True Briton (1) 1910 - 1914

Folkestone Express 4-6-1910

Wednesday, June 1^st: Before Mr. W.G. Herbert, Lieut. Col. Hamilton, Major Leggett, and Messrs. J. Stainer, G.I. Swoffer, and G. Boyd.

An old offender, named Tappenden, pleaded Guilty to being drunk and disorderly.

P.C. Styles said the previous afternoon he was called to the True Briton Hotel, Harbour Street, to eject the prisoner, who was drunk. He went outside, but afterwards re-entered the premises. Witness told him he should report him. On going outside, prisoner behaved in a disorderly manner, which caused a number of people to assemble, and he took him into custody.

The Chief Constable said there were five previous convictions for drunkenness, the last one being in September last year.

Fined 10s. and 4s. 6d. costs, Tappenden being given until Saturday to pay.

Folkestone Herald 4-6-1910

 

Wednesday, June 1^st: Before Mr. W.G. Herbert, Lieut. Colonel Hamilton, Major Leggett, and Messrs. J. Stainer, G.I. Swoffer, and G. Boyd.

John Tappenden was charged with being drunk and disorderly in Harbour Street on the previous day.

P.C. Styles said that he was called to the True Briton Hotel, in Harbour Street, to eject prisoner, who was drunk, and refused to leave the premises. He persuaded Tappenden to leave, but a few minutes afterwards he went back. Coming out, he began to be very disorderly, and caused a crowd to collect. Witness took him into custody.

The Chief Constable said there were five previous convictions against accused for drunkenness, the last of which was in September, 1909.

Fined 10s. and 4s. 6d. costs, and allowed until Saturday to pay.

Folkestone Express 30-7-1910

Saturday, July 23^rd: Before Messrs. W.G. Herbert, J. Stainer, G.I. Swoffer, R.J. Linton, and G. Boyd, and Lieut. Col. Hamilton.

The licence of the True Briton Hotel was temporarily transferred from Mr. Carter to Mr. Hopkins.

Folkestone Herald 30-7-1910

Saturday, July 23^rd: Before Mr. W.G. Herbert, Lieut. Col. Hamilton, Messrs. R.J. Linton, G. Boyd, J. Stainer, and G.I. Swoffer.

The licence of the True Briton was temporarily transferred from Mr. Carter to Mr. Hopkins.

Folkestone Express 27-8-1910

Local News

On Wednesday morning the licence of the True Briton Hotel, Harbour Street, was temporarily transferred from Mr. Carter to Mr. Hopkins.

Folkestone Daily News 30-11-1910

Wednesday, November 30^th: Before Messrs. Herbert, Stainer, Leggett, Fynmore, and Linton.

Plans for the alteration of the True Briton were submitted.

Folkestone Express 3-12-1910

Wednesday, November 30^th: Before Mr. W.G. Herbert, Lieut. Colonel Fynmore, Major Leggett, and J. Stainer and R.J. Linton Esqs.

Plans were submitted for proposed alterations to the bars of the True Briton Hotel, and the Magistrates approved of them, subject to certain amendments.

Folkestone Herald 3-12-1910

Wednesday, November 30^th: Before Mr. W.G. Herbert, Major Leggett, Lieut. Col. Fynmore, and Messrs. R.J. Linton and J. Stainer.

Mr. W. Hopkins, landlord of the True Briton Hotel, Harbour Street, applied for sanction to a slight alteration to his premises.

With a slight alteration, the plans submitted were passed.

Folkestone Daily News 18-5-1911

Tuesday, May 16^th: Before Messrs. Hamilton, Stainer, Linton, and Leggett.

James Patrick Eugene Reilly was charged with being drunk and disorderly. He said he was drunk, but had doubts as to whether he was disorderly.

P.C. Ashby proved the case, and said prisoner would not go away, but went to the True Briton, where they refused to serve him.

Fined 14s. 6d., including costs, and allowed `til Friday to pay.

 

Folkestone Express 20-5-1911

Tuesday, May 16^th: Before Lieut. Colonel Hamilton, Major Leggett, and J. Stainer and R.J. Linton Esqs.

James Patrick Eugene O`Reilly was charged with being drunk and disorderly. Prisoner said he was drunk, but he did not think he was disorderly.

P.C. Ashby said at about 2 p.m. the previous day he was in Harbour Street when he saw Reilly very drunk. He was shouting and swearing so he (witness) requested him to desist and go away. He refused to do so, but followed him. Witness again cautioned him, and the prisoner went into the True Briton public house, where he was refused drink. He then took him into custody.

The Chief Constable said the prisoner was a local man, and had five convictions against him for drunkenness, the last being two years ago.

The Magistrates fined the prisoner 10s. and 4s. 6d. costs, or in default 14 days` hard labour, but he was allowed until Friday evening for payment.

Folkestone Daily News 23-7-1912

Tuesday, July 23^rd: Before Messrs. Vaughan, Fynmore, Owen and Giles.

The licence of the True Briton was transferred from Mr. Hopkins to Mr. Willis (sic).

Folkestone Express 27-7-1912

Tuesday, July 23^rd: Before Alderman Vaughan, Lieut. Col. Fynmore, J.J. Giles Esq., and Colonel Owen.

The licence of the True Briton Hotel was temporarily transferred to Mr. Herbert Edward Buckland.

Folkestone Herald 24-8-1912

Wednesday, August 21^st: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Councillor C. Jenner, and Col. G.P. Owen.

The licence of the True Briton Hotel was transferred from Mr. W. Hopkins to Mr. Herbert E. Butler (sic).

Folkestone Daily News 31-12-1912

Tuesday, December 31^st: Before Messrs. Herbert, Swoffer, Boyd, Linton, Stainer, Leggett, Harrison, and Stace.

An application for the transfer of the licence of the True Briton from the present occupier, who is giving up through ill health, was granted for a fortnight.

Note: Date is at variance with More Bastions.

Folkestone Express 4-1-1913

Tuesday, December 31^st: Before W.G. Herbert, J. Stainer, G.I. Swoffer, R.J. Linton, G. Boyd, W.J. Harrison and A. Stace Esqs., and Major Leggett.

The licence of the True Briton, Harbour Street, was temporarily transferred from Mr. H. Buckland, who had to leave owing to ill-health, to Mr. E.W. James.

Note: Date is at variance with More Bastions.

 

Folkestone Herald 4-1-1913

Tuesday, December 31st: Before Mr. W.G. Herbert, Mr. J. Stainer, Mr. G.I. Swoffer, Major Leggett, Mr. R.J. Linton, Mr. G. Boyd, Councillor W.J. Harrison and Councillor A. Stace.Application was made for the transfer of the licence of the True Briton, Harbour Street, from Mr. Herbert Edwin Buckland to Mr. Edward William James. The tenant stated that he was applying for the transfer in consequence of ill health. The temporary transfer was granted.Note: Date is at variance with More Bastions.

Folkestone Express 18-1-1913

Local News

At the Police Court on Wednesday the following licence was transferred: The True Briton, from Mr. H. Buckland to Mr. E.W. James.

Folkestone Herald 18-1-1913

Local News

At a special transfer sessions of the Folkestone Borough Bench, before Mr. E.T. Ward, Mr. W.G. Herbert, Lieut. Colonel Fynmore, Mr. G.I. Swoffer, Major G.E. Leggett, Mr. R.J. Linton, and Mr. G. Boyd, the llicence of the True Briton was transferred from Mr. H. Buckland to Mr. Edward W. James. Mr. Buckland, it was stated, was giving up the licence as his doctor advised him to leave the town.

Folkestone Daily News 10-10-1913

 

Friday, October 10^th: Before Messrs. Herbert, Linton, Stainer, Swoffer, Harrison, Stace, Morrison, and Boyd.

 

John Tappenden pleaded Not Guilty to a summons charging him with being drunk on licensed premises (i.e. the True Briton Hotel).

 

Sergt. Sales and P.C. Fox gave evidence for the prosecution.

 

It transpired that the landlord of the house said he had refused to serve defendant three times, and had requested him to leave the premises. The landlord had admitted to the sergeant that defendant was drunk.

 

Defendant said he could always drink about 28 pints before he was drunk, and on this occasion he had only had three or four pints.

 

Twelve previous convictions were put in

 

Fined 5s. and 10s. costs.

Folkestone Herald 11-10-1913

Friday, October 10th: Before Mr. W.G. Herbert, Mr. J. Stainer, Mr. G.I. Swoffer, Mr. R.J. Linton, Mr. G. Boyd, Councillor W.J. Harrison, Mr. E.T. Morrison, and Councillor A. Stace.
John Tappenden was summoned for being drunk on licensed premises.

P.C. Sales deposed that at about 8.45 p.m. on the 4th inst. he was in Harbour Street, where he saw the defendant in the bar of the True Briton. By his appearance witness formed the opinion that Tappenden was drunk. He went up to defendant, and said “What are you doing here, Tappenden? You are drunk”. Witness then drew the landlord`s attention to Tappenden`s condition, and he replied “Yes. I refused to serve him three times, and asked him to leave the premises, but he refused to leave the house”. Witness then advised defendant to leave, and told him he would report him for being drunk on licensed premises. He replied “I can`t be drunk, Sergeant. I can`t get any beer”. He then left the house.
Defendant: You say I am always drunk; I must have been born drunk. You watch me like a cat watching a mouse.

P.C. Fox corroborated P.S. Sales`s evidence.

Defendant maintained that he could always drunk eight and twenty pints before he considered himself drunk.

The Chief Constable said there were nine conviction for drunkenness, the last being in June of this year.

Fined 5s. and 10s. costs.

The Chairman said that the Bench were strongly of opinion that the landlord should have taken the proper steps himself to have had the accused ejected after having refused to serve him three times, or the police should not have been called in. He (the landlord) did not do his proper duty.

Folkestone Express 18-10-1913

Friday, October 10^th: Before W.G. Herbert, J. Stainer, G.I. Swoffer, R.J. Linton, G. Boyd, J. Harrison, E.T. Morrison, and A. Stace Esqs.

John Tappenden, a labouring man, was charged with being drunk on licensed premises at the True Briton. He pleaded Not Guilty.

P.S. Sales said about 8.45 p.m. on the 4^th inst. he was in Harbour Street, when he saw the defendant in the bar of the True Briton, Harbour Street. By his appearance he formed the opinion that the defendant was drunk. He said to Tappenden “What are you doing in here when you are drunk?” He replied “I have had no beer, sergeant. They won`t serve me”. He (witness) said to the landlord, who was behind the bar “You see this man`s condition, landlord. He is drunk”. The landlord replied “Yes, I have refused to serve him three times, and asked him to leave the premises, but he would not go”. He (witness) advised the defendant to leave, and at the same time told him he should report him for being drunk on licensed premises. He replied “I cannot be drunk, Sergeant, for I cannot get any beer”. He then left the house. Defendant`s whole appearance showed that he was drunk. He also smelt very strongly of drink.

Defendant (to witness): You always say I am drunk. Always drunk; born drunk. They follow me about like a cat watching a mouse.

P.C. Fox, in corroborating P.S. Sales, said the defendant was standing in the house in a reeling condition.

Defendant said he could not be drunk for he had had only about three drinks. He could always drink eight-and-twenty pints before he considered himself drunk.

The Chief Constable (Mr. Reeve) said there were twelve convictions against the defendant, nine for drunkenness, the last being in June of that year.

The Chairman said the defendant would be fined 5/- and 10/- costs. With regard to the landlord, the Magistrates considered that he should have ejected the defendant or sent for the police when he refused to go.

Folkestone Daily News 3-3-1914

Local News

Great consternation was caused this (Tuesday) morning at the Police Court when three licensed victuallers were summoned for selling cigarettes between 6 and 7 on a Wednesday evening.

The Bench consisted of Alderman Vaughan, Messrs. Giles, Fynmore, Jenner, Owen, and Boyd.

The defendants were Charles Henry Barker, John William Summerfield, Edward William James, and Julia Willson. Mr. Holme appeared for the defence, and the Town clerk prosecuted.

It appeared from the evidence that the defendants had been asked to supply these goods, and were under the impression that they were exempt.

As everyone knows, the legislature never included licensed victuallers in the Act, and Folkestone would never have heard of this prosecution but for the action of a few bona fide tobacco dealers, who petitioned the Corporation to ask the Home Office.

The case of Mr. Summerfield was taken first. Mr. Holme, for the defendant, pleaded Not Guilty.

The Town Clerk, in opening the case, said the summons was issued under the Shops Act, 1912, and this was the first case taken under the Act. He proceeded to deal with the provisions of the Act, and the adoption of the Order by the local authority in respect to tobacconists.

Harold Summerfield, and assistant in the Sanitary Inspector`s Office, said on February 18<sup>th</sup> he visited the Royal Standard, Canterbury Road, at 6.37 p.m. He entered the bar parlour and asked the assistant for a packet of shag tobacco. At first the assistant refused to serve him, and said “It is Wednesday afternoon, and I cannot serve you”. Witness said “Thank you”, and walked towards the door. The assistant called him back, and said “I`ll oblige you this time. You must not tell anyone as we should be getting into trouble”. He was served and paid 4d. for the tobacco.

Cross-examined by Mr. Holmes: Witness did not know whether this public house had any different features as regards the sale of tobacco to any other house. So far as witness was concerned, it was a mere casual sale.

Mr. Holmes: A register is kept under the Act?

Witness: Yes.

Mr. Holme: Is the Royal Standard in the register?

The Town Clerk: No.

Mr. Holmes: Are any public houses in the register?

The Town Clerk: A few; the large ones.

Mr. Holmes: There is a notice in the Act which requires that every person should be served with a notice.

The Town Clerk: I do not think the question should be put.

Mr. Holme: Very well, I`ll get it from defendant that no such notice was served.

The Town Clerk combatted the right to put the question and Mr. Holme said for the present he would not press it.

The Town clerk: That closes my case.

Mr. Holme, opening the defence, dealt with the interpretation of the Act, which had to be construed as an Act, which had to be considered as the exception and not within the rule. He pointed out that if the Act was to be seriously considered, he would take the early closing of fruit shops. Why, absurd as the proposition was, it would equally apply to the Metropole Hotel, where they could not supply vegetables and dessert on Wednesday afternoons and evenings. Dealing with a circular from Mr. McKenna, the Home Secretary, which pointed out that distinction could be made between regular sale and casual sale, he said the prosecution had admitted that exceptions had to be made, and having made exceptions and got within the walls of the Act they must adopt a common-sense point of view. The Act exempted licensed victuallers, unless brought in.

The Town Clerk: Not only licensed victuallers, but other people.

Mr. Holme: Yes, but licensed victuallers are included, and I am here today for the licensed victuallers.

The Town clerk: I submit that it is not within the power of the Bench to go into anything subsequent to the Act. The section says that the Order is an Act of Parliament.

Mr. Holme: If the case goes to the High Court it is essential to get out all the points. I contend that the Order was never intended to include my clients.

Mr. Andrew advised the Bench to accept the Town clerk`s objection.

Mr. Holme: May I put my point? Can anything be more unfair than not to consult the licensed victuallers, and then making an Order including them in it? I do ask the Bench to consider the circumstances under which the Order was made. The scheme of the Order says that before you bring in an exempted class you must consult them. Voting papers must be sent out, or an an alternative a petition from two thirds of the people affected. The licensed victuallers were neither asked to vote, consulted, or asked to sign. Proceeding, he seriously suggested that if the local authority intended to make the Order, in all common sense the first thing that authority should have done was consult those who they brought within the Order.

The Town Clerk: Then not being a substantial part of the business, you would not be entitled to vote.

Mr. A.J. Hart, secretary to the Licensed Victuallers` Association, said he had inspected the register at the Town Clerk`s office, and did not find the name of a licensed victualler.

By Mr. Andrew: He did not look for the names of hotel keepers, as that did not interest him.

Mr. Holme, the Town clerk, and Mr. Rutley Mowll discussed the legal position with Mr. Andrew.

The Bench retired, and on returning said they considered the case proved, but would not inflict any penalty on payment of costs.

The other cases were withdrawn.

Folkestone Express 7-3-1914

Local News

On Tuesday a most important point with regard to the sale of tobacco by licensed victuallers on the weekly half holiday occupied the attention of the Folkestone Magistrates for close upon two hours and a half. The Magistrates consisted of Colonel Fynmore, G. Boyd and J.J. Giles Esqs., and Col. Owen, and three licensed victuallers had been summoned.

The first case held was that of John William Summerfield, the licensee of the Royal Standard, and he had been summoned for contravening Section 4 of the Shops Act by selling tobacco on Wednesday, February 18^th, at 6.37 p.m., that being the weekly half holiday fixed by the Town Council. Defendant pleaded Not uilty. Mr. A.F. Kidson (the Town Clerk) prosecuted, and Mr. Randle F. Holme, of London, defended.

Mr. Kidson, in opening the case, said that was the first summons to come before the Bench under that particular Act. He, therefore, thought he ought to refer the Magistrates to the various Sections bearing on the question. He then read Section 4 of the Act, which dealt with the closing of shops on one half day of the week. He then pointed out that the schedule exempted various trades, amongst which were the tobacconists. He explained that sub-section 6 provided that the local authority might by Order extend the provisions of the Act to the shops of any class exempted if they were satisfied that at least two thirds of the occupiers of the class of shop approved of the Order. The Council did make an Order under that provision with regard to tobacconists, and it was confirmed by the Home Secretary. By sub-section 7 of Section 4 it was provided that in case of any contravention or failure to comply with any of the provisions, the occupier of the shop would be guilty of an offence, and would be liable to a fine, for the first offence, not exceeding £1. That was the first case which had come before the Bench. By Section 6, sub-section 3, as soon as the Secretary of State had confirmed any Order that Order became final, and had the effect of an Act of Parliament. Complaint was received that licensed victuallers were infringing that Order, therefore it became necessary for the Inspector to make inquiry. They would hear what occurred from the evidence. To assist the Bench he would like to read a circular letter sent out by him, as follows: Shops Act, 1912. I enclose copy of an Order which has been made extending the provisions of Section 4 of the Shops Act, 1912, to certain shops. This Order is now in force, and must be complied with by the occupiers of the classes of shops therein referred to. With respect to the sale of tobacco, etc., at places licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquors and other refreshment places, the Home Secretary has made the following statement, and it is the intention of the Town Council to act in accordance with such statement.

Copy statement: “I am to add, for the Council`s information, that the Secretary of State is advised that licensed houses in which a retail trade in tobacco is regularly carried on are subject to the provisions of the Order, but that the Order would not apply to the occasional sale of tobacco in hotels and inns in connection with meals, e.g. the supply of customers with cigars and cigarettes after dinner.” A copy of that letter was sent to the defendant.

Mr. Kidson then gave evidence of the appointment of Mr. J. Pearson, the Sanitory Inspector, as Inspector under the Shops Act, 1912, for the purpose of enforcing the provisions of the Act.

Harold Summerfield, assistant to the Sanitory Inspector, said he visited the Royal Standard public house at 6.37 on the 18^th February, which was a Wednesday, and the half holiday. He entered the bottle and jug department, and asked the assistant behind the bar for an ounce of shag tobacco. The man replied “It is Wednesday afternoon. I cannot serve you”. He (witness) replied “Thank you”, and walked towards the door. The man then called him back again, and said he would oblige him that time, and that he must not tell anyone, or he would get him into trouble. The man served him with an ounce of shag tobacco, and he (witness) paid 4d. for it. He did not see any notice whatever in the bar with reference to the Shops Act.

Cross-examined by Mr. Holme, witness said the Royal Standard was an ordinary public house. He did not think they pushed the sale of tobacco more than any ordinary public house did. There was no separate counter for the sale of tobacco, So far as he knew it was a casual sale of tobacco carried on at the house.

Mr. Holme, at this stage, asked for the register which had to be kept under the Shops Act, and when it was produced, he requested him to say whether the Royal Standard was to be found in the register.

Mr. Kidson said he admitted the Royal Standard was not entered in it. He believed there were a few public houses mentioned in it, but only some of the large ones.

Mr. Holme asked the witness if he knew whether the notice calling upon the defendant to say which was his principal trade had been served upon him.

Mr. Kidson argued that that was not a proper question to put. The point was, it seemed to him, had that Order and the Act authorising the Order been contravened?

Mr. Holme agreed to leave the matter until later. He then addressed the Magistrates on behalf of the defence, and in the course of his remarks he said that was a very important case. The matter was fairly simple. They had before them the words of the Act and the Order, which they had to construe. There were two possible ways of construing the words. Conceivably, they might say they meant they forbade in the district at the time in question the sale of tobacco without any exception whatever. If they were construed in that way, it would have a far reaching effect, not only on the public houses, but all the fine hotels in the district, including the Grand, the Pavilion, and the Metropole. They would not be able to call for a cigar or cigarette after dinner in that case. If the Order was really carried out, they would not be able to have any game or vegetable for dinner at the Metropole or any other hotel. That would be absurd, and the prosecution would agree that would be absurd. The circular of the Home Secretary was, he contended, an admission that some exception was to be allowed to that general rule. By that circular a breach was made in the walls of the Act. They could not apply those words without some exception. The only exception the Home Secretary had allowed was if a cigar or cigarette was sold in connection with a meal. Not once in the regulations was the word “meal” used, and, therefore, that was a pure invention of the Home Secretary. It would be a difficult problem to say what a meal was. He suggested that the word “meal” could not be read into the Act. He agreed the circular was founded on common sense. They had to look deeper than that for a principle.

At this stage Mr. Holmes read several answers to questions put to the Home Secretary in the House of Commons, and arguing on those answers he said the Magistrates really had to consider in that case whether that was a casual sale or was a regular trade or business carried on at the Royal Standard. The true principle they had to apply was whether that sale was casual and ancillary to what was going on in the establishment, or was it a sale in connection with the trade that was going on in the house. The Royal Standard had not developed into a miniature shop for the sale of tobacco. He was going to prove by the defendant that he had never sold any tobacco or cigarettes to a person except that it was a casual sale, and, therefore, it did not come within the words of the Act. It was an abuse of language to call the Royal Standard a shop for the sale of tobacco. That was his submission on the main point.

Mr. Kidson had mentioned Section 4 of the Act, which provided for the half holiday closing. Then Section 6 exempted licensed victuallers unless they were brought in by a special Order. Before an exempted trade could be included, certain formalities had to be gone through. By a sub-section and the regulations there had to be a two thirds majority of the shops before the trade could be brought in. A register was also to be prepared.

Mr. Kidson said it was not the Magistrates` duty to go into anything prior to the making of the Order.

Mr. Holme said he was not going to say the order was bad, but he wanted to try to find out whether the prosecution meant to bring in his client. Did the Order include his client? If he could show that the prosecution, when they made the Order, had no intention of brining in his client, surely that was relevant to the matter.

A good deal of argument ensued on this point, and Mr. Holmes said he could not imagine anything more unfair than that an Order should be made without consulting all the people whom it could affect.

The Magistrates` Clerk eventually said that Mr. Holme might raise the point should the question of inflicting a penalty arise.

Mr. Holme said he admitted for the sake of argument the Order was good, nevertheless he did ask the Bench to take into consideration the circumstances under which it was made. Proceeding, he said no voting paper was sent to his client. He admitted that a notice was published asking tradesmen to go to the Town Clerk`s office to see if they were on the register. He wished to point out there was a provision in the Act by which they might have got out of that dilemma. It was that sub-section which dealt with the case of a mixed trade. He submitted, however, that that was not a mixed trade, but that a publican`s business was one trade, catering for the public. In the case of a mixed trade the Council had to inquire from the occupier which he considered to be his principal trade.

Defendant, giving evidence, said he had not a separate counter for the sale of tobacco, and he made no special effort to push tobacco. If tobacco was sold to the Inspector in that case, it was the one solitary exception that he had sold tobacco to a man who had not purchased something else. His tobacco trade was about 5 percent of his trade. He had had no notice served on him requiring him to say what he considered to be his principal trade, and no voting paper was sent to him.

The Magistrates` Clerk held Mr. Holme was not entitled to put questions on that point.

Mr. Summerfield said he did not sign any application for the Order to be made.

Cross-examined, he said he would not call his tobacco trade his principal trade.

Mr. Kidson: Therefore you would not be entitled to have your name entered on the register.

Mr. A. Hart gave evidence as to going to the Town Clerk`s office and examining the register. He could not find the name of the Royal Standard entered in it, nor any other licensed house.

The case of Charles Henry Barker, the licensee of the Raglan, was next dealt with. Mr. Rutley Mowll defended, and pleaded Not Guilty.

Mr. Kidson put in the Order made by the Home Secretary, and produced the appointment of the Inspector of Nuisances as the Inspector. In reply to Mr. Mowll, he said Mr. Barker`s name was not entered in the register. The Council did not ascertain by vote whether the defendant or other licensed victuallers wished to come under the Act. The petition asking for the Order was received from the tobacconists.

Harry Summerfield said he visited the defendant`s premises at 6.30 p.m. on Wednesday, February 18^th, and asked for a 2d. cigar. He was served with it, and paid 2d. for it.

Cross-examined, witness said he did not ask for any refreshment at the same time.

Mr. Mowll addressed the Magistrates at length on the matter. He urged that his client had committed no offence, as it was an occasional, casual sale. He pointed out also that bread and cheese, or even a biscuit, would be regarded as a meal, and he held that a man would be able to purchase a cigar or cigarette. According to the Home Secretary, that was a casual and occasional sale, and not within the meaning of the Act. It would be very hard indeed to apply the Order to such a case as that. In his opinion it was a condition precedent to the making of that Order that the Town Council should first have been satisfied that the occupiers of at least two thirds of the shops of that class should approve of the Order. If his client was one of that class to be prosecuted, then he was also one of the class who had the right to vote for the Order. In other words, the Corporation could not fasten them with the responsibility and at the same time deny to them the privileges of the section. He contended that there was no provision in the Act which said that the Order for the weekly half holiday should have the operation of the Act of Parliament. It was only by closing order that might have the effect of an Act; the weekly half holiday Order did not have that effect, for they had to be made, and could be revoked. In conclusion, he suggested that instead of coming to a decision that day, they should postpone that matter for a short time, and give the licensed victuallers the opportunity of approaching the Corporation and putting before them their views, and requesting that they might be pleased to revoke the Order. He thought the Council would agree to the revocation of the Order, for it would be saving the trouble of deciding a point of law. They must not forget that a conviction was a serious objection to a licensee. It seemed to him the best course would be to let the licensed victuallers approach the Corporation.

Mr. Kidson said if there was an adjournment there ought to be an undertaking given that there would be no sales in the meantime. There was no desire on the part of the Council to be unfair with the licensed victuallers. If the latter did approach them, he was certain they would consider the matter.

Mr. Holme said for his client he would prefer to have a definite decision.

The Bench retired, and on their return the Chairman said the Bench were unanimously satisfied that the case had been proved, but inasmuch as the parties had suggested a re-consideration by the Council of the position of licensed victuallers under the Act, they refrained from imposing a penalty, and they dismissed the cases against Mr. Summerfield and Mr. Barker, on payment of the costs, 8/6.

Mr. Holme asked the Clerk if he would state a case.

The Clerk said there was no conviction.

Mr. Holme said that was very unfortunate. Nothing could be more inconvenient for his client, for they were no nearer getting an authoritative decision from the High Court.

The Clerk said if there had been a conviction he would not have stated a case. He would have left it to the defendants to apply for a mandamus.

Summonses against Mr. E.W. James, another licensed victualler, and Mrs. Julia Wilson, a shopkeeper, were withdrawn.

Folkestone Herald 7-3-1914

Local News

The question of the right of publicans to sell tobacco on Wednesday afternoon (early closing day), was discussed at the Folkestone Police Court on Tuesday, four licence holders having been summoned for a breach of the Shops Act by selling tobacco on the 18^th February after 1 p.m.

The Magistrates were Colonel R.J. Fynmore, Mr. G. Boyd and J.J. Giles, and Colonel G.P. Owen.

The case against John Wm. Summerfield, of the Royal Standard, for selling tobacco at 6.30 p.m. on the 18^th February was first heard. The Town Clerk (Mr. A.F. Kidson) prosecuted, and Mr. Randle F. Holme appeared for the defendant.

The Town Clerk said this was the first summons that had come before them under that particular Act, and he thought perhaps he should refer them to the various sections bearing upon the question. Mr. Kidson then went into many details concerning various sections of the Act. He mentioned that tobacconists were under one section exempt from the Act, but added that another section provided for this particular matter, and the local authority had power, if satisfied that they had at least two thirds majority of tobacconists to include them. The Council did make an Order under that provision with regard to tobacconists, which was confirmed by the Home Secretary. The Order provided “That the provisions of Section 4 of the Act, with respect to the closing of shops for the serving of customers in the afternoon of one weekday in every week, are hereby extended to the undermentioned shops in the urban district of Folkestone, to all shops except those in the Morehall district, and in High Street, Sandgate, wherein is carried on the trade or business of the sale of tobacco or smokers` requisites”. That Order was confirmed by the Home Secretary. In referring to many legal points in the case, Mr. Kidson alluded to Section 6, sub-section 3, which provided “As soon as the Secretary of State has confirmed any Order, the Order will become final and have the effect of an Act of Parliament”. A complaint was received that licensed victuallers were infringing this Order. Therefore it became necessary to make inquiry. Inquiry was made, and the facts in this case were very simple, and he presumed could not be disputed. He thought it was hardly necessary to draw their attention to the fact that the Order provided that the day of the half holiday should be Wednesday for all the shops. They knew that this was a new Act of Parliament, and the Order was newer still. The Magistrates might like to know what steps had been taken to make known Orders and Acts of Parliament of the kind. If it would be of any assistance, he would explain what had been done.

The Chairman expressed the wish of the Bench to hear the particulars.

The Town Clerk then produced a circular (which, he said, was sent out to the defendant amongst others), in which he stated that he enclosed a copy of the Order which had been made extending the provisions of section 4 of the Shops Act, 1912, to certain shops, including tobacconists. Next Mr. Kidson touched upon a statement made by Mr. McKenna, in which he said he was to add, for the Council`s information, that the Secretary of State was advised that licensed houses in which the retail trade of tobacco was regularly carried on, were subject to the provisions of the Order, but did not apply to the casual sale of tobacco at hotels and inns in connection with meals and the supply of customers with cigars and cigarettes after dinner.

Mr. Holme pointed out that the opinion of the Home Secretary was not binding on the Bench.

The Town Clerk said it was an intimation of the view he would like the authorities to take.

Mr. Holme: It is an admission by the prosecution.

Continuing, Mr. Kidson said that Mr. Pearson was appointed the Inspector under the Act for the purpose of enforcing the provisions of the Act.

Harold Summerfield, an assistant in the Sanitary Inspector`s office, stated that he visited the Royal Standard, Canterbury Road, on the 18^th February, a Wednesday, at 6.37 p.m. He entered the premises by the door at the bottom of Bridge Street, and asked the assistant for an ounce of shag tobacco. There was a small pigeon hole where customers were served. The assistant refused to serve him at first, saying it was Wednesday afternoon. Witness said “Thank you”, and walked towards the door. The assistant then called him back, and this time served him, saying “I will oblige you this time,, but you must not tell anyone, or we shall get into trouble”. The assistant then served him, and witness paid him 4d. Witness saw no notice in reference to the Shops Act.

Mr. Holme said there was no dispute as to the facts. However, the case was not an important case. Mr. Kidson said it was the first case in the Borough; he (Mr. Holme) believed it was the first case anywhere.

Cross-examined by Mr. Holme, witness stated that the Royal Standard was an ordinary public house, and he did not know that it made any special effort to push the sale of tobacco any more than other public houses.

Mr. Holme pointed out that in hotels there were cabinets and counters for the sale of tobacco, and, turning to witness, asked “There was nothing of the kind here. Was there, in fact, any tobacco on the bars?”

Witness: I saw none.

Was anyone else buying tobacco when you were there? – Not in that department.

Did you see anyone else buy tobacco? – No.

Had you been in the house before? – No.

As far as your knowledge goes, it was the only case of an ounce of tobacco being sold? – Yes.

So far as you know, it was merely a casual sale? – Yes.

Mr. Holme pointed out that, under the Act, a register was to be kept, and in the register there were set out the different classes of shops affected. He asked witness to find the Royal Standard in the register.

Mr. Kidson said the Royal Standard was not in the register.

Mr. Holme asked if any public house was in the register.

Mr. Kidson: There are a few; some of the large ones.

Mr. Holme remarked that for some perfectly unexplained reason the Royal Standard was not in. No doubt there was a very good reason. Continuing, he asked witness if he could tell him if there was a provision under the Act by which a local authority might serve a notice on any shop occupier requiring him to say which he considered his principal trade, and could the witness tell him if that notice was served on the occupier of the Royal Standard?

Mr. Kidson submitted that it was not a proper question. It did not matter what notice was served. That was not the question for their consideration at all. The point was whether the Order was contravened.

Mr. Holme said the matter to be considered was fairly simple. They had the words of the Act and the Order, which they had to construe. It might fairly be said that the question was “That in the district and at the time in question no shop might be kept open for the sale of tobacco”. Those were the words they had to construe. There were two possible ways of construing those words. They might say that in the district and at the time in question it forbade the sale of tobacco without any exception whatsoever. That was one way of construing them, but he pointed out how ver far-reaching would be their decision if that course was adopted. It would affect all public houses and all hotels in the district. It would include the Metropole and the Grand. They would not be able to call for a cigar or cigarette, not even after dinner. And it went even further than that. Mr. Kidson did not read the Order with regard to prohibiting shops being open for the sale of poultry, game, of perishable articles, fruit, vegetables and flowers. Under the Act it enabled him to include confectionery. If the Order applied at the Metropole, they would be able to sell no game; they would have no game at dinner on Wednesday afternoons, no vegetables, no fruit, no dessert. If they construed the words strictly, that was the result, and it would be absurd. He need not remind them that they had to construe the Act, and not the Home Secretary`s circular. The circular was to the effect that some exception had to be made, and once they got inside and allowed an exception this case came within the exception and not within the rule. He (Mr. Holme) knew the Act from beginning to end, and not in one place did the word “meal” occur. It was a pure invention of the Home Secretary. What was a meal? There was not only the difficulty of the definition of the word “meal”, but there was also the question of how long after could a man be served. Some people smoked immediately, some hours afterwards. He agreed that the circular was founded on common sense, but he argued that Mr. McKenna meant that “a meal” was to be simply alluded to as an example, as a sort of exception, and they had to look deeper for the principle. He read Mr. McKenna`s answer in the House of Commons, in which Mr. McKenna said he did not think the casual sales of cigars or cigarettes in hotels and restaurants for consumption on the premises, as for example, after dinner, or other meal, would amount to the carrying on of a retail trade so as to prevent such sales on the day of the half-holiday. Therefore he argued they had to consider, was it a casual and ancillary sale, or was it really the sale of tobacco or a regular trade going on in the same house? He quoted an extract from a paper called “Tobacco”, in which it was stated “Licensed victuallers are developing into miniature tobacco shops”. Had the Royal Standard developed into that? There was no counter, no separate place where cigars or tobacco were exposed for sale. Mr. Holme next referred to the steps necessary to be taken in the case of those wishing to be brought under the Order. A voting paper was to be sent out to each one, and a register of all the different shops affected was started. When one found that the Royal Standard was not in the register one wondered why they were brought to the Court.

Mr. Kidson asked the decision of the Magistrates as to the power to go into anything prior to the making of the Order. He suggested it was not within their power to do so.

After a considerable amount of legal argument Mr. Holme said he imagined nothing was more unfair than that the Order should have been made without the licensed victuallers being consulted. The licensed victuallers were not consulted, and he maintained that they were not in the Order at all. The scheme of the Act said that before they made an Order they must consult them in one of two ways. After describing the mode of procedure, he said no licensed victualler, so far as he knew, had received a voting paper. And why? Because he was not on the register. The alternative plan was to have an application signed by two thirds of the people affected. In this case no application was signed by the licensed victuallers, and certainly not by the Royal Standard. Mr. Holme pointed out a section dealing with mixed trades, but held that in this case it was not a mixed trade. It was in the power of the local authority to serve a notice on a man asking him which was his principal trade. Could anyone call an ordinary public house a shop for the sale of tobacco? It might as well be argued that if he went into a public house for a box of matches to light a lamp that it was a shop for the sale of matches.

Mr. Summerfield, the defendant, stated that he was the licensee of the Royal Standard. There was no separate counter for tobacco. He made no special effort to push the sale of tobacco. The sale to the witness of the prosecution was a solitary exception. He had sold tobacco to men who had been having something else at the same time. It was a casual sale. The proportion that tobacco bore to the rest of his trade was about 5 percent. No notice was served upon him as to what he considered to be his principal trade. A paper was not sent to him asking whether he wished the Order to be put into force.

The Magistrates` Clerk said Mr. Holme was not entitled to put these questions.

Mr. Holme argued that if the case was going to the High Court they were material facts that the High Court should know.

Mr. Summerfield, continuing, said no notice or voting paper was served on him, and he did not send in any application for the Order to be made. He did not approve of the Order. He did not think any licensed victualler had sent in an application, and they did not approve of it.

In answer to the Town Clerk, Mr. Summerfield said he considered 5 percent of his trade a very small, and not a substantial part, of his trade.

Mr. Kidson: Therefore you would not have been entitled to vote.

Mr. Holme: That is a question of law.

Mr. Kidson argued that no injustice had been suffered by the licensed holders, because they were not entitled to vote, even if they had received notices.

Mr. Holme put another construction upon the case, to the effect that the whole sub-section depended on the notice being served first. He did not think Mr. Kidson had any application where any such notice was served.

Mr. Kidson said his point was that Mr. Summerfield had suffered no injustice, though he had not served him with the notice referred to under the sub-section. He quite agreed that the notice must be served, and Mr. Holme objected that it was not served, but even if the notice had been served Mr. Summerfield would not have been entitled to a vote.

Mr. Holme characterised the method as very extraordinary, and contended that the Corporation were absolutely outside their powers. They were bound to give these people a vote before they made the Order.

Mr. A.J. Hart, of the Bouverie Arms, said he had inspected the register and he did not fine the Royal Standard there, nor any other licensed victualler; There were no licensed victuallers in it at all. Tobacconists were in the register.

The Magistrates` Clerk: Was there any hotel proprietor?

Mr. Hart: I did not notice any.

Mr. Holme said that in hotels they had real counters, where they carried on the sale of tobacco, but in an ordinary public house they had nothing of the kind. It was for the Magistrates to say whether the Royal Standard was selling tobacco as a trade in itself, or whether the trade was merely casual or ancillary. The answer was obvious. There was no special trade. They were casual sales, and not a trade under the circumstances. If they did hold that licensed victuallers were within the scope of the Act, then the local authorities were in a tight dilemma in making the Order without consulting them.

Mr. Kidson submitted that Mr. Holme was wrong in his contentions. However, if he (Mr. Kidson) was wrong, the sooner it was put right the better for everyone concerned. It was almost impossible to get everyone within a class of trade who was entitled to vote to do so, but they did their best. They advertised according to the Act of Parliament, and they called attention to the Act that if anyone whose name was not in the register thought he should be on, he could find out by coming to the office, by making proper application for the same, and if in the opinion of the local authority he was entitled his name would be put on the register. They advertised in the local papers, and were only too wishful to get everyone on the register who felt he was entitled to be on. There was no intention to keep anyone off.

Mr. Holme suggested that another case should be heard before his case was decided, and this case was adopted.

Charles Henry Barker was summoned for a similar offence on the same day.

Mr. Rutley Mowll, who appeared for the defence, asked Mr. Kidson various questions, which were replied to under protest.

The Town Clerk said Mr. Mowll`s client was not on the register, and he did not ascertain by vote whether his client and other licensed victuallers wished to come under the Act. They were not included when ascertaining whether they got a majority of the shopkeepers of the class for the purpose of the Order.

Mr. Mowll: So they were entirely excluded.

Mr. Kidson pointed out that a bill was published in prominent parts of the town inviting those interested to see that their names were on the register.

Mr. Mowll asked whether the licensed victuallers were taken into consideration in arriving at whether they had a two thirds majority in favour of applying section 4 to the tobacconists` trade.

Mr. Kidson: No, because they were not on the register, and did not apply to be put on the register.

Mr. Summerfield, assistant in the Sanitary Inspector`s office, stated that on the 18^th February, at 6.30 p.m., he went into the public bar of the Raglan Hotel. He asked Mr. Barker for a twopenny cigar, and he was served with it. He saw no notice with regard to the Shops Act in the bar.

Mr. Mowll asked witness if he treated himself to a little refreshment at the same time.

Mr. Summerfield replied that he had nothing to drink. There were other customers there. He did not hear anyone else ask for a cigar while he was there. There were two others in the bar at the time. He simply went in, bought his cigar, and walked out.

Mr. Mowll: How did you like your cigar? – I have not tried one. (Laughter)

Mr. Mowll said he did not know whether it was necessary whether it was necessary to call evidence with regard to the lad having a drink, but he did not dispute the sale of the cigar. He proceeded to ask the Bench to note how the matter worked out according to the Home Secretary`s dictum, which, of course, was not a law. The Home Secretary agreed that a person going to the Metropole Hotel and having lunch was entitled to have a cigar. Strictly speaking, if the Order was properly enforced, he was not entitled to have it at all, but it was a casual sale, and therefore the Home Secretary said “It was a casual sale of a cigar”. If it was casual, why not in this case? This young man came into the bar and had a drink. Should not that sale be just as casual as the sale of a cigar in the Metropole, and therefore outside the Act? He saw no reason why one was outside the Act and the other within. A person who drove up to the Metropole and had his cigar after lunch committed no offence. The poor were just as much entitled to a cigar as the rich. The real difficulty arose because of the rather peculiar operation of those Orders. It was a casual sale, and he argued that a meal was not necessary to make it casual. If it was, look how absurd it would be? One man had a five course meal, one had a one course meal of biscuit and cheese, and perhaps another would not like the cheese, and would have a biscuit, or a glass of his clients` famous stout (laughter), or Wincarnis, or anything else. It would be hard indeed to apply such an Order to such a case as this. He said it was a condition precedent to the making of this Order that the Town Council should first be satisfied that the occupiers of two thirds of the shops of the class approved of the Order. They excluded the licensed victuallers in arriving at a decision. His point was this; that they could not have it both ways. If they were one of the classes to be prosecuted, then they were one of the classes who had the right to vote. The Corporation could not fasten them with the responsibility and at the same time deny them the privileges of the section. The Town Council, obviously motivated by the best motives – no-one questioned that – had not, in fact, taken reasonable steps to be satisfied that they had a two thirds majority, or if they had done so, then obviously they never intended to include public houses, because they had not been given an opportunity of having voted. If they included licensed victuallers, they had not a two thirds majority of the trade. They had been entirely ignored. They could not ignore people whom they held were responsible under the Act. Either they were responsible under the Act, or they were not responsible, in which case they were excluded and had no vote. In conclusion, he pointed out that the licensed victuallers were conducting a trade in which they were bound to keep open; they were under an obligation to the brewers to do so, and there was certainly no attempt on the part of the Corporation as a local authority to stop the sale of intoxicating liquors on the weekly half-holiday. It was almost impossible, if they worked it out, to say that a man was to sell behind the counter beer and whisky, lemonade and ginger beer, and could not sell at the same time a cigarette, or, as in his case, a cigar. His (Mr. Mowll`s) suggestion was this, and he did it on his own responsibility. That was a new Act. He could not help thinking that the local authority, when they made this Order, were under a misapprehension. Either they did not appreciate what the Order really was going to mean, or did not realise that licensed victuallers should be on the register and given an opportunity to vote. His suggestion was that instead of coming to a decision that day in deciding to convict or otherwise, they should postpone the matter for a short time, say three months, and give the licensed victuallers an opportunity of approaching the Corporation and requesting that they might be pleased to revoke the Order which they had made. He alluded to the powers to revoke the Order, and said he thought that if the matter was put before the Corporation in the light he had suggested they would agree to revoke the Order, and so they would be saved the necessity of coming to a decision on rather a difficult point of law. Then there remained the question of whether they convicted or not. A conviction was always an objection to a licensed victualler, and he maintained that it would be the best course to let the licensed victuallers approach the Corporation to say whether this Order, which was really rather absurd, could not be revoked, and thereby put an end to the whole thing.

Mr. Kidson, in reply, said that even had the licensed victuallers had notices sent, they would not have been entitled to vote. Continuing, he said that if the matter was sent to the Council he raised no objection. He would only say this, that if an adjournment were made, there should be no sales in the meantime. There was no desire on the part of the Corporation to be unfair to the licensed victuallers.

Mr. Holme said he would prefer that they should have a decision that day.

After the Magistrates had returned from a lengthy consideration of the matter, Col. Fynmore said the Bench were unanimously satisfied that the case was proved, but inasmuch as the parties suggested a reconsideration by the Council of the position of the licensed victuallers under the Act, they refrained from imposing a penalty, and dismissed both cases on payment of the costs (8s. 6d. in each case).

Mr. Holme said he begged to state a special case.

The Magistrates` Clerk pointed out that there was no conviction.

Mr. Holme expressed the opinion that it was very inconvenient. They would be no nearer getting an authoritative decision from the High Court.

The summonses against Mrs. Julia Willson and Mr. Edward Wm. James were withdrawn.

Folkestone Express 7-11-1914

Wednesday, November 4^th: Before J. Stainer, G.I. Swoffer and R.J. Linton Esqs.

William Woodrow, a private in the Royal Fusiliers, stationed at the Camp, was charged with stealing a pair of boots from outside Mr. Vickery`s shop the previous evening.

Alfred Edward May, manager for Mr. J. Vickery, boot dealer, of 27, Tontine Street, said the pair of boots (produced) were hung outside the front of the shop about nine o`clock. He saw them safe at five o`clock in the afternoon. At eight o`clock, when they were closing, he missed them. The boots were hung on a hook with the string twisted round three or four times.

Harry Monk said he was potman at the True Briton, Harbour Street. The previous evening, between eight and half past eight, the prisoner came into the bar with a pair of boots similar to those produced. He was carrying the boots openly in his hand, and offered them for sale to people in the bar. He asked 3/- for them at first, then 2/6 and 1/6. No-one would buy them, and the prisoner then went out, taking the boots with him.

P.C. Johnson said he was in Beach Street the previous evening about 8.30, when he saw the prisoner in the street, carrying the pair of boots produced under his arm. He stopped him and asked him where he had got the boots, and he replied “I bought them off a man for 2/- down the street”. He (witness) told him he was not satisfied with his statement, and should detain him for inquiries. He brought Woodrow to the police station, where he charged him with stealing the boots from some person unknown. He made no reply. That morning he made inquiries, and returned to the police station, and charged him with that offence. Prisoner replied “I bought them for 2/- off a civilian whom I did not know”. Prisoner, on Tuesday evening, was under the influence of drink, but was not drunk.

Prisoner elected to be tried by the Magistrates, and pleaded Not Guilty. He said he was very sorry to say that as he was passing through the street a man came up to him and asked him if he could help him. He (prisoner) was just going into a public house when the man, who appeared to be a very hard-working man, stopped him. He told him he was out of work. The man seemed very respectable, and he thought he was genuine. He told him he would help him, and asked him what he required done for him. The man told him he had a pair of boots to sell, as he wanted to get some food for his wife and children. He told the man he would go into the bar and try to sell them. He could not manage to sell them, so he went outside and told the man that he had done his best. The man begged so hard, and said his wife was starving, so he gave him 2/- for the boots. The man shook hands with him, and wished him good luck.

The constable, in reply to the Clerk, said Woodrow, when brought to the police station, had only coppers in his possession.

An officer from the regiment said the prisoner had a good character. He had been in the Army two or three months. There was nothing on his defaulter`s sheet.

The Chairman said the prisoner had had a very narrow shave of a conviction. He would be bound over in the sum of £5 to be of good behaviour, and to come up for judgement, if called upon, within six months. The Magistrates warned him as to his future conduct.

Folkestone Herald 7-11-1914

Wednesday, November 4^th: Before Mr. J. Stainer, Mr. G.I. Swoffer, and Mr. R.J. Linton.

William Woodrow, a soldier in the New Army, was charged with stealing a pair of boots, the property of Mr. Jesse Vickery, of 27, Tontine Street.

Albert Edward May, manager to the prosecutor, said he missed the boots from the doorway of the shop at 8 p.m. on Tuesday. Their selling value was 8s. 11d. They were on a hook in the doorway, and twisted round several times.

Harry Monk, a potman at the True Briton Inn, said he was in the bar between 8 and 8.30 p.m., when prisoner came in with a pair of boots similar to those produced. He was carrying them openly. He offered them for sale in the bar, asking 3s., then 2s. 6d., and then 1s. 6d. for them, but no-one would buy them, so he left the house with them.

P.C. Johnson said he saw the prisoner in Beach Street going in the direction of the Fishmarket, carrying a pair of boots under his arm. Witness stopped him and said “Where did you get those boots from?” He replied “I bought them of a man for 2s. down the street”. Witness took him to the police station. Next morning he made inquiries and charged him. Accused replied “I bought the boots for 2s. from a civilian whom I do not know”. Prisoner, when arrested, was under the influence of drink, but was not drunk.

Prisoner pleaded Not Guilty, and said he was very sorry that it had happened. A man came to him the previous night, just as he was going into the True Briton Inn to get a drink, and asked him to purchase a pair of boots which he was carrying, as he said he wanted to get some food, and he had no money. He had pity on him, and took the boots into the inn and tried to sell them, but was not able to. He then went back to the man and told him he was unable to sell them. The man begged him hard to buy them, saying he had a wife and children to keep and he wanted to get them food. He believed his story, and although he did not want them, he bought the boots for 2s.

P.C. Johnson (re-called) said prisoner had only a few coppers in his possession when he was arrested.

An officer said prisoner had been in the Army some 3 months, and had nothing on his default sheet. He was paid on Friday.

The Chairman said prisoner had had a narrow escape. He would be bound over in the sum of £5 to be of good behaviour for six months.