggering about. He appeared as if he did not intend to go, so witness ejected him by force. Outside witness arrested him and he became so violent that he had to call Inspector Lawrence and P.C. Taylor to assist him to take the man to the police station.

Cross-examined by Mr. Pitman, witness said he did not know the lining of the sleeve of West`s coat was torn. He did not get a little impatient when West fumbled about with his coat. He did not use more force in ejecting the man than was necessary. West`s girl, Alice Marsh, was clinging on to him, and the three of them went out of the house together. He did not know the girl lay insensible in the street. West was angry previous to falling down and was abusive.

Louis Edward Kirk, a corporal in the Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire Light Infantry, said about a quarter past eight on Christmas Eve he went into the Brewery Tap with two men of his regiment – Ptes. Pollard and Rose. The private bar was then full, and Gunner West was there. West was sitting down, but he saw him served with drink, and saw him bring the beer back from the counter to his seat. Witness was standing with his back to West, who began to push his leg. He turned round and told him to stop it, and West immediately got up and wanted to fight. The gunner was then perfectly sober, and the time was about a quarter to nine. Witness, to save any trouble, then walked out. The suggestion was made that he had insulted West`s young woman, but he had not spoken to her. Later he went back to the house. He put his head round the door and partly got into the bar. West, who was against the partition, tried to make a rush for him, so he went out again. The people standing round West prevented him coming to the door.

Cross-examined, witness said so far as he could see the man was perfectly sober, but quarrelsome from excitement.

Thomas Rose, a private in the Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire Light Infantry, said he accompanied Kirk and Pollard to the Brewery Tap. He then corroborated the former as to what occurred, which led Kirk to leave the house. When Kirk came back to the house, West was in a drunken condition, and he tried to get at Kirk. When he was trying to get out of his overcoat, West broke a picture.

Cross-examined, witness said Kirk never said anything to West`s girl, but West imagined he had. West was in a drunken condition a long time before Kirk returned a second time.

In answer to Mr. Matthew, witness said West was angry a long time before he was thrown out.

George Henry Pollard, a private in the Oxfordshire and Bucks Light Infantry, corroborated his comrade`s evidence as to what occurred in the private bar. With regard to the condition of West, he said that he should say he was drunk when Kirk told him to stop knocking his leg. He saw Kirk have two half pints before he knocked West. After the former had left West wanted to fight a good many in the place.

Cross-examined, witness said apart from the fact that he wanted to fight Kirk there was nothing to make him think that West was drunk. Before the Magistrates he said West might have been “acting drunk”, and he went on to explain if a soldier had a pint of beer he sometimes “acted drunk”, “just for swank”.

The Recorder: I really do not understand you. You told me in your examination in chief that West was drunk. Now you have just told Mr. Pitman that there was nothing to make you think he was drunk apart from his quarrelsomeness. Do you mean he was drunk or not?

Witness: Yes, sir, he was drunk.

The Recorder: What do you mean by saying he was not drunk apart from his quarrelsomeness?

In reply to Mr. Matthew, the witness said a lot of soldiers had two glasses of beer, then rolled home and got put into the guardroom.

The Recorder: Why should a soldier go home as though he was drunk? What is the fun of it?

Witness: I don`t know and I cannot say. I have seen it done many times.

The Recorder: Do you think he was “acting drunk”?

Witness: I think he was acting drunk.

Mr. Matthew: Do you mean he was not drunk, but acting?

Witness: The excitement and beer made him a lot worse.

Inspector Lawrence said he assisted the military police in getting West to the police station. The man was drunk and very violent.

William Rye, of 74 St. John`s Street, Arthur Goddard, 29, Dudley Road, and Walter Banks, 20, Grove Road, all gave evidence of seeing West outside the house, and their opinion was that he was drunk.

Sergeant Dunster said when West was taken to the police station at 10 o`clock he was drunk and riotous. Later he looked through the peep-hole of the cell in which West was placed and saw the man lying face downwards, vomiting. When the picket came for him at 12.40 a.m. he was not able to stand. It was the custom for a fine of 3d. to be imposed on the military for fouling the cells, and West was too drunk to take the money from his pocket. Bombardier Davenport took the money from West`s pocket and paid him (witness).

The Court at this stage adjourned for lunch, the case for the police having closed.

On the resumption Mr. Pitman said he proposed to call the landlord and the barman, and if the Recorder was satisfied that every reasonable step was taken by them to prevent drunkenness there would be no necessity to go into any further evidence.

Albert Taylor, the appellant, said at Christmas time he had an assistant, in addition to his wife and the barman, to help him in the business. On Christmas Eve he was on duty behind the bar from six o`clock in the evening. About half past nine he had occasion to go down into the cellar and had only been gone a matter of two minutes when his wife called out to him that there was a disturbance in the bar. During the evening his wife, the barman, and the other man had been in the bars all the evening and his instructions to them were to keep a strict eye on the condition of the people, and that if they noticed anyone under the influence of drink they were to notify him. When his wife called him from the cellar she said there was a little argument going on. When he got into the bar he was told it was an artilleryman who was responsible for it. He had not previously noticed Gunner West. There were about thirty of forty people in the bar. Up to that point there had been no disturbance in the bar, and he had never seen his house more orderly at a holiday time. He inquired of a sailor what was wrong, and he said that an artilleryman was the cause of it because someone had upset his girl. When he asked West what was wrong, he said he did not like what an Oxford had said to his young lady. He replied “Because you did not like that you are creating a disturbance in my house”, and told him to leave, because he was concerned in trying to make a disturbance. There was nothing to lead him to think that he was drunk. West`s speech was thick, but nothing more than ordinary, as he was always rather thick in the voice. The reason he insisted on West going out was, as he told him, because he did not want a second edition of the row in the house. West stood firmly all through the conversation. Eventually the military police were called in, because West said he could not put him out. With regard to the broken picture, he himself broke it in putting up decorations for Christmas.

Mr. Matthew, in the course of cross-examination said he understood it was not part of the appellant`s case that West was not drunk.

Mr. Pitman said what he did say was that if the Recorder was satisfied that Taylor discharged the onus upon him it would be unnecessary to go into the other evidence.

The Recorder said he took it that Mr. Pitman did not dispute that West was drunk afterwards, but did dispute that he was drunk at the time, so that the landlord could be charged with permitting drunkenness.

Mr. Taylor, in answer to Mr. Matthew, said he should have seen the first incident, when Kirk left the bar, if it was going on. He suggested it was a lie. Kirk, Pollard, and Rose might have made it up, for they were all three chums.

Edward Brooks, the barman, said he was on duty the whole of the evening in the public and private bars. He remembered Gunner West coming to the house about eight o`clock and having a glass of ale. He was in the other bar at the time of the disturbance about half past nine, and his attention was drawn to it by Mrs. Taylor. He went into the private bar, and asked West what he was doing, and he said an Oxford had interfered with his young lady. Mr. Taylor came and he (witness) went to open the door. He eventually called in the military police. There was nothing to indicate to him that West was under the influence of drink.

Cross-examined, witness said the reason the man was put out of the house was because he tried to create a disturbance. If there had been any disturbance at 8.15 he would have seen it.

Mr. Matthew addressed the Recorder and suggested that from 8.15 onwards West ought to have been under the strict supervision of those who were in the house.

The Recorder said he had very carefully considered the evidence. He was of opinion that the appeal must be maintained. The grounds upon which it was sought to set aside the conviction were five in number, but the fourth ground seemed to ne the material ground upon which he gave his judgement, and it was that the landlord and the persons employed by him took all reasonable steps for preventing drunkenness on the premises. He did not come to that conclusion upon any suggestion Mr. Matthew had made – that it might be thought to be a hard case, and that it was Christmas Eve and so forth, because it was just as great an obligation upon a licensed person to look after his house at such times – in fact, it was a greater one. He had come to the conclusion, on the evidence that he been brought before him, and that evidence satisfied him that within the meaning of section 4 of the Licensing Act, 1902, that Mr. Taylor and his agents did take all reasonable steps to prevent drunkenness on the premises. He did not propose to go to any length through the evidence that had been given before them, but he was much struck by Kirk`s evidence. Kirk arrived at that licensed house about a quarter past eight in the evening. He said when he got there West was there with a young lady in the bar. He saw West bringing drink from the bar to the seat, so at any rate at that time West was in such a condition as to be able to walk to and from the bar. Kirk himself said West was perfectly sober when he went out the first time. Apparently it was not until 9.40 or thereabouts that Kirk returned, and that unquestionably was the signal for West to immediately lose his temper, and try to go for Kirk. The landlord said, and had sworn it, and he (the Recorder) believed him, that there was nothing to direct his attention to Gunner West previous to that. The landlord`s evidence was corroborated by the barman and he was asked to say that the landlord did not take all reasonable steps to prevent drunkenness. He was unable to do so. Mr. Matthew drew his attention very properly to a section of the Act, and a not to it stated the effect of that section appeared to be that where any person was drunk on licensed premises that would be prima facie evidence of permitting drunkenness, and to rebut that the licensed person must prove that he and his servants took all reasonable care to prevent drunkenness. There was a further addition to the note – if a licensed person or his servant as soon as he found the person was drunk turned him off the premises he was rebutting the prima facie evidence. He did not think it was necessary to ascertain whether West was drunk or not. He thought he was drunk some time during the evening, but not in the house. The struggle with the police might have brought it about and the nausea that took place in the cells. As far as he could see the landlord had discharged all the onus upon him, and that appeal must be allowed, and allowed with costs.

Sidney Alfred Smith, 23, a labourer, was charged with indecently assaulting Ellen Staple on January 20^th. He pleaded Guilty to a charge of common assault.

Mr. Dickens prosecuted, and Mr. Pitman (instructed by Mr. G.W. Haines) defended.

Mr. Dickens said no doubt the Recorder had read the depositions, and he was going to suggest that owing to the various circumstances, as well as certain information above suspicion, which the Chief Constable had received from other persons, that the man and woman were seen talking quietly together before the assault, it would be advisable for him not now to press the charge of indecency against the man, for he felt it would be practically impossible under the circumstances to obtain a conviction. The prisoner, however, did assault the woman in such a way that she bit his hand enough to make it bleed. He would be satisfied with the plea that the prisoner had made, and take a verdict of Guilty of the common assault.

Mr. Pitman said, having regard to what Mr. Dickens had said, and also to certain circumstances which had impressed themselves very much on his mind, it would have resulted in a verdict which would amount to guilty of a common assault. Mr. Dickens was satisfied that the additional information the defence could bring forward could not be doubted for one moment, and that the two were seen talking together and walking quietly along to the place into which the woman alleged she was dragged could not be doubted. The case he was instructed to put forward was entirely consistent with the story told by independent witnesses, and that the suggestion of indecency came not from the man, but from the woman, he being a married man, living with his wife quite close to the spot. The prisoner absolutely denied the suggestion that he put anything into her mouth, but he pushed her away with the sack which he was carrying. He would like to point out that Smith had been four or five weeks in prison, he not being bailed out until March 7^th, and he should ask the Recorder, having regard to the whole circumstances of the case, and the undoubted unreliability of the woman`s story, to take a lenient course. The woman, according to his instructions, made a demand for money, and threatened to cry if he did not accede to his request. He then lost his temper.

The Recorder said at the Police Court the prisoner said he reserved his defence.

Mr. Pitman said the prisoner outlined his defence in cross-examinating the witnesses, and he was beginning to make a statement, when, at the Magistrates` suggestion, he reserved his defence.

The Recorder, addressing Smith, said he had heard what both counsel had said, and he had already formed his own opinion. He did not think it desirable to go into details. The less said about the case the better. He advised him to be careful in the future. He would be bound over to be of good behaviour for six months.

Folkestone Herald 9-4-1910

Quarter Sessions

Saturday, April 2^nd: Before J.C. Lewis Coward Esq.

An interesting appeal was heard against the decision of the borough justices in convicting Albert Edward Talyor, the lessee of the Brewery Tap, Tontine Street, for permitting drunkenness on licensed premises.

Mr. Albert Taylor, licensee of the Imperial Brewery Tap, Tontine Street, appealed against a decision of the borough justices in convicting him for permitting drunkenness on licensed premises. Mr. Pitman (instructed by Mr. G.W. Haines) appeared for the appellant, and Mr. Matthew (instructed by the Town Clerk, Mr. A.F. Kidson) resisted the appeal.

Mr. Matthew, in outlining the case, said that the appellant was accused of permitting Gunner West, of the R.F.A., to be drunk at the Brewery Tap on Christmas Eve last. West was, in point of fact, drunk, and very drunk at 9.40 on the evening of December 24^th. He was exceedingly violent; he was abusive and quarrelsome, and when he was removed to the cells he was helpless and incapable. He thought it was clear, also, that West was in the bar of the Brewery Tap from 8.15 to 9.40 p.m., when he was ejected, and there was distinct evidence that he was served with drink between those hours. At 8.15 p.m., when he was first noticed in the bar, he was quarrelsome, and was showing signs that he had had enough drink.

Evidence in support of the conviction was then called.

Corporal G. Edmunds, Military Foot Police, said that on December 24^th he was on duty in Folkestone, and about 9.40 p.m. was sent for to the Brewery Tap, Tontine Street. He went there with Private Jones and found Gunner West there. He was drunk; he was quarrelsome, and had his overcoat off. He was inside the bar. He was not exactly standing there – he was “trying to stand” there. Mr. Taylor said “I want this man removed from my house; he has broken a picture”. Taylor said he did not want him charged. Witness asked him to leave, and he would not. He was fumbling about with his coat for two or three minutes, so witness had to eject him by force. After that he became very violent, and witness had to call for the assistance of Sergt. Lawrence and P.C. Taylor to take him to the police station. There was no doubt he was drunk.

Cross-examined: The barman called him in. Taylor asked him to remove prisoner from the house. West did not intend to get his greatcoat on. He was in the position of putting it on. Witness did not become impatient, but he had to throw him out. His girl was there, and was clinging on to him. West was angry, and hit out.

You have heard of a man getting angry when he thinks his girl is being insulted? – Yes.

That is a human instinct, even in the Military Foot Police? – Yes.

Continuing, witness said that the soldier did not receive an unnecessarily rough handling. Pte. Jones did not think he was roughly handled at first, but he changed his opinion afterwards. Pte. Jones was a private soldier, lent to do duty as a military policeman for the night. He was very sorry to have such men as police.

Corporal Lewis Edward Kirk, of the 2^nd Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire Light Infantry, said that on December 24^th last, at about 8.15 p.m., he was in the Brewery Tap. He went there with Pte. Collard and Pte. Rose, of witness`s regiment. The bar was full, and West was seated there with a young lady. He was served with drink. There was a disturbance in the bar. West began to push witness`s legs, and witness turned round and told him to stop it. West then got up and wanted to fight. West was then perfectly sober; that was about 8.45 p.m. To save any trouble, witness walked out. Witness had not spoken a word to West or his girl. Witness returned later on. Pollard and Rose were still in the bar. West was up against the partition with several people round him. When he saw witness he tried to make a rush for the door, and witness went out again. Witness then told the military police of the disturbance.

Cross-examined: West might have thought that he had insulted his girl, but that was not so. He went out because as he and West were of different rank, a quarrel would have meant trouble for two.

This witness was complimented by the Recorder on the way he had given his evidence.

Pte. Rose deposed that on December 24^th he went to the Brewery Tap with the last witness. West was there, but he did not see him drinking. He was sitting beside his young lady. He corroborated the evidence of the last witness, but said that when Kirk came back West was in a drunken condition. While West was getting his coat off to fight Kirk he broke some pictures in the bar. Witness saw West being taken out by the Military Police. When he was taken out the young woman who aws with him was hurt.

Cross-examined: Witness could not be certain whether West left the bar for a minute or two or not during the evening.

In answer to the Recorder, witness said he could not tell how long West had been drinking before Kirk returned. He did not agree that West was sober when Kirk first left.

As to the struggle at ejection, witness said that West resisted.

Mr. Matthew: I suppose if they had been gentle, if they had beckoned to him to come out, he would have been there still. (Laughter)

Pte. Pollard, who went into the bar on the occasion in question with Kirk and Rose, gave his account of the affair. He said that West was drunk when Kirk first went out. He saw West served with drink, and saw him have two half pints. After Kirk left, West wanted to fight three or four people in the bar; he did not say why. Kirk was away about twenty minutes.

Cross-examined: There was nothing else, apart from the quarrelsomeness and excitement, to make him think that West was drunk. He observed that sometimes when a soldier had a pint of beer he rolled home “acting drunk” for “swank”.

The Recorder: Why should a soldier “act drunk?” – I do not know, but I have seen it many times. I thought that West was “acting drunk” in this case. It was very good acting.

Inspector Frank Lawrence, of the Folkestone Police, said that on the evening in question he saw West being ejected from the Brewery ap. West was drunk, and there was a struggle. Witness helped to take West to the police station. On the 27^th the landlord made a statement to witness about the affair. He said “I am very sorry to have had any bother; the soldier did not appear to be any the worse for anything he had to drink whilst here. I was in the bar all the evening, but when the disturbance occurred I was down in the cellar when my wife called me up. He was then struggling with the girl he was with. He was not drunk, and if it was not for his temper I would not have called the military police in to put him out. The trouble arose over a dispute with a corporal of the Oxfords, as far as I can find out”.

Cross-examined: He had no reason to doubt that it was Mr. Taylor who sent for the military police.

Mr. William Rye said that about 9.45 on Christmas Eve he was in Tontine Street, when he saw a soldier and a woman being taken out of the Brewery Tap by the police. He should say that the soldier was “mad drunk”. The soldier was picked up; he used filthy language, became very violent, struck Inspector Lawrence, and was then handcuffed.

Cross-examined: He did not think that the woman was ejected; she came out backwards. The language used by the soldier was “very filthy for Christmas time”, when there are many females and children about.

Mr. Arthur Goddard, 29, Dudley Road, said he was a fish buyer, and on the occasion in question was in Tontine Street, and saw the soldier and woman being ejected: the soldier was drunk and spoke very hoarsely.

Cross-examined: The soldier was handcuffed because he would not walk.

Mr. Walter Banks, 20, Grove Road, said that he was a caterer, and saw the soldier and the woman being ejected. The soldier was drunk. When the soldier was on the ground he was “rather more than talking; he was swearing”. He could not walk.

Cross-examined: Witness was first asked by the police to give evidence at an election meeting held by Mr. Clarke Hall. (Laughter) That was some time after the incident.

Sergt. Dunster, of the Borough Police said that when West was brought in to the police station by the military police at 10 p.m. on the evening of December 24^th he was drunk and riotous. He had no doubt as to his condition. He was put into a cell with difficulty. Witness afterwards saw West in the cell lying on the floor face downwards and vomiting. At 10.50 p.m. witness saw West again still in the same position. Corporal Edmunds then tried to rouse him, but he could not do so as he was too drunk. At 12.40 a.m. the escort came for him. He could not walk then, and had to be supported.

This concluded Mr. Matthews` case.

Mr. Pitman said that his contention would be that the prisoner had had a slight amount of drink, and the fighting and excitement made him into a drunken condition.

The Recorder said that it was clear that West was drunk at some time during the evening.

An adjournment for lunch was then taken.

On the resumption Mr. Pitman said that his defence would consist of two parts, first that the landlord took every reasonable precaution, and secondly if that was not sufficient grounds for the appeal to be upheld, he would deal with the question as to whether West was or was not drunk. To save time if possible, he would only deal with the first line of defence indicated to begin with, and would not proceed to the other unless it became necessary.

Mr. Albert Taylor said that he was the appellant in the case. He was the lessee of and resided at the Imperial Brewery Tap. There were two bars in the house, a private bar and a public bar. At Christmas time he had an extra assistant to help him. The plan now produced showed the accommodation at the bar. On the evening of December 24^th witness was in the bar from six, and remained there all the time, except for a couple of minutes when he went down to the cellar. His wife was assisting him all the evening, and the barman, Brooks, was in the bars among the customers to pick up the glasses, and note the condition of those who came in. There was also an extra assistant. Witness had told Brooks to notify him if he saw anyone come in the worse for drink. The house was a tied one, and the brewers were Messrs. Mackeson, of Hythe. Witness had been in the house for about four years; he had never been in the trade before. Witness was 33 years of age, and lived with his wife and two boys at the house. The rent of the house was £50 a year, and the trade was between eight and ten barrels of beer a week. On the evening of December 24^th, witness had just gone down to the cellar to draw some beer, when his wife sent for him to come up. There were at the time between 30 and 40 people in the private bar, and more in the public bar. Up to then there had been no disturbance; in fact, he had never seen his bar so quiet at a busy time. Witness went into the bar, and a sailor said that someone had upset the Artilleryman`s girl, but that whoever it was had gone. West was then pointed out to him. Witness asked West what was wrong, and West replied “I did not like what he said to my young lady”. Witness said “Because you did not like that you are going to make a row in my bar”, and added that he would have to leave the premises. There was nothing in West`s manner at that time (about 9.30 p.m.) to lead witness to think he was drunk. West said that he had done nothing wrong, and that he did not see why he should go out. Other people in the bar also said that he had done nothing wrong. Witness insisted that West should go because he did not want a “second edition” of the row; he thought that the other man might come back. West`s speech was not then unusually thick, and he stood up properly, with his coat over his arm. Witness told West that if he did not leave he would have to put him out. West said that he could not do that, and witness then said that there was another course open, and he could fetch the police. West said “Fetch them. I have done nothing wrong, only as any other man would do”. Witness then told his barman to fetch the military police. The barman did so, and Corpl. Edmunds and Pte. Jones came. When the military police came West`s young woman was assisting him to put on his coat. The lining was torn, and his arm would not come through the sleeve. As a result of that he took some time to put his coat on. While witness was trying to help him Edmunds said “You are not trying to put that coat on”. The girl stepped up and said “The lining is torn. What if he is not trying to put his coat on? He has done nothing wrong”. As soon as she stepped between Edmunds and West to do this Edmunds put his elbow against her and pushed her right backwards; she fell out over the step into the road. West then rushed forward at Edmunds, and they both fell out of the door together, the military police on top. The door was held wide open by the barman. The girl fainted outside. Apart from this there was no disturbance whatever in the house during the evening. In sending for the police witness was not influenced by any idea that the man was drunk. The picture in the bar was broken by witness himself before Christmas. The glass fell out at the struggle, but that might not have been West`s fault. Witness had never had any convictions against him before.

Cross-examined: Witness noticed nothing whatever wrong with West till the incidents he had described. If he had heard the incident between West and Kirk before he would have insisted on both of them going out. He did not see West offering to fight several people, as Pollard had suggested. If it had gone on, witness would have seen it. He suggested that Pollard was lying about that. If it had been going on witness must have seen it.

Mr. Matthew: I quite agree; you must have seen it. Do you suggest also that Kirk and Rose have made this tale up?

Witness said they might have done; they were thee chums. He saw no reason why he should have sent for the military police before he did. West was thrown out with unnecessary violence. Outside West was trying to get up, but Edmunds was kneeling on him.

Mr. Edward Brooks said that he had been employed as barman at the Brewery Tap for about eighteen months. On December 24^th he was in the bar, and was instructed to pick up the glasses, to see the condition of the people who came in, to see that anyone who came in drunk was put out, and to inform Mr. Taylor if there was any disturbance. Witness was in the bar all the evening, as were Mr. and Mrs. Taylor, and an extra assistant. West paid two visits to the bar during the evening. The first was somewhere near 8 o`clock, and he then had one glass of ale. About 9.20 p.m. he came in again, and had one more glass of ale. Witness saw Kirk come in, but did not see anything take place the first time between West and Kirk, because then he was in the other bar. Mrs. Taylor told him to go into the other bar when the disturbance began, and he did so. Kirk had then gone, and West told witness that someone had insulted his girl. Witness said that he must not make a disturbance in the bar; if he wanted to do so he must go outside. Mr. Taylor then came up, and witness held the door open. He did not see anything to lead him to think that West was drunk. He corroborated the evidence of Mr. Taylor as to the circumstances of the ejectment and the treatment of the girl.

Cross-examined: West was put out because he was trying to create a disturbance with Kirk. West was violent and excited when he was piu out of the house; he was angry with Kirk. He was sure that West was only served with two glasses of ale in the bar during the evening. Witness did not see any row between West and Kirk earlier in the evening, nor did he see West offering to fight people in the bar. West, at 9.30 p.m., was perfectly sober.

Mr. Pitman intimated that this concluded the first partof his case. He desired to know whether the Recorder wished him to address the Court on those points now, or proceed with evidence as to the second part of the defence to the charge.

The Recorder said that he did not desire that Mr. Pitman should address him at all. He had carefully considered the evidence in the case, and he was of opinion that the appeal must be maintained. The grounds upon which it was sought to set aside the conviction were five in number, but the fourth appeared to be ample, and on that he gave his judgement, namely that the landlord and the persons employed by him took all reasonable steps for preventing drunkenness on the premises. He had not come to that decision upon any suggestion that had been made that this might be thought a hard case, and that it was Christmas Eve, and so forth, because it was just as great an obligation upon a licensed person to look after his house at those times as on ordinary occasions. He had come to his decision upon the evidence that had been put before him in that Court, and that evidence satisfied him that within the meaning of Section 4 of the Licensing Act, 1902, Mr. Taylor and his agents had taken all reasonable precautions to prevent drunkenness on the premises. He did not propose to go at any length into the evidence given before him, but he was much struck by Kirk`s evidence. Kirk arrived at that licensed house about 8.15 p.m. He said that when he got there West was there; West was served with drink, and he saw West bringing the drink from the bar to his seat, so that, at that time at any rate, West was in a condition that he could walk to and from the bar. It was about 8.45 p.m. that West began to push Kirk. The place where West was sitting had been pointed out to him (the Recorder). It was some way from the counter, and there were some thirty or forty men in the private bar at the time. Was it to be said that when that man stood up at 8.45 p.m. – when Kirk said that West was perfectly sober – was it to be expected that the landlord was to be convicted for not turning him out? At nine o`clock Kirk said that he went out, and that West was then quite sober. Apparently it was not till 9.40 p.m., or thereabouts, that Kirk returned, and that was unquestionably the signal for West to immediately lose his temper, and to go for Kirk. The landlord said – and he (the Recorder) believed him – that there was nothing to attract his attention to West up to that time. The remarks of the people around to the landlord that West had done nothing wrong were an important point. However, the landlord decided that West must go, and took steps to have him ejected. He did not think it was necessary for him (the Recorder) to find whether the man was drunk or not. He thought that he was certainly drunk at some time during that evening, but that he was not drunk at 8.30 or 9 p.m. was quite probable. Men did get overtaken by fumes, and a state of excitement and struggling such as had been described might have brought about the nausea in the cells. The landlord had discharged himself of the onus laid upon him, and the appeal must be upheld, with costs.

Sidney Alfred Smith, aged 23, a labourer, was indicted first for an indecent assault, and secondly for a common assault, on Ellen Staple, on January 29^th, at Folkestone. He was committed for trial on the first count only on January 31^st, and was not bailed out till March 7^th. Mr. Dicken prosecuted on behalf of the Crown, and Mr. Pitman defended.

Acting on the advice of his counsel, prisoner pleaded Guilty to a common assault, but Not Guilty to an indecent assault.

Mr. Dickens intimated that he would accept the plea of Guilty to a common assault, and not proceed with the other charge. He said that the prisoner and the woman were seen talking quietly together before the assault, by a witness who did not appear at the Police Court, and he thought it would be inadvisable for him to press the charge of indecency against the man; indeed, he might also say that it would be impossible to obtain a conviction for indecent assault. That there was a common assault there was no doubt. The prisoner put something into the woman`s mouth, and as a result she bit his hand till the blood came.

The Recorder said that having regard to what Mr. Dickens had said, and to certain circumstances which had impressed themselves very much on his mind in connection with the deposition as to the time and the hours that the woman appeared to have been about the town, he thought that Mr. Dickens had taken a very proper course.

Mr. Pitman, for the defendant, said that his story was that the prisoner and the woman met, that they walked and conversed together, and that the suggestion came not from the man, but from the woman. They all knew the story of Potiphar`s wife. Prisoner had been recently married, and his wife lived near. Being indignant with the woman, prisoner did push her back, and she, according to a threat she had made before, cried out for the police, and so on. Prisoner absolutely denied the suggestion that he put anything into her mouth. He was carrying a sack at the time, having been picking up coal, and that might have accidentally struck her. Prisoner had already been in prison for four or five weeks, since he was committed on January 31<sup>st</sup>, and not bailed out till March 7<sup>th</sup>. In conclusion, counsel referred to the “undoubted unreliability of the woman`s story”, and said that it was a little difficult to know what a man was to do under the circumstances.

The Recorder said that in such cases he always desired to see what answer the prisoner made at the time when he was first charged. He saw that at the Police Court this man said “I reserve my defence”. Why was that?

Mr. Pitman said that the prisoner`s remark was one that was often made. At the Police Court he had put a good many questions to the woman, and as those questions disclosed his defence, the Magistrates` Clerk afterwards advised him to reserve the defence.

The Recorder said that that cleared up his doubt on the point, but he always did feel himself that it was very desirable to know what the answer of the man was at the time. He thought that the less said about that case the better. He would advise prisoner to be careful in the future. He would now bind him over to be of good behaviour for six months.

 

Folkestone Daily News 24-12-1910

Saturday, December 24^th: Before Messrs. Penfold, Ward, Fynmore, and R.G. Wood.

Charles Bryant was charged with breaking a window at the Brewery Tap, in Tontine Street, at 10.30 on the 23^rd December.

Albert Taylor deposed that he was the landlord of the Brewery Tap. The prisoner was in his house on the 23^rd. A soldier came in the worse for drink, who he refused to serve. Then prisoner asked to be served. Witness told him that the law did not permit him to serve him as he was in company with a drunken man. Prisoner became very abusive when asked to leave the house, and eventually witness ejected him through the doorway, which he shut and bolted. Prisoner then smashed the panel of the door. Witness kept it bolted while prisoner stood there using bad language. He sent for the police and gave him into custody. The damage was estimated at from £3 to £3 10s.

Joseph Hawk, of the Military Police, deposed that at about 10.40 he saw the prisoner ejected by the previous witness. He tried to get in again. Finding the door fastened he deliberately smashed the panel with his right hand. He was using filthy language the whole time he remained there, till P.C. Bourne came up and took him into custody.

R. Bourne, a Borough Constable, deposed to seeing prisoner with his hand bleeding. The landlord Taylor came out and gave him into custody. On taking him to the station he was very violent and he had to get assistance to take him to the station.

Prisoner said he went into the Brewery Tap at 5 p.m. and stopped there till 9.30, when a soldier came in and had a drink. He went out and came back, when the landlord refused to serve him. He denied breaking the window, but said the landlord pushed him through it.

The Bench considered the case proved, and fined him £3 11s. 6d. including costs.

 

Folkestone Express 31-12-1910

Saturday, December 24^th: Before Alderman Penfold, Lieut. Col. Fynmore, and E.T. Ward and R.J. Wood Esqs.

Charles Bryant was charged with wilfully breaking a glass panel door at the Brewery Tap, Tontine Street, the previous evening. He pleaded Guilty.

Albert Taylor, the landlord of the Brewery Tap, Tontine Street, said at about 10.30 the previous evening he was serving in the public bar, when one of the 11^th Hussars came in. Prisoner was seated in the bar at the time. Owing to the apparent condition of the soldier, witness refused to serve him. The Hussar then said something to the prisoner, who came forward and asked for drinks for himself and the soldier. Witness told him that he could not serve him as he was getting a drink for a man who was the worse for drink. Prisoner replied “Serve me; I`m not drunk”. Witness said he could not as he was with the Hussar. Prisoner then became very abusive, and witness told him to leave the house. Bryant refused, and witness went round to him and again asked him if he would walk out of the house. Prisoner said he should not, and witness then got hold of him. Bryant twisted away and attempted to strike him. Witness closed with him and put him outside. He closed the door and held it to. Prisoner tried to return, and witness bolted the door. He then heard a smash, and some glass fell in on him. The door had one plate glass panel in it. He sent for the police, and as soon as the constable came witness went outside. Prisoner was standing about three yards from the door and was talking to the constable. He made a rush at witness, but the constable caught hold of him. Witness then gave him into custody. The amount of the damage was about £3 10s. to £4. Witness added that he saw the prisoner`s hand go up through the panel, and afterwards he noticed that his right hand was bleeding.

Joseph Hawkes, corporal in the military foot police, said he was on duty in the town the previous night. At about 10.30 he was in Tontine Street outside the Brewery Tap. He saw prisoner ejected from the public bar of the Brewery Tap by the landlord, who closed the door. Prisoner tried to get in again, but finding he could not do so, he deliberately struck the glass panel of the door with his right hand and broke the glass. Prisoner remained there, and was afterwards given in custody by the landlord.

P.C. Bourne said at 10.45 the previous evening he saw prisoner standing outside the Brewery Tap. His right hand was bleeding, and he noticed the glass panel of the door of the public bar of the Brewery Tap was broken. He asked him what he had been doing, and prisoner replied “Nothing”. Then the landlord came out, and prisoner immediately attempted to strike him. The landlord charged Bryant, who became very violent on being taken into custody. Witness obtained assistance and brought him to the police station. When charged he said the landlord made him do it. Bryant was not drunk.

Prisoner was fined 5s. and 6s. 6d. costs, and ordered to pay the damage, £3, or go to prison for one month. He was taken below.

The Magistrates commended Taylor for his conduct in the case.

Folkestone Herald 31-12-1910

Saturday, December 24^th: Before Alderman Penfold, Lieut. Col. R.J. Fynmore, Messrs. E.T. Ward and R.G. Wood.

Charles Bryant was charged with wilfully breaking a pane of glass at the Brewery Tap Inn, Tontine Street, the previous evening, and pleaded Not Guilty.

Albert Taylor, the landlord of the Brewery Tap, said that about 10.30 p.m. the previous evening he was serving in the public bar. One of the 11^th Hussars came in, but witness refused to serve him, as he was drunk. The soldier then said something to prisoner, who came forward and asked for drinks for himself and the soldier. Witness refused to serve him on the grounds that he was going to get a drink for a man who was drunk. Prisoner then became very abusive, and witness had eventually to eject him. He put him outside the glass door and bolted it. Prisoner then smashed one of the glass panels. Witness then sent for the police, and gave the prisoner in custody. The extent of the damage was from £3 10s. to £4.

Corpl. Hawkes, of the Military Police, deposed to seeing prisoner ejected, and afterwards seeing him strike the glass panel of the door with his hand and break it.

P.C. Bourne said that when he took the prisoner into custody his hand was bleeding. He was very violent on the way to the police station, but was not drunk.

Prisoner was fined 5s. and 6s. 6d. costs, and the damages, £3, or, in default was committed to prison for one month. The Magistrates commended Mr. Taylor for his action in the matter

Folkestone Daily News 28-6-1911

Local News

Alderman Vaughan and Col. Fynmore comprised the Folkestone Bench of Magistrates on Wednesday, and were occupied for two hours in adjudicating on several summonses for assault in connection with quarrels among persons residing in Bridge Street and the vicinity.

Courtenay Williams, with his wife and family, brother-in-law and friends, were in Tontine Street on Coronation evening about 7.30. Some of the part went into the Brewery Tap for the purpose of obtaining refreshment. Two men, named Todd and Barton, seemed to be out for a fight. The latter sent a lad into the Brewery Tap to ask Williams to come out. Williams responded, when Todd asked him to stand a drink, to which he agreed.

This generosity apparently did not satisfy Todd, who told him to keep his adjective drinks and come round the corner and have an adjective fight. Williams declined the invitation, and headed homewards with his party. In endeavouring to make a detour by the Linden Crescent path they went up Bellevue Street. When reaching the Honest Lawyer, Todd and Barton overtook them and commenced to fight.

Mrs. Williams went for a policeman, and Mrs. O`Brien, the sister-in-law, got between the men and endeavoured to prevent the fight.

Williams, it was alleged, was struck three times before he retaliated. He was then knocked down by Barton and brutally kicked by Todd.

The policeman arrived, Barton and Todd disappeared, and the constable dispersed the crowd that had assembled.

Several witnesses were called, including an independent one who lived in the neighbourhood. The all corroborated Williams` story in the main, although there were some trifling divergences.

The Bench, in the most inexplicable manner, dismissed the case.

Mr. G. W. Haines, the solicitor who appeared for Williams, endeavoured to address them on the fact that Williams had been assaulted many times, had sought the protection of the Bench by summoning the parties, but, with one exception, the cases had been dismissed. Mr. Haines said that murder might result unless the authorities took some firm action in maintaining the peace.

He was simply told that the case was dismissed and the Bench could hear no other application.

Henry Todd was summoned for assaulting Henry Williams, father of the previous plaintiff. He was an old man, appeared with a terrible black eye and produced a torn waistcoat, &c.

The story he told was that he was sitting by his fireside at 10 o`clock on Coronation night when Henry Todd, a powerful young man, brother of defendant in the previous case, knocked at his door, and when he opened it struck him in the eye. He and his son went outside, when he was knocked down and rendered insensible. His daughter-in-law went for the police, and Todd cleared off.

The Bench mulcted Todd in 15s. costs and required him to fix a surety to be of good behaviour for six months, or in default to go to prison for two months` hard labour.

Courtney Williams was summoned for assaulting Louisa Todd, mother of the previous defendant, at the scene of the struggle in the previous case.

Mrs. Todd swore that he attacked her with a wood chopper, or what is known as a bill-hook.

Her daughter was called as a witness, who gave an entirely different version of the matter.

However, the Justices mulcted Williams in the costs, and bound him over in his own recognisances, his offence being, as disclosed by the evidence, protecting his aged father from a brutal assault.

Elizabeth Brien was summoned for assaulting Mrs. Barton, wife of one of the men who fought in the first case.

The evidence was very conflicting, and the case seemed to have been brought for the purpose of counteracting any effect of the first charge.

However, the Justices bound the woman over in her own recognisances, and mulcted her in 11/6 costs.

We say that it was hard, and she felt indignant, paying the money, saying it was the first time she had been in a police court, and she hoped it would be the last. But if she did come again, it would be for something.

Folkestone Express 1-7-1911

Wednesday, June 28^th: Before Alderman Vaughan and Lieut. Col. Fynmore.

The Magistrates were engaged in hearing five summonses for assaults, arising out of a feud between the families of Todd and Williams, who quarrelled in Tontine Street. At the time the inhabitants of the country were supposed to be happy and rejoicing over the Coronation, the two families were going for one another, more after the fashion of Kilkenny cats, finally culminating in police court proceedings.

The first case heard was that in which Sidney Barton and Adam Todd were summoned by Ernest Edward Williams for assaulting him.

Mr. Haines appeared for the complainant in this case.

Williams said he resided at 69, Greenfield Road. On Coronation Day, about half past seven in the evening, he was in Tontine Street with his wife and his wife`s sister. They went into the Brewery Tap and a boy made a communication to him, so he went outside. There he saw Todd, who asked him if he was going to treat him. He replied that he had twopence and he could have a drink. Defendant said “You come to the back, and I will ---- show you”. Complainant went into the Brewery Tap, and afterwards joined his wife and his sister outside. They went up to Belle Vue Street, and he then saw the two defendants following. They overtook him, and Barton threw up his hat and said “Me and my father are the best men in Folkestone”. He took off his jacket and complainant`s sister-in-law pushed him away, when he struck at complainant. Todd came behind him and hit him in the eye, so he turned round and went for him. Barton then came behind him and knocked him down, and also kicked him. Then both of them kicked him. A policeman came up shortly after.

Cross-examined by Todd, complainant said Mike O`Brien was not present in the party. He took off his coat and fought the two of them, after he had been down two or three times.

Stephen Clarke, a labourer, of 23, Peter Street, said he knew Williams by sight, but was no acquaintance of his. He came out of doors when he saw Barton throw up his hat. Todd was with him, and Williams was walking up the street. Williams and Barton had a tussle, and Williams was thrown down, when Todd rushed across the road and kicked Williams. It was not a fight, but a tussle. Williams added “Ne`er one of them could fight for nuts”.

Elizabeth Brien said she was the wife of Michael Brien, and lived at 33, Marshall Street. Complainant was her brother-in-law, and he was out with her sister and her in Tontine Street on Coronation Day. She corroborated what Williams said with regard to what occurred in Tontine Street and Belle Vue Street. She also said that Todd knocked Williams down and then kicked him. Her husband was with them at the time.

Lily Williams, the wife of complainant, corroborated her husband`s statement. She further stated that Brien was among their party.

P.C. Allen said when he arrived at Belle Vue Street it was crowded from top to bottom. Williams was bleeding from the right eye, and he complained of having been assaulted. The parties appeared to be sober.

Todd, in his defence, said he was in the Brewery Tap when Williams, Mike Brien and the party came over to him and “argued the point”. He and Barton came out of the house, and they went up Belle Vue Street. Mike Brien said “I am going to fight you”. Barton, however, tried to pacify Brien, and Williams then said they would both go for him. Williams did so, and instead of hitting him, hit Barton, who retaliated.

Barton`s statement was practically similar, and a witness, named Jack Harris, called by them, apparently did not remember much about the affair.

The Chairman said the evidence was so very conflicting that it was very difficult to decide who was right. The witnesses did not seem to have stuck to the whole truth. Under the circumstances they must dismiss the summons.

Henry Todd was summoned for assaulting Robert Williams.

Complainant, a painter, of Marshall Street, said at half past ten on Coronation night a knock came at the door. Defendant stood there, and when he (complainant) opened the door, Todd struck him in the eye, which was blackened. Defendant afterwards knocked him down in the street and said “That`s one laid out”. He became insensible for a time, and afterwards got up and went indoors.

Cross-examined by defendant, complainant said he had not a hammer and his son a chopper when they came out in the roadway. The chopper and hammer were produced, and complainant denied that he had ever seen them before.

Courtenay Williams said he saw his father get a blow when he went to the door. Two minutes afterwards he went outside and saw his father in the road. Todd was standing up, and witness went to pick his father up, when he (witness) got a blow. He had never seen the hammer and chopper before.

Mary Williams, the wife of the last witness, said when Todd came to the door he pulled her father-in-law into the street and struck him in the eye.

Defendant said he went to the Williams`s house to tell them not to hit his sister again and to leave her alone. The two illiams` then pulled him down and he struck them. Then another of the Williams` brought out a hammer and a chopper, which he handed to his father and brother.

Lilian Todd said she saw her brother go to the door of the complainant`s house. When old Mr. Williams came to the door he struck at her brother with a quart bottle. She then went to call her mother and on her return saw the father and son on top of her brother. Courtenay Williams struck at her mother with a chopper and cut her hand.

The Magistrates bound the defendant over to be of good behaviour for six months, in a surety of £10, and himself in £10, and to pay the costs, 15s., or two months` hard labour.

Courtenay Williams took his stand before the Magistrates for assaulting Mrs. Todd.

Mrs. Elizabeth Todd, the mother of Henry Todd, said she saw the two Williamses beating her son. She pulled one of them off, and then a smaller brother handed to the defendant a chopper and to his father a hammer. Defendant said “Get away; I will chop his head off”. He struck at her with the chopper and cut her hand, and also with a second blow he cut her clothing and into the flesh in her back. She eventually grasped the chopper and wrested it from him.

Lilian Todd also gave evidence, which did not tally with that of her mother.

Williams was also bound over to be of good behaviour for six months, and the Chairman said the conduct of the whole of the people was reprehensible, and the sooner they conducted themselves in a proper manner the better it would be for them.

Elizabeth Brien was summoned for assaulting Mrs. Barton.

Mrs. Barton, the wife of the former defendant, said she met Mrs. Brien in St. John`s Street, and she was struck by her three times before she struck the defendant in self defence.

Lilian Todd, her sister, corroborated.

Defendant said she was not guilty, and the complainant`s storu was a made up affair. She did not wish to call any evidence, as it was no use.

The Magistrates ordered the defendant to be bound over to be of good behaviour for six months, and to pay the costs.

Defendant: The next time I come here I hope it will be for something. How much have I to pay?

The Chief Constable: 12s. 6d.

Defendant: Well, I hope to live for another Coronation.

Folkestone Herald 1-7-1911

Wednesday, June 28^th: Before Alderman T.J. Vaughan and Lieut. Col. Fynmore.

Adam Todd and Sidney Barton were summoned for an assault on Ernest Edward Williams. Both pleaded Not Guilty. Mr. G.W. Haines appeared for the complainant.

Ernest Edward Williams, a painter, said that on Coronation Day he was in the Brewery Tap, Tontine Street, at about 7.30, when he was called out to speak to someone. When he went out he saw defendant Todd, who asked witness if he was going to treat him. Witness said “Yes”, but defendant said he didn`t want the drink, and asked complainant to come round the corner and fight. Witness walked back and finished his drink, and afterwards went up Tontine Street and proceeded to Belle Vue Street, where he and some friends went to avoid the two defendants, who followed them. Defendants overtook them at the corner of Belle Vue Street, and Barton came up and threw his hat into the air, shouting that he and his father were the two best men in Folkestone. Witness`s sister-in-law tried to push Barton back, but he struck over her shoulder at complainant. Todd then came up behind complainant, and also struck him. Witness turned round and went for Todd. Barton joined the fight, and complainant was thrown to the ground, both defendants on the top of him. They both kicked him. A policeman then came up, and defendants went away. Witness had not seen either of them before that day, nor during the week to his knowledge. He could not account at all for the assault upon him. He had had no words with either defendant.

Stephen Clark, a labourer, of 23, Peter Street, said he knew complainant and defendants by sight. On Coronation Day he witnessed the scene at the end of the road. It appeared that Barton threw complainant down, and then Todd ran across the road and kicked him. “It was a cowardly action”, confirmed witness, “and if I had been a younger man I would have stopped it”. He further stated there was no actual fighting going on at all. There was simply a tussle. “Neither man could fight for nuts”.

Lily Williams, complainant`s wife, gave corroborative evidence.

P.C. Allen deposed that he was called to the street. All the men appeared to be sober.

Elizabeth Brien also gave evidence to prove the assault.

Defendants both said that complainant had started the row, and that they hit him in self-defence. They called John Harris, who apparently did not witness much of the quarrel, and not enough to give a definite opinion as to who started it.

The Chairman said that on the evidence the Magistrates had nothing to do but dismiss the case.

Henry Todd was summoned by Robert Williams. He pleaded Not Guilty.

Complainant deposed that defendant came to his house on the previous Thursday evening (Coronation Day) and knocked at the door. When he went to the door defendant struck him in the face. Complainant fell, but crawled out into the street, and defendant again struck him, saying “That`s one of them laid out”.

Questioned by defendant, complainant said he and his son did not attack him. They did not have a hammer and a chopper.

Defendant said he would like to produced a hammer and chopper, which, he alleged, complainant and his son had in their hands.

The hammer and chopper were produced, but complainant denied most emphatically any previous knowledge of them.

Courtenay Williams, complainant`s son, and Mary Williams, his wife, corroborated.

Lilian Todd, defendant`s sister, said that when her brother went to the door and spoke to complainant, Williams struck at him with a quart bottle. She did not see her brother do anything. Later she saw the Williams`s in the road on the top of her brother. She also deposed that the father and son had the hammer and chopper produced.

The Bench bound defendant over in his own recognisance to be of good behaviour for six months, and also ordered him to find a surety in the sum of £10. In default, two months` hard labour.

Courtenay Lewis Williams, summoned for assaulting Elizabeth Todd on June 22^nd, also pleaded Not Guilty.

Elizabeth Todd said that she was the mother of the last defendant. At 10.30 on the 22^nd June she was sitting in her room when, from what her daughter told her, she went down to the bottom of the steps, and saw two men beating her son. One was the defendant, and the other was his father. Witness pulled one of them off, and then a little boy ran and gave a hammer to the defendant`s father and a chopper to the defendant. Witness went to take the chopper away from defendant, and he struck at her, hitting her on the wrist, and piercing her clothes to her back. She managed, as he was striking a third time, to take the weapon from him. She then fell to the ground. When she recovered she was outside her daughter`s house.

Lilian Todd, daughter of complainant, corroborated as to the defendant striking at her mother. She said, however, that her brother was not on the ground at the time, but had returned indoors. Asked how they came by the hammer and the chopper (produced), she said that her mother took the chopper from the defendant, and she found the hammer when she returned to get her mother`s coat.

Defendant was bound over in his own recognisances for six months, and the Chairman remarked that the sooner the people in the neighbourhood conducted themselves in a respectable manner, the better it would be for all concerned.

Elizabeth Brien was summoned for assaulting Mrs. Eva Barton on the 22^nd June. She pleaded Not Guilty.

Mrs. Barton said that on the previous night, between 8 and 9, she went to meet her husband. She was with her sister. When near the salvation Army Barracks she heard a row, and ran up St. John Street. On turning a corner she met the defendant, who struck at her and used bad language towards her. After prisoner had struck her three times she returned the blow.

Lilian Todd, sister of the defendant, gave corroborative evidence.

Defendant said that this was a made up affair between the complainant and her mother. She did not wish to call any evidence; it would be no use if she did.

Defendant was bound over in her own recognisance to be of good behaviour for six months, and had to pay the costs (12s. 6d.).

Folkestone Daily News 1-7-1911

Comment

We have no desire to criticise Messrs. Justices Vaughan and Fynmore in their extraordinary decisions of Wednesday last, neither do we wish to criticise other Justices who have adjudicated between the parties on other occasions.

We, of course, can only judge by the evidence given in Court, and by the cases as they appear to us. The Justices and Police Authorities may be in possession of other facts of which we know nothing, and they may be influenced by other matters of which we are equally ignorant.

Be that as it may, we are bound to say that the unfortunate Williams family – father, sons, sons` wives, etc. – have been most brutally treated on many occasions by various persons, from whom we should not expect much gentleness.

They have appeared in Court – man and women with terrible black eyes, bruises, proving great brutality. Except in one case, where a trifling fine was inflicted, their summonses have been dismissed, and we can hardly say, from the evidence as we heard it, that they had had justice.

Certainly such decisions will lead, unless the Justices act differently, to more serious offences, and perhaps murder.

Mind you, we are perfect strangers to both parties, and only have the cases, as presented in Court, to judge by. We have mentioned it on previous occasions, and our forecast has been accurate by repetitions of the assaults and what seems to be the persecution of the Williams family.

On Wednesday last the decision of the Justices in the first case was inexplicable. The men Todd and Barton did not take the trouble to deny that they were the originators of the disturbance, and they refused to give sworn evidence and submit themselves to cross-examination, while the case on the other side was corroborated by sworn evidence from independent witnesses, including the constable, and all witnesses were out of Court during the hearing. And yet the Bench dismissed the case. We should have thought, in the interests of maintaining the peace of the borough, that Barton and Todd would have been bound over.

In another case a man was ordered to find sureties for an assault while protecting his aged father on the evidence of two interested witnesses – a mother and daughter – who contradicted each other on every material point. Either one or the other committed deliberate perjury. A story was introduced alleging that Williams had two murderous weapons, a hammer and a chopper, one of which it is stated he used in the assault. Everyone denied ownership of these weapons, and a great deal would have depended on the proof of the ownership as to whether it was a murderous attack on the part of one side or a trumped-up story to defend the other.

If anyone had been killed, the ownership of the weapons would have had to be proved, which we say would not have been a difficult matter. To our simple minds, the police should have impounded those weapons and taken steps to prove the ownership.

We reiterate and emphasise our previous remarks – that this feud that exists, and which seems to be the brutal persecution of the Williams family, ought to be dealt with fairly and firmly in the interests of justice and the protection of human life.

Folkestone Daily News 26-9-1911

Tuesday, September 26^th: Before Messrs. Ward, Fynmore and Vaughan.

Walter John Woods was charged with stealing a basket of mushrooms.

William Gower, a carrier, of Swingfield, deposed to having a cart containing mushrooms, and prisoner asked him the price of them. He replied “Fourpence a pound”. Prisoner said it was too much, and asked witness to weigh them. Witness took them to Mr. Davison`s store for that purpose, and left his vehicle in the street with no-one in charge. The basket of mushrooms was left on the lorry. The prisoner was gone and the basket missing. It contained 12lbs., valued at 4s. 6d. He subsequently saw the prisoner near the Brewery Tap, and said to him “How do”. Prisoner replied “How do”. Witness gave information to the police. Just before 3 he replaced the basket, and said he had been up to Mr. Mills`, in High Street, who would not give him more than 2½d. per lb. for them. He said he would go and see Mr. Mills. Prisoner went away, and witness afterwards pointed him out to Sergt. Sales.

Mr. Croupe, barman at the Brewery Tap, deposed to seeing prisoner with the mushrooms.

Sergt. Sales deposed to receiving information as to the loss of the mushrooms and taking prisoner into custody.

The Bench dismissed the case.

Folkestone Express 30-9-1911

Tuesday, September 26^th: Before E.T. Ward Esq., Alderman Vaughan, and Lieut. Col. Fynmore.

Walter John Woods was charged with stealing a basket containing twelve pounds of mushrooms.

Wm. Gower, a carrier, living at Swingfield, said he was in Tontine Street the previous afternoon about 2.30, and he had with him a cart in which was a quantity of mushrooms. The prisoner, a stranger to him, came up to him in the street and asked him the price of the mushrooms. Witness replied “Fourpence a pound”. Prisoner said he thought it was too much. He then asked witness to weigh them, and he took the bath containing the mushrooms to Mr. Davison`s store, leaving the lorry in the street without anyone in charge. In the lorry was a basket of mushrooms. Witness returned in about two minutes, and the prisoner was gone. The basket of mushrooms was also missing. They weighed twelve pounds and the value of the basket and mushrooms was 4s. 6d. About five minutes after witness saw the prisoner near the Brewery Tap. He had not then the basket of mushrooms. Prisoner said “How do”, and witness said the same. Witness gave information to the police, and at about ten minutes to three he again saw the prisoner. The lorry was still outside Davison`s stores. The prisoner came up to the lorry and put the basket of mushrooms on it. He said he had been to Mr. Mills, High Street, and he would not give him more than 1½d. a pound. Witness said he would go and see Mr. Mills, and prisoner went away. Soon afterwards witness saw prisoner in Tontine Street, and pointed him out to P.S. Sales. He had given the prisoner no authority to take the mushrooms from the cart, and prisoner had said nothing about finding a customer for them.

Prisoner: Didn`t you give me permission to try and sell them for you? – No.

Herbert George Croucher, barman at the Brewery Tap, Tontine Street, said prisoner, in company with another man, came into the bar the previous afternoon at about 2.30. The two men remained in the bar about a quarter of an hour. Then prisoner left the house. He returned in about five or ten minutes, when he had a basket of mushrooms similar to the one produced. He heard prisoner say to the other man “Take these home”, pointing to the mushrooms. The other man said “Now?” The prisoner replied “Not yet; Stokes might want to buy them”. Witness then left the bar, leaving prisoner and his friend there. He returned in about twenty minutes, and the men were still there. The basket of mushrooms was gone. P.S. Sales then came into the next bar and spoke to witness. Prisoner and the other man, who saw Sales, left the bar hurriedly. When the prisoner first came into the bar he was wearing a hard felt hat, and when he returned to the house the second time he wore a cap.

P.S. Sales said he received information the previous afternoon about the loss of a basket of mushrooms, and at about 3.20 the prosecutor pointed out the prisoner to him in Tontine Street. He went up to him and said “Woods, I shall take you to the police station and charge you with stealing about six gallons of mushrooms”. He replied “When was this? I took them back. I took them for a party to try and sell them for him. You don`t call that stealing, do you?” Witness took him to the police station and charged him with the theft. He replied “I took them to try and sell them”. Prisoner gave an address at 31, Millbay, which was about one hundred yards from the Brewery Tap. There was a passage from the side of the Brewery Tap to Millbay.

The Chairman said that was a rather suspicious case, but still the Magistrates were giving the prisoner the benefit of the doubt, and they discharged him.

Folkestone Herald 30-9-1911

Tuesday, September 26^th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Alderman T.J. Vaughan, and Lieut. Col. Fynmore.

Walter John Woods was charged with stealing a basket containing a quantity of mushrooms, the property of William Gower.

William Gower, a carrier, residing at Swingfield, stated that he was in Tontine Street the previous afternoon, at about 2.30, with a cart, upon which there was a quantity of mushrooms. Prisoner came up to him and asked the price of the mushrooms. Witness told him they were 4d. a pound. Prisoner then said he thought it too much, and asked witness to weigh a quantity of mushrooms that were in a bath on the cart. Witness took the bath for the purpose of weighing the mushrooms, leaving the cart in the street with no-one in charge. He left a basket full of mushrooms there. Witness returned in about two minutes, but prisoner was gone, and the basket of mushrooms also. There were 12lbs. of mushrooms in the basket, which, together with the basket, he valued at about 4s. 6d. Witness saw the prisoner about five minutes afterwards near the Brewery Tap. Witness then gave information to the police. He saw prisoner about 2.50 p.m. near the Co-Operative Stores. Witness`s cart was opposite Mr. Davison`s stores. Prisoner came up and put the basket containing the mushrooms back. He said he had been to Mr. Mills, in High Street. Witness said he would go and see Mr. Mills. Prisoner then went away, leaving the mushrooms. Witness, in company with Sergt. Sales, saw prisoner in Tontine Street. He pointed accused out to Sergt. Sales, who took him into custody. Witness gave prisoner no authority to take the mushrooms, nor had anything been said about prisoner selling them.

Albert George Croucher, barman at the Brewery Tap, said that prisoner came into the bar in company with another man on the afternoon in question at about 2.30. They remained for about a quarter of an hour, when prisoner left. Accused returned in about five or ten minutes with a basket of mushrooms similar to the one produced. Prisoner told the other man to take them home, and he asked “Now?” Prisoner said “Not now. Stokes may want to buy them”. Witness then left the bar, leaving prisoner and his friend there. A short time after they were still there, but the basket and mushrooms were gone. Sergt. Sales then came into the bar and made some inquiries. Prisoner and his companion saw Sergt. Sales from where they sat, and left hurriedly.

P.S. Sales said that he received information the previous afternoon of the loss of the mushrooms, and the prosecutor subsequently pointed out the prisoner to him. Witness went up to him and said “I shall take you to the police station and charge you with stealing some mushrooms”. Accused asked “When was this? I took them back. I took them to try and sell them for him. You don`t call that stealing, do you?” Witness then took the prisoner to the police station and formally charged him. Prisoner replied that he took the mushrooms to try and sell them for the prosecutor.

The Chairman remarked that it was a very suspicious case. They would give prisoner the benefit of the doubt, and he would be discharged accordingly.

Folkestone Express 30-11-1912

Monday, November 25^th: Before W.G. Herbert, J. Stainer, G.I. Swoffer, R.J. Linton, and G. Boyd Esqs.

Edward Leary was charged with being drunk and disorderly. Prisoner, who had a large patch of sticking plaster over his eye, pleaded Guilty.

P.C. Whitehead said at 6.20 on Saturday evening he was in Tontine Street, when he saw the prisoner being ejected from the Queen`s Cinema. He then went into the Brewery Tap, where he was refused drink. He (witness) went up to him and advised him to go away, but he commenced to shout and caused a crowd to assemble, so he had to take him into custody. With the assistance of P.C. Prebble he brought him to the police station. On the way he began to struggle, and while doing so he slipped and fell, cutting his eye.

Prisoner said he met a few friends from London, who gave him a drink, and it overcame him. He would leave the town if the Magistrates would let him go.

It was stated that there was nothing known of the prisoner, who was a stranger to the police.

In default of paying a fine of 5s. and 4s. 6d. costs, Leary went to prison for seven days with hard labour.

Folkestone Herald 30-11-1912

Monday, November 25^th: Before Mr. W.G. Herbert, Mr. J. Stainer, Mr. G.I. Swoffer, Mr. R.J. Linton, and Mr. G. Boyd.

Edward Leary, charged with being drunk and disorderly in Tontine Street on Saturday night, pleaded Guilty.

P.C. Whitehead said he saw accused being ejected from the Queen`s Cinema in a drunken condition. Witness advised him to go away, but he went across to the Brewery Tap, where he was refused drink. As he would not go away, witness took him nto custody. At the bottom of High Street prisoner became violent and fell down and bruised his eye (which was very much swollen and inflamed).

Accused expressed regret, and said if the Bench would give him a chance he would leave the town.

Fined 5s. and 4s. 6d. costs, or 7 days` hard labour.

Prisoner went below.

Folkestone Express 18-1-1913

Local News

At the Police Court on Wednesday an occasional licence was granted to Mr. Taylor, of the Brewery Tap, to sell at the Territorial Ball at the Drill Hall on Wednesday night.

Folkestone Herald 18-1-1913

Application was made by Mr. Taylor, landlord of the Brewery Tap, for an occasional licence at the Buffs` Drill Hall, from 8 p.m. on January 22nd to 3 a.m. on January 23rd for the Buffs` Annual Ball. The application was granted.

Folkestone Express 26-9-1914

Saturday, September 19^th: Before E.T. Ward Esq., Lieut. Col. Fynmore, G. Boyd Esq., and Col. Owen.

James Molloy was charged with stealing a pair of boots from outside the shop of Mr. J. Bainbridge, Tontine Street, and Alfred Cole was charged with receiving one of the boots well-knowing it to have been stolen. Both prisoners were privates in the Northamptonshire Regiment, and members of the new Army.

Mr. J. Bainbridge, a boot factor, of 39, Tontine Street, said on the previous day he placed a number of pairs of boots outside the shop, and they were all right during the day. About a quarter past eight, from what his next door neighbour, Mr. Whittingstall, told him, he examined his stock in the doorway, and he missed a pair of boots. The boots (produced) were his property, and he valued them at 10s. 6d.

William Whittingstall, a fruiterer, of 41, Tontine Street, said he identified Molloy. The previous evening he was by the doorway of his shop, when he saw Molloy standing by the baskets of fruit along the front of his shop. He watched him for about a quarter of an hour, when he saw him take a pair of boots from the doorway of Mr. Bainbridge`s shop. He walked up the street and entered the Brewery Tap. He went into Mr. Bainbridge`s shop and made a communication to him, and they then went towards the Brewery Tap, which he entered. He saw Molloy, and came out and spoke to Mr. Bainbridge, who fetched P.C. Simmonds. When Cole walked out of the public house he saw the constable take one of the boots from under Cole`s tunic. The constable took Cole into custody. Before that he had seen Molloy walk out of the public house and go towards the harbour. Later he accompanied P.C. Simmonds to the True Briton Inn, and there he saw a number of soldiers in uniform. He pointed Molloy out to the constable.

George Fagg, a fisherman, of 101, Dover Street, said he was in the harbour with his boat that morning when he found the new boot (produced), and took it to the police station.

P.C. Simmonds said he was on duty about 8.10 the previous evening, when Mr. Bainbridge made a communication to him. A few minute later he saw Cole outside the Brewery Tap. Seeing he was bulky, he stopped him and asked him what he had got. He (witness) then took the left boot (produced) from under Cole`s tunic. He brought him to the police station, but before doing so asked him where he got it from, and the prisoner replied “Find out”. He was detained at the station, and later he went to the True Briton Inn with Mr. Whittingstall. The bar was practically full of soldiers, and Whittingstall pointed out Molloy, whom he told he should charge with stealing a pair of boots from a shop doorway in Tontine Street that night. He replied “I know nothing about them”. He brought him to the police station and showed him the left boot (produced), and told him he should charge him with stealing it. He replied “Fourteen days will do me good. It will be better than going to the front”. He charged Cole with being in possession of the boot well-knowing it to have been stolen. He made no reply.

In reply to Molloy, witness said it was not he (the constable) who said a month`s imprisonment would do him good.

Questioned by the Chairman, the constable said Tontine Street was very crowded, and anyone could take boots off the hook. The boots were in the doorway of the shop, but were not exposed the same as in some other shops. They were not hanging over the footpath.

Both prisoners asked for the case to be dealt with summarily, and pleaded Not Guilty.

Molloy said he knew nothing about the boots. He was walking up and down Folkestone for three hours, and was out enjoying himself. He had never seen the other prisoner before. He met two or three friends and remained with them about an hour.

Cole said he would admit that a soldier came up to him in the public house and told him to put the boot up his coat. Being half-drunk, he did as he was told. That was all he knew about it.

An officer from the regiment stated that both prisoners, who had recently joined the Army, had military offences against them.

The Chairman said the prisoners had disgraced the uniform they were wearing by their conduct. The Magistrates were very sorry to see two men in the new Army come before them. They would be both sentenced to a month`s hard labour.

Mr. Bainbridge was called forward, and the Chairman asked if he could not look after his own goods a little better, especially in those times when Tontine Street was so tremendously crowded. It was a temptation to those men when they saw goods exposed.

Mr. Bainbridge said his goods were not displayed outside on the window, but in the doorway of the shop.

Folkestone Herald 26-9-1914

Saturday, September 19^th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Lieut. Col. R.J. Fynmore, Mr. G. Boyd, and Col. G.P. Owen.

James Molloy was charged with stealing a pair of boots, the property of Mr. J. Bainbridge, and Alfred Cole was charged with receiving the same. They pleaded Not Guilty. Both men are soldiers in the new Army.

Mr. Bainbridge, who carries on a boot and shoe business at 39, Tontine Street, deposed that on the previous day, about 9 a.m., he placed outside the shop, in the ordinary way, a pair of men`s boots. He saw them there safe several times during the day. In the evening, about 8.15, Mr. Whittingstall communicated with him. He examined the stock, and found one pair of Territorials` boots missing. He identified the boots produced.

Mr. Wiliiam Whittingstall said about 8 p.m. he was in the doorway of his shop, when he saw Molloy standing by his baskets. He watched him for about 15 minutes, and then saw him take the boots from the doorway of Mr. Bainbridge`s shop next door. Prisoner walked up the street and went into the Brewery Tap. Witness spoke to Mr. Bainbridge, and together they went to the Brewery Tap. He entered the bar and recognised Molloy. He went out and called P.C. Simmonds. When he returned Molloy had gone. P.C. Simmonds, seeing that Cole, who was in the house, looked bulky, asked him what he had under his tunic. He made no reply, and was taken into custody. Later witness accompanied P.C. Simmonds to the True Briton Inn and pointed Molloy out among a number of soldiers who were at the bar.

Mr. George Fagg, a fisherman, of 7, Dover Street, said he was in the Harbour with his boat about 6.15 a.m. that morning, and found one of the boots produced in the sand. He washed it out and took it to the police station.

P.C. Simmonds corroborated the evidence given by Mr. Whittingstall, and said he found one of the boots under Cole`s tunic. Molloy, when charged, said “Fourteen days will do me good. It will be better than going to the front”.

Molloy and Cole were sentenced to one month`s imprisonment with hard labour. The Chairman said they had disgraced the uniform they were wearing.

The Chairman told Mr. Bainbridge that he ought not to leave his boots in a position where it was easy to steal them. It was a great temptation.