Folkestone Express
15-4-1922
Local News
The licence of the Gun Tavern has been transferred from Mr.
H. Straughan to Mr. Donald Cook.
Folkestone
Express 17-8-1929
Tuesday, August 13th: Before Alderman T.S.
Franks, Mrs. E. Gore, Mr. W. Smith and Mr. R.J. Stokes.
Donald Cook, the landlord of the Gun Tavern, Cheriton
Road, was summoned for serving intoxicating liquors during non-permitted hours
on August 3rd, and also for aiding and abetting Harry Gosney in the
consumption of the drink. Harry Gosney was summoned for consuming intoxicating
liquor on the licensed premises on August 3rd during non-permitted
hours. Mr. A.K. Mowll appeared for the defence, and pleaded Not Guilty.
Inspector Pittock said he was on duty on the 3rd
August at a quarter past eleven, when he was with P.S. Hollands outside the Gun
Tavern. He saw lights in the window and heard voices. He got on to a short
wall, and looked into the fanlight, where he got an uninterrupted view of the
bar. He saw defendant, Mr. Gosney, sitting on a chair at the right of the bar.
Sitting next to him was his wife on the settee, and seated next to her was a
Mrs. Mayne, and her husband was standing at the end of the settee talking to
defendant. There was no serving bar in this room. Mrs. Cook and her daughter
were standing by the door leading through the private bar to the premises. That
was the total number of occupants in the room. On a table, which was in the
centre of the room, were two glasses containing amber coloured liquor,
apparently ale. They were half full, and there was froth on the top. They were
opposite Mr. Mayne and his wife. There was an empty wine glass opposite Mrs.
Gosney, on the table, and a stout glass, half full, was opposite defendant
Gosney. Witness gave certain instructions to Sergt. Hollands, who looked
through the fanlight,, and then went and knocked at the door, while he
(witness) again took up his position at the fanlight. Miss Cook made some
remark, and immediately snatched up the two ale glasses and carried them with
the contents into the adjoining bar. The man Mayne bolted out the back of the
premises. Defendant Gosney immediately took up his glass and consumed
practically all the contents. He then placed the glass between himself and his
wife. The door was locked. As soon as it was opened by Mr. Cook (it was opened
in two minutes at the most), witness immediately went to defendant Gosney, and
said to him “Where is your glass?”, and he made no reply. Witness looked down
between Gosney and his wife, and saw that the latter was holding a stout glass
in her left hand, well concealed by her skirt. He took the glass from her and
said to Cook “I have been keeping observation on this room during the last five
minutes through the fanlight, and when I saw the Sergeant knock the door your
daughter took two glasses containing ale from this table into the bar, and it
appeared to me to be freshly drawn”. He asked him where his clock was, and he
switched on the light, and the time by the clock was 11.23. Mr. Cook said the
clock was five minutes fast. There were two barmen in the bar clearing up. He
took the names of those present, and said to him “Where is Mr. Mayne? I saw him
talking to you just before I entered”. He replied “I do not know. He must have
gone out”. P.S. Hollands searched for him, but could not find him. He tasted
the contents of the wine glass, but was unable to ascertain what it contained.
He tasted the contents of the stout glass, and found it to contain stout. Mrs.
Cook said “That is Guinness. It was served before ten thirty. He pointed out to
Mr. Cook the froth on the top of the remaining stout, and told him he was of
opinion it had been recently drawn, and Mrs, Cook said “It will be the same in
the morning of you take it away”.
The Clerk (Mr. J. Andrew): Did you not avail yourself
of the offer?
Inspector Pittock: No.
The Chief Constable: Is that your experience about the
stout?
Inspector Pittock: No.
Witness, continuing, said he then said to defendant
Gosney that he would be reported for consuming liquor on licensed premises
during non-permitted hours, and also told Mr. Cook that he would be reported
for aiding and abetting in the consumption of the drink. He further said that
he would probably be reported for serving intoxicating liquor during
non-permitted hours. Gosney made no reply, and Mr. Cook said “There has been no
offence committed here”.
Inspector Pittock, in reply to the Clerk, said he told
the girl that he saw her with the glasses, and she replied that she was “doing”
the glasses.
In cross-examination, Inspector Pittock said that day
was probably one of the busiest days of the year. The barmen were engaged in
washing up the glasses in the bar, but there was no light on when he entered
the bar. While he was looking through the fanlight the door opened.
P.S. Hollands said he was with Inspector Pittock
practically the whole of the time. At 11.15 he heard voices in the saloon bar,
and Inspector Pittock looked through the fanlight. He also looked through, and
he saw the people mentioned by Inspector Pittock. What the Inspector had said
was correct. He tried the door as he knocked, and found it was locked. It was
opened as quickly as possible. He corroborated Inspector Pittock.
In reply to the Clerk, the Sergeant said he saw no
consumption by anyone. He saw the glasses containing intoxicating liquor.
Questioned by Mr. Mowll, witness said the defendant
from the first denied that he had committed any offence.
Mr. Mowll said he did not propose to call any evidence
at all. In his view they had some evidence which the Magistrates might say or
might not think sufficient to convict Mr. Gosney of consuming some stout during
prohibited hours. The evidence had been quite fairly given by the police. He
did not attach the slightest importance to the allusion that there might be
froth on the glasses. The answer was not supplying to A, B, or C, ale or wine,
but supplying to Gosney some glasses of stout. There was no evidence whatever
that would justify the Magistrates in holding that the licensee was liable to
be convicted for supplying, for the only evidence, if it could be called such,
was that they had a momentary glance through the fanlight by those officers,
who said there was froth in the glass. The only offence with which he really
had to deal, so far as the licensee was concerned, was whether he aided and
abetted the consumption. He would like to point out there was scarcely more
than a small portion of Guinness in the glass on that occasion. What happened
was that those people were friends of Mr. Cook, and they were in that little
room. The bar was in the next place. They were all sitting down. As they had heard,
the barmen were busy at work washing up the glasses. That Saturday was the one
day in the year when licensed victuallers could make a little money, because it
was the Saturday before August Bank Holiday. Most of the houses were full of
people. Those people, who were friends of the landlord, stayed behind after the
house closed. Of course, they were perfectly entitled to have drinks supplied
to them before half past ten. Mr. Gosney, whose wife was not at all well,
stayed behind, and it was perfectly true when he saw the Sergeant open the door
he did take a drink from that glass of Guinness. He (Mr. Mowll) therefore
supposed he had committed an offence under the licensing laws. What the
Magistrates had to decide was whether, on the evidence before them, it could be
said properly that the licensee aided and abetted that offence. From start to
finish Mr. Cook said “What is wrong? I have done nothing wrong”, which showed
perfectly clearly that he had not had any idea that that man had in fact taken
any drink at all. Undoubtedly the Magistrates would consider the difficult
occupation of the licensed victuallers especially on a day like that. From the
time the police knocked on the door there was no suggestion that the licensee
committed any offence. The proper place for the glasses was where they were, in
order to wash them up. They were summoned for supplying to Gosney, therefore he
really suggested that the Magistrates had to decide whether it could be
properly suggested that Cook aided and abetted the consumption. Could the
Magistrates on the facts say that the licensee in fact aided and abetted
consumption. He suggested to them that it would be improper to convict the
defendant on that summons. The defendant had been seven or eight years in the
house, and he was a man who had a wonderful record. He won a commission on the
field during the War, and he was paid £150 for disability with regard to the
burning of his face and hands. He had five children, four of them under ten
years of age. As they knew it was a serious thing for a licensed victualler to
be convicted, for it meant that not only would his present brewers have nothing
to do with him, but if he applied for any other house he had to present
testimonials, and the first thing that would be brought against him would be a
conviction. He was going to say, however unfortunate that matter might be,
having regard to all the circumstances of the case, it would be wrong to
convict that man because of the fact that the other man on the spur of the
moment might have lost his head and drunk out of the glass.
The Magistrates retired, and on their return to the
Court the Chairman said the Magistrates had decided that both cases were
proved, and there would be a conviction in the case of supplying drink.
The Chief Constable (Mr. Beesley) said the defendant
had held the licence since 1922 for that house. That was not the first occasion
by many that they had known that a certain amount of offences had gone on on
the premises. The Magistrates would see that he had given licensees, as well as
other people, a fair chance, and that every possible warning was given to them.
On March 9th, 1925, he had a caution, and on 26th April,
1926, for a somewhat similar offence, he was strictly cautioned by him. He
might say ot was difficult to produce sufficient evidence in those cases to
obtain a conviction, and under those circumstances he (the Chief Constable) had
to exercise his discretion. He did it in that way by administering a caution.
That was not, however, enough, for on 24th February, 1929, again in
a somewhat similar set of circumstances, Inspector Cradduck gave him another
caution. Therefore the defendant Cook had had every possible opportunity.
The Chairman said the penalty for supplying the drink
would be £5, and although there was a conviction in the second case for aiding
and abetting the consumption, there would be no penalty. Gosney would be fined
£1.
Inspector Pittock and P.S. Hollands were called
forward, and the Chairman, addressing them, said “The Bench desire me to compliment
you on the fair way you have given your evidence in this case”.
Folkestone
Herald 17-8-1929
Local News
At the Folkestone Petty Sessions on Tuesday, Donald
Cook, licensee of the Gun Tavern, Folkestone, was summoned for supplying
intoxicating liquor during prohibited hours on August 3rd, and also
for aiding and abetting Harry Gosney in the consumption of the drink. Harry
Gosney was summoned for consuming intoxicating liquor at the same time.
Cook was fined £5 for supplying intoxicating liquor
after hours, and Gosney was fined £1 for consuming liquor at the same time. Mr.
A.K. Mowll, of Canterbury, defended.
Inspector Pittock said he was on duty on August 3rd
in plain clothes, in company with Sergeant Hollands, in Oxford Terrace,
Folkestone. He saw lights and heard voices in the Gun Tavern. He and Sergeant
Hollands climbed on to a short wall in Oxford Terrace, and looked through the
fanlight into the bar of the Gun Tavern. They both had an uninterrupted view of
the bar. Defendant Gosney was seated on a chair at the right of the bar. Seated
near to him was his wife on a settee. Seated next to her was a Mrs, Mayne. Mr.
Mayne was seated at the end of the settee, talking to defendant Cook. Cook was
not behind the bar – there was no serving bar there at all. Mrs. Cook and her
daughter were in the doorway of the private bar. In the centre of the room was
a table. There were two glasses containing an amber liquid, apparent ale, each
about half full, with froth on the top. These were opposite Mr. Mayne and his
wife. There was an empty wine glass opposite Mrs. Gosney on the table, and a
stout glass opposite defendant Gosney, which was about half full of stout.
Witness gave instructions to Sergt. Hollands, who looked through the fanlight.
Whilst witness was looking through the fanlight, Sergt. Hollands went and
knocked on the door. As he knocked, Miss Cook made some remark and snatched up
the two ale glasses, and carried them into the adjoining bar. The man Mayne
bolted out to the back of the premises. There were three doors to the bar.
Defendant Gosney immediately picked up his stout glass and consumed practically
all the contents, and placed the glass down between himself and his wife. When
witness entered he saw the glass in Mrs. Gosney`s hand. The door was locked
when Sergt. Hollands knocked, and Mr. Cook opened it. Witness immediately went
to defendant Gosney, and said to him “Where is your glass?” Gosney was still
seated, and his wife was sitting beside him. He made no reply, and witness, on
looking down, saw Mrs. Gosney had the glass on her lap, well concealed by her
skirt. Witness took the glass from her and said to Gosney “I have just seen you
consuming from this glass”. Gosney made no reply. Mr. Cook said “What`s wrong?”
Witness said “I have just seen this man consuming from this glass. I have been
keeping observation on this room during the past five minutes through the
fanlight, and when the sergeant knocked on the door I saw your daughter take
two glasses containing ale from this table into this bar, and it appeared to me
to be freshly drawn”. Witness also asked him where his stock was. They went
into the adjoining bar, switched on the light, and the clock said 11.23. Mr.
Cook remarked that the clock was five minutes fast. In the bar were two barmen
washing and cleaning up glasses. Witness then went back and took the names of
those present, and said “Where is Mr. Mayne? I saw him talking to you just before
I entered”. Mr. Cook replied “I don`t know. He must have gone out”. Witness
then instructed Sergt. Hollands to look for him, but he could not find him.
Witness tested the remains in the stout glass, and found it was stout. Mrs.
Cook, who was present, said “That is Guinness. It was served before 10.30”.
Witness pointed out to Mr. Cook the froth on the remaining stout, and told him
he was of the opinion that it had been recently drawn. Mrs. Cook said “Yes, it
will be the same in the morning of you like to take it away and keep it”.
The Clerk (Mr. J. Andrew): You did not avail yourself
of her offer, I suppose? (Laughter) – No, sir.
Witness then told defendant Gosney he would be reported
for consuming intoxicating liquor on licensed premises in non-permitted hours,
and also told Mr. Cook he would be reported too for aiding and abetting in the
consumption of drink, and that he would probably also be reported for supplying
intoxicating drink in non-permitted hours. Gosney made no reply, and Mr. Cook
said “There`s been no offence committed here”.
Mr. Mowll: I suppose this day was the Saturday before
Bank Holiday, was it not? Probably the busiest day in the year? – One of the
busiest, yes.
When you arrived you found they were still engaged in
washing glasses? – Yes, they were, but there was no light on at first.
Sergt. Hollands said he was on duty with Inspector
Pittock at 11.15 near the Gun Tavern. There was a light in the bar, and they
heard voices, so Inspector Pittock looked through the fanlight, and told witness
to do the same. When witness knocked there was no delay in answering. Witness
further corroborated Inspector Pittock`s evidence.
This concluded the case for the prosecution.
Mr. Mowll said he did not propose to call any evidence
in the case at all. In his view the Bench had some evidence which they might or
might not think sufficient to convict Mr. Gosney of consuming some stout during
prohibited hours. The only evidence they had was a momentary glance through the
fanlight by the two officers. The only offence he (Mr. Mowll) had got to deal
with was whether the licensee aided and abetted the consumption of a small
portion of Guinness on that occasion. Mr. Gosney had not denied the consumption
of that. As the Bench had heard, the barmen were busy at work washing up
glasses. If there was any time in the year when a licensee could make money, it
was on the Saturday before Bank Holiday. He probably had a lot of people in
that evening, and then those people described by the police stayed behind, and
they were perfectly entitled to, being served before 10.30. From start to
finish, when the police arrived on the scene, Mr. Cook said “What`s wring? I
have done nothing wrong”. So he had no idea that that man (Gosney) had been
taking any drink at all. Cook had been from seven to eight years in the house.
He was a man who had a wonderful record. He got his commission on the field
during the war, and was paid £150 disability.
Having regard to the circumstances of the case, Mr.
Mowll thought it would be wrong to convict the licensee, just because on the
spur of the moment the man (Gosney) lost his head and took a drink from his
glass, which he did not want at all.
After a lengthy retirement the Bench decided to
convict.
The Chief Constable (Mr. A.S. Beesley) said defendant
had held the licence of the house since 1922. This was not the first occasion
that the police had known. On March 9th, 1925, defendant was
cautioned. In 1926 he personally strictly cautioned him. In some cases, when he
could not secure a conviction, the speaker had to use his discretion by a
warning. On February 24th, 1929, under similar circumstances,
Inspector Cradduck also cautioned defendant.
The Chairman (Alderman T.S. Franks) said the Bench
desired him to compliment both Inspector Pittock and Sergt. Hollands on the
fair way they had given evidence.
Folkestone
Herald 9-11-1929
Local News
At the Folkestone Petty Sessions on Tuesday a
protection order was granted to Mr. T.F. Green, of Staplehurst, the new tenant
of the Gun Tavern, Guildhall Street.
Folkestone
Herald 9-4-1932
Local News
There was a sequel to an accident in Cheriton Road,
near the Christ Church Schools, at the Folkestone Police Court on Tuesday, when
Allred Cecil Durban of Enbrook Manor, Cher¡ton, was fined £2 and £1 12s. costs
for driving a motor vehicle in a manner dangerous to the public.
Defendant was represented by Mr. H. Chapple and
pleaded Not Guilty. The Magistrates were:
the Mayor (Alderman J.W. Stainer) in the Chair, Alderman K.G. Wood, Mr. W. Griffin,
Colonel G.P. Owen and Mr. S.B. Corser
Arthur D. Hickman, 92, Royal Military Avenue,
Chenton, a driver in the employ of the East Kent Road Car Company, said on
March 21st about 9 a.m. he
was driving his 'bus towards Cheriton, and when opposite Christ Church Schools,
he mw a little blue van being driven towards him at rather a fast rate. He
estimated the speed at 40 miles an hour; certainly not less. He anticipated an
accident owing to the dangerous part of the road, there being a bend about 30
yards further on. He slowed down his 'bus and as the car flashed past him
witness stopped and turned his head to follow the car on. He saw
the van give a slight jar as if it had gone over a brick. Immediately after he saw a little boy lying in
the road within two feet of the kerb. The van did not stop, neither did the
driver slacken his speed. Witness jumped out of his cabin and picked up the
boy. He was seriously hurt about the head and bleeding. Whilst he
was helping to put the injured lad in a motor-cycle combination the defendant
appeared. He said to him “Were you the driver
of that van?" He said "Yes, the child attempted to cross the road in
front of my car”. Defendant accompanied the boy
to the hospital. There was no other vehicular traffic beside the `bus and the
van. He did not hear Durban sound his horn.
Cross-examined, witness said he always sounded his
horn at that spot. Defendant was going too quickly to pull up. He was not
biased in his evidence. He thought defendant lost his head. He could not nee
what happened on the offside of defendant’s car, and he had not sad that the
van knocked the boy down. He could not see whether the boy stepped off the pavement
into the van.
Thomas Frederick Green, the licensee of the Gun
Tavern, Cheriton Road, said he saw the van "Shoot by him at about 20 miles
an hour", and then pull up outside the Shakespeare Hotel. He saw a boy in
the road about a yard from the kerb. Defendant came up from his van. The van
swerved to avoid the boy and the back part of it caught the boy. He put
defendant`s speed at over 40 miles per hour at the time.
By Mr. Chapple: He was about 50 yards from the
scene of the accident. He did not think that the boy would have been knocked
down had defendant had proper control of the van. On defendant’s side of the
road there was a hand truck.
Charles John Berridge, 23, Cambridge Gardens, said
he was outside the Victoria Hall, in Cheriton Road, when the van flashed past him
at about 40 miles per hour. He noticed a 'bus coming towards Cheriton, opposite
Cross's garage. There was a little boy on the pavement. As the van passed the
'bus it swerved to avoid a truck further down. The boy turned to step off the
path, and the next he saw was the boy in the road and the van disappearing round
the corner.
Cross-examined, witness said he could not say
exactly how the boy was knocked down.
Miss Catherine O'Brien, a teacher of the Roman
Catholic Schools, Cheriton Road, gave the speed of the van as “rather abnormal”.
She said she saw the van go to the right and then a boy in the road. There was
a School caution sign there.
Alfred Corbitt, a porter, said the speed of the van
was “very fast". He saw the van hit the child and knock the lad towards
the kerb. The boy was about three feet from the kerb. No warning was given.
By Mr. Chapple: It was so quick that he could not
say what part of the van hit the boy.
Police Constable Dickenson said about 9 a.m. on
March 21st, he went to Cheriton Road, where he saw that an accident
had occurred outside the Christ Church Schools. At that point the road was 18
feet 8 inches wide. There was one blood mark a foot from the pavement, but
there were no skid marks. He saw defendant's van 65 yards away. There were
blood and hair marks on the back of the van. He took a statement from defendant
who estimated his speed at about 30 to 33 m.p.h. He said that he saw the boy
standing on the pavement as he approached. As he was passing he thought he saw
the boy move. He did not know whether he had hit him, but as he saw people
running back he pulled up and stopped.
By Mr. Chapple: The accident was in the straight
part of the road, which swerved after that.
Defendant said he was driving a van for the
delivery and collection of papers. He was driving in from Cheriton to the Town
Hall. There was a boy standing on the pavement. He passed him, and he did not
know that he had hit him until he saw people running from the corner of the School
to where witness had just passed. He could not pull up immediately because
there was something standing on his side. The boy was standing on the kerb
when he first saw him. His speed was 30 to 33
m.p.h. just before the accident. He was slowing down, and there was nothing in
front of him. He was used to driving, having had a licence for two years. The
brakes were re-lined ten days before the accident and he could have pulled up
in 18 feet, going at 30 m.p.h.. He had the car under proper control more or
less.
Mr. Chapple said if there had not been an accident
there would not have been any prosecution. They were not the cause of the
accident, and he submitted that the case should be dismissed.
The Mayor said the Magistrates had come to the conclusion
that defendant was guilty of driving to the danger of the public. Defendant
would be fined £2 and ordered to pay witnesses` expenses amounting to £1 12s.
Mr. Chapple asked for a week for the payment of the
fine and this was granted.
No comments:
Post a Comment