|
From the Kent and Sussex Courier. 5 September 1873. Price 1d.
BRENCHLEY: A BEERHOUSE CASE.
George Waghorn, beerhouse keeper, of Brenchley, was summoned for
unlawfully permitting drunkenness and riotous conduct in his house, on
the 16th Aug.
Mr. W. C. Cripps, solicitor, defended. I. C. Holman said
that at about four o'clock, on the after-noon of the 16th ult., he was
passing the "Foresters' Arms" beer-house, Paddock Wood, kept by the
defendant, when be noticed two men, named Henry King and William Semark,
in the house, at the window, the worse for drink. Semark went out to
speak to two men who were in a cart, and then returned. At about eight
o'clock in the evening he heard of a row at the beer-house, and when he
got near he saw a great crowd of people in the road. When he arrived
there, they had left off fighting. King was lying upon the ground quite
drunk. They left off fighting because a boy called out, "Here comes a
policeman. "King had his coat off, and his face was covered with blood. Semark had also his coat off, with his shirtsleeve torn and his face
covered with blood. Semark had also his coat off, with his shirtsleeve
torn and his face covered with blood. King was led off by his wife.
Semark followed witness, and used very abusive language. They wanted to
continue the fight, but he (witness) prevented them doing so. He heard
the landlord several times ask the parties to leave off. The landlord
was standing on a piece of land in front of the house. By the Bench:- He
had heard a great many more complaints against Waghorn's house. Mr.
Cripps said if the Bench took that view, he should like the case
adjourned, and he could bring a memorial, signed by every inhabitant of
the place, to the effect that the house was properly conducted. The
defendant had been in the house four years and a half. Ebenezer Taylor
said that about half-past seven o'clock he went into the defendant's
house, and saw King and Semark sitting down in a room. They were
‘beery,' but they were not drunk. He also saw a bit of a skirmish
between them, and he saw King had some blood on his face. King had been
lying upon the ground, but when the constable came he sat upon a seat.
They stopped fighting when the policeman came. The landlord was outside
when the fighting commenced, and he shut up his house. Mr. Goldsmid:
What is the difference between a man being 'beery' and being
drunk? Witness: Many a man can be beery without being drunk (laughter). By Superintendent Dance: Did not see King and Semark fight, but they had
their clothes off. He and King fought. By Mr. Goldsmid: We were in the
middle of the road when the fighting commenced. There were a number of
others there. Mr. Goldsmid: I think you all ought to be fined. By
Holman: When I went in the house, King and Semark were sitting down
together. Mr. Cripps said he appeared for Messrs. Ken ward and Co., the
owners of the house, who were most desirous that their houses should be
properly conducted and entirely to the satisfaction of the police. He
should prove that when these men had had two pints of beer, and finding
they wanted more, the defendant closed his house, for which he should be
complimented and not blamed. The defendant said he had conducted this
house for four years, and had never had any complaint. On the day in
question King and Semark called at his house in the afternoon at about
two o'clock, and King had one pint and Semark two pints of beer. King
was out and in during the afternoon, and Semark had some business with a
gentleman about some fruit. Some words arose between King and Semark
about boxing a child's ears, and he advised them to settle their quarrel
somewhere else. Semark asked for more beer, but he refused to draw any.
When King and Semark went out they met Taylor, and they had a row in the
road. Immediately he heard the row he closed his house. After he had
done so for about five or six minutes, he saw the policeman come, and
they left off fighting. Alexander Joy, leather parer, said he saw King
and Semark in the house, drinking together, between four and five
o'clock in the afternoon, and he returned again at half-past six
o'clock. They were then arguing about a boy. At about seven o'clock Semark asked for some beer, but the landlord refused to draw him any,
and told them that if they quarrelled in his house he would put them
out. Taylor came in, and he and King had words, and they went out. The
landlord then closed the door upon them. By Superintendent Dance: I was
apprehended at Ipswich for felony, and had twelve months' imprisonment
for felony. In the afternoon I and the others who were with me had four
pots of beer, and in the evening one pot. King and Semark were not
drunk. By Mr. Cripps: I was apprehended over three years ago, and have
earned my living respectably since. Thomas Bridger, a blacksmith, said
he heard the landlord refuse to draw Semark any more beer. He left at
five minutes past seven o'clock, and did not see anything of the fight. By Superintendent Dance: Semark and King were in the house at half-past
one o'clock the same day. The Chairman said the Bench were of opinion
that Waghorn permitted a great deal too much beer to be served to the
people, and in this respect his conduct was reprehensible. At the same
time they did not think he willingly permitted any disturbance in his
house, and therefore they dismissed the case. He would, however, have to
be very cautious how he conducted his house in future, and be careful
not to give the police any ground for bringing a case against him. Mr.
Cripps applied that as Waghorn's was one of the certificates that had
been adjourned for a month, he (Waghorn) need not attend at the
adjourned licensing day. The Bench said Waghorn need not attend. The men
William Semark and Henry King were charged with being drunk and riotous
at the same time and place. The evidence of the witnesses for the
prosecution in the former case was read over. Holman, in answer to Semark, said he did not see him fighting. He had asked a bailiff to come
but he denied knowing anything about it. Taylor, in answer to Semark,
said he did not let him fight. In answer to Supt Dance he denied that he
had been promised anything to give evidence for the defence. He had not
had any conversation with them. James Taylor, a brick-maker, said he was
passing by the "Forester's Arms," when he saw King strike at his son
several times, and when he struck him he (Taylor jun.) returned the
blow. Semark took Taylor up, when a man named Saunders struck him (Semark)
on the nose making it bleed. He was not in the house at all. He did not
take much notice because it was nothing. John Barden, farmer, said that
he saw Semark at half-past four o'clock and he was not drunk then. The
Bench adjourned for about a quarter of an hour, and on their return the
chairman said the Bench were of opinion that both defendants were
guilty, and they should fine King 5s and 9s 6d costs or 14 days, and Semark 2s 6d and 9s 6d costs or 7 days. The witness Taylor jun. was then
called forward, and told that his conduct was very reprehensible. They
cautioned him that his conduct on this occasion would be remembered. Supt Dance: You will disallow his expenses. The Chairman: Certainly. |
) Maidstone Road
(age 50 in 1891