Whitstable Times and Herne Bay Herald, Saturday 13 September 1884.

CANTERBURY POLICE COURT. MONDAY.

Before the Mayor (H. B. Wilson, Esq.), R. Y. Fill, and H. Hart, Esqrs.

CHARGE 0F STEALING A CART.

James Savage, was charged with stealing a cart, the property of Alexander Barber.

Mr. G. Collard prosecuted, and Mr. John Minter (Folkestone) defended.

Prosecutor was recalled, and, in answer to Mr. Minter, he said:- Prisoner bought the cart in the "Flying Horse" yard. He paid £6 10s. for the cart, and a pony and harness, and I wrote the receipt. I agreed to stand in with him and to be partners in any profit which might be made after he had got his £6 10s. Mr. H. Olive agreed to repair the cart for the sum of £3 5s. The pony was sold for £8. I afterwards bought two ponies. They were sold, and I had my share. I went to Herne Bay with prisoner. He bought a pony from Mr. King for £7 10s. I did not ask him to sell the pony for £7 10s., divide the money, and let Mr. King whistle for his cash. I heard that prisoner owed a man at Sturry for a suit of clothes. I did not suggest that it was likely that some one would take the cart from Olive unless he signed a receipt to make it appear that the cart was mine.

Prisoner put his cross to the receipt at the "Beehive Inn;"

I did not. I paid £2 for the repair of the cart, and prisoner repaid me the money. Last Saturday week I saw prisoner with the cart at the "Eight Bells Inn," St. Dunstan’s.

William James Parker, landlord of the "Beehive Inn" was also recalled.

In answer to Mr. Minter he said:- When the receipt was signed prisoner did not say "Well, yes, I think I'll sign; I don’t suppose he wants to best me."

Mr. Minter, addressing the Bench for the prisoner, said there was not a single element in the case to convert it into one of theft. It was a matter entirely of account between the parties. Prisoner denied in the first place having signed the receipt.

Mr. Collard:- You cannot state that.

Mr. Minter:- "What I suggest is that this prosecution is undertaken with a view of getting this cart through closing prisoner's mouth. That which prosecutor has admitted is sufficient to put an end to a charge of theft.

The Bench, after conferring in private, said the case was one of account, and prisoner would therefore be discharged.

Barber had to pay 14s. costs and prisoner 2s.

Alderman Hart said the Superintendent had the cart.

Mr. Minter:- I shall have to ask the Superintendent to give the cart to my client. If he does not I shall have to give him into custody. (Laughter.)

Barber said he should take proceedings in the County Court.

From the Whitstable Times, 4 January, 1902.

CANTERBURY POLICE COURT.

ALLEGED THEFT Of SPIRITS FROM THE “FLYING HORSE.”

George Scamp, Louis James Miller, and James Baker were charged with stealing thirteen bottles of spirits and twenty-five metal forks from the “Flying Horse,” Upper Bridge Street, on the previous evening.

Sergeant Hollands stated that at 10.40 the previous night he was on duty in Upper Bridge Street, where he met Miller coming from the direction of the “Flying Horse.” He noticed his pockets were bulky, and so stopped him and asked him what he had in his pockets. The prisoner said he had a piece of meat and was going to take it home to supper. Not feeling satisfied with this explanation, witness searched Miller, and in his right hand pocket found a full bottle of cherry brandy, while in his left-hand pocket he found a bottle of Scotch whiskey. In Miller’s overcoat pockets witness found twenty-five metal forks. Witness asked him how he accounted for the forks being in his possession and he replied “I know nothing about them. George Scamp gave me this coat to put on. It is his coat.” At 3.15 that morning witness went to No. 1, Church Lane, North gate, and by listening he heard talking inside. He gained admission, Mrs. Read, the occupier of the house, letting him in. In the front room he saw Scamp and Baker. On the table witness found an empty whiskey bottle, while on a side table he found an empty Holland's gin bottle. On the fireplace there was half a bottle of whiskey and also another scotch. Witness asked the prisoners Scamp and Baker how they accounted for the bottles being there. They said they knew nothing about them. With the assistance of P.C. J. Goddard witness took the prisoners to the police station. That morning he charged the three prisoners with stealing the spirits and the forks, and in answer to the charge Scamp said the landlord gave him three bottles of whiskey for a Christmas box, Baker said “Yes, he gave us three bottles,” while Miller made no reply.

Mr. Scripps who appeared for the defence of Scamp and Baker, submitted that there was nothing out or the ordinary in the men having a few bottles of spirits at Christmas-time, and that there was no charge to answer.

Superintendent Farmery said he only wished to call sufficient evidence that morning to justify asking for a remand, but as Mr. Scripp was not satisfied he would call the woman who occupied the house where the prisoners Scamp and Baker were found—Celle Read stated that she lived at 1, Church Lane, and was the wife of Samuel Read, a soldier now in South Africa. She went to had about 10.30 the previous night, but was aroused between two and three o'clock that morning. She looked out of the window and saw Baker, who asked witness to allow a woman to sleep at her house, for he had jest found her drunk in Broad Street. Knowing the woman, witness allowed her to he brought in. When witness opened the front door, Scant, Baker, and the woman came in. Baker asked witness to have a drink out of one of the bottles produced. Scamp went out for about ten minutes and returned with three bottles. She did not have a drink as she was now a teetotaller. The landlord of the “Flying Horse,” Mr. Lackford, was then called as a witness but he did not give evidence.

Superintendent Farmery said the house was changing hands on the following Wednesday. He asked that the case might he adjourned till Friday.

The Magistrates then remanded the prisoners till Friday, but allowed bail.

From the Whitstable Times, 11 January, 1902.

A PUBLICAN FINED FOR BEING DRUNK.

Ernest J. Lackford, was summoned for being drunk on 28th December on his licensed premises, the “Flying Horse Inn,” Upper Bridge Street.

It appeared that defendant, who had been landlord of the “Flying Horse” for several years, was found drunk in his bar parlour on 28th December. He had since left the house.

Defendant pleaded guilty and said he had been ill.

Fined 6s. and 12s. costs.

From the Whitstable Times, 18 January, 1902.

THE ALLEGED THEFT OF SPIRITS, SCAMP AND BAKER COMMITTED FOR TRIAL.

George Scamp, Louis James Miller, and James Baker were charged on remand with stealing thirteen bottles of spirits and twenty-five metal forks, from the “Flying Horse Inn,” on December 27th last.

Dr. Hardman, of Deal, appeared to defend Scamp and Baker.

Sergeant Holland's evidence was read over to him, to the effect that he had met Miller on the night of December 27 with bulky pockets, and discovered two bottles of spirits, and the forks in his possession, and that he subsequently apprehended Scamp and Baker at Mrs Reid’s house, Church Lane, Northgate, where he found the other four bottles produced.

In answer to Dr. Hardman witness said the coat produced was the one Miller was wearing at the time of his arrest, but in his opinion it would he much too small for Scamp. He had made no enquiries to fasten the coat upon Scamp although Miller said when arrested, that the coat belonged to Scamp. When he went to Mrs. Reid’s house Baker was fairly sober, and Scamp was under the influence of drink. None of the bottles produced bore Lackford’s name upon them. When arrested Scamp did not point out which of the three bottles had been given to him by Lackford as Christmas boxes.

In reply to Miller witness said prisoner’s statement that he had meat in his pocket for supper was correct. Prisoner did not also tell him he had two bottles of beer in his pocket; nor did prisoner say he had some forks.

Mrs. Reid’s evidence was next read over to her, to the effect that about twelve on the night of December 27th she allowed a woman named O’Brien to sleep at her house, and she was accompanied to the house by Scamp and Baker. Scamp left and fetched heck three bottles of spirits, and they were all there when Sergeant Jackson arrived later, and took away Scamp and Millar and the bottles.

In answer to Dr. Hardman witness said all three of them drank from the small square bottle produced, but she did not know what it contained. They asked her to drink, but she refused, as she was a teetotaller, and they then told her it was a teetotaller's drink. It was the colour of beer.

Ernest Alfred Luckford stated that on December 27th he was the landlord of the “Flying Horse,” but now lived at 37, Peacock Street, Gravesend, and was of no occupation. He kept the “Flying Horse” for nine years and two months, but had been drinking rather heavily latterly. The three prisoners were well known to him. The three prisoners were in the habit of frequenting his house, and on the day in question they were in and out all day. The six bottles produced were the same as he sold while at the public house, and he missed thirteen in all about 9 30 on the evening of the 27th of December. The bottles wars on a shelf in an opening in the serving bar. He was serving off and on all the evening, but was sometimes in the bar parlour, and when there he was unable to see what went on in the bar. To the hest of his recollection he gave Scamp one bottle of whiskey, and it would he similar to the one produced, and found in Miller’s pocket. He did not give anything at any time either to Baker or Miller. The forks found on Miller were kept in the kitchen, to which entrance could he gained by way of the public passage. He valued the six bottles of spirits at 17s. 6d. and the forks at £1. He did not miss the forks until they were shown to him by Sergt. Hollands. The Holland's gin was got from a London firm and he did not think the same kind was kind he found in any other “house” in Canterbury. He sometimes made use of the old bottles for sending out other liquor in, and sold them occasionally to the fair people. He might have served out cider in a Holland's gin bottle, but could not say positively. He was positive, however, that he did not serve any in this wav to either of the prisoners on the day in question.

He had labels with his own name upon them, which he sometimes stuck on his bottles, but not always. He had omitted to put it upon the thirteen bottles he missed. He only gave about three Christmas boxes this year as the house was changing hands. He certainly did not give 13.

In answer to Dr. Hardman witness said he had known Scamp aver since he had been at the “Flying Horse.” Scamp had used the house the whole time. Scamp had been practically a teetotaller for the last six months, and had been in the habit of drinking cider at his house. He did not borrow a sovereign from Scamp the same evening, nor did he call Scamp out between six and seven o’clock the same evening, and borrow first 2s., and then a sovereign, to the best of his recollection, although he might have done so. He had borrowed money from Scamp on previous occasions. It was about seven o'clock when he gave Scamp a bottle of whiskey. He had been in the habit of giving Scamp a bottle of whiskey at Christmas time. Scamp did not ask for another for Baker was not with him. Neither did he ask for another for his wife. He denied giving Scamp two other bottles of spirits. Scamp stayed in the house until about eleven o'clock. The woman O’Brien was there and drank cider and port mixed. Miller and Baker were in the taproom. He was not aware that his wife sold threepenny-worth of cider in a Holland's bottle to Scamp. He came to miss the bottles from the shelf by seeing a shadow as of an uplifted hand near the shelf. He was looking sideways and the moment he turned the shadow was gone. He was perfectly sure it was not Scamp’s arm as he was in the front bar the hand came from the passage. This was about a quarter of an hour before Sergeant Hollands brought Miller in. He knew 13 bottles ware gone because the valuers had been in and there were 16 bottles on this particular shelf. There were five other shelves in the bar, but he could not say how many bottles were on any of these.

In answer to Miller witness said it was true that he was sometimes so much under the influence of drink that his wife would not allow him to serve in the bar. Prisoner did clean out the stables on the 26th of December, and he had supplied Millar with any number of bottles. It was incorrect that a full bottle of whiskey was found in the stables once. He had never given any spirits whatever to Miller.

In answer to the Superintendent witness said that at times during the day in question both he and his wife were in the sitting room, leaving the bar without anybody in it.

George Charles Reynolds a lad, living in Black Griffin Lane, and employed by Messrs. Smith and Son, at Canterbury East Station, stated that on the evening of the 27th of December he had occasion to go to the “Flying Horse,” to leave the Evening Standard. He was just about to mount his bicycle to go on when he saw Baker come out of another door. Baker came round to the front bar, and Scamp came out and handed two black bottles to Baker saying “Here’s two bottles of gin.” Baker put them under his coat, and ran up Rhodaus Town with them. As he ran along he dropped one, and smashed it. Biker did not stop but continued to run on. He thin mounted his machine, and informed the first constable he saw of what had occurred. He saw nothing of Miller.

In answer to Dr. Hardman witness said that when he went into the bar a woman present was singing.

The Chairman asked the boy whether Scamp said to Baker “Here’s two bottles of gin?”; or “Here’s two bottles Jim?” The soy said it was “Here’s two bottles of gin.”

Dr. Hardman: Baker’s name is certainly James.

In answer to Dr. Hardman witness said the two men must have seen him standing by. They did it perfectly openly.

Dr. Hardman, in addressing the Bench as to whether there was any case to answer, asked the bench to say there was none in regard to Scamp and Baker. There was not sufficient evidence he contended, that justified the bench in sending the two men for trial. It appeared that the prosecutor was before and after the alleged robbery more or lees under the influence of drink, and he submitted that there was no reliance to he placed upon his word. The whole case rested on whether Lackford gave Scamp three bottles or one. As to that he had a body of evidence, but he would not refer to that as he was submitting that there was no case to answer. Lackford said that “So far as he could recollect” he only gave one bottle of whiskey to Scamp. Was that the sort of evidence upon which to put a man to the expense and the anxiety of a charge on indictment. Lackford could not say whether Scamp lent him a sovereign or not. He might have done. He could not recollect simply because he was not sober. He asked them to at once dismiss from their minds the statement of Miller that the coat he was wearing at the time of his arrest belonged to Scamp. The evidence went to show that Miller only made the statement for reasons of his own. Miller had made the statement in Court that Scamp had nothing to do with him whatsoever. As a matter of fact they were not together, or associated in any way during the evening. Lackford had made the statement that there were 13 bottles of spirits missing, but was unable to say what they were. This was another instance of the untrustworthiness of Lackford’s evidence. The only remaining evidence was that of the boy from the book-stall. He submitted it did not amount to much, and the whole thing was done most openly between the two.

The Chairman had made the cute suggestion, which was probably correct that what Scamp said to Baker was “Here’s two bottles Jim.” He was much more likely to address his comrade by name then he was to state what the bottles contained. Altogether he submitted there was not a piece of reliable evidence upon which to send Scamp or Baker before a jury.

The Bench decided that the prisoners should be charged.

Miller elected to be dealt with, summarily, and pleaded “Guilty” to having stole what was found upon him.

Scamp and Baker elected to he tried by a jury should the Bench consider that there was a prima facie case against them.

The evidence for the defence was then taken.

Scamp in his witness box stated that he lived at 10, Stour street, and had been in the habit of going to the “Flying Horse” or the past seven or eight years. He had also hired the prosecutor’s stables there. For the past six months he had been a teetotaller, and on the night in question between six and seven o'clock he was at the “Flying Horse” when the landlord called him out and asked him to lend him 2s., to pay a man with. Prosecutor had often borrowed money from witness before. The landlord then asked him to lend him a sovereign, and witness replied “Yes; lend you 50 if you like.”

The Magistrate's Clerk:- Is it suggested at all that the spirits ware bought?

Dr. Hardman:- No, the contention is that the loan increased Lackford’s generosity, and that instead of one he gave three bottles.

Witness continuing rather upset this contention by stating that he asked for the Christmas box before he lent the money. After getting one for himself he said to Lackford “One bottle is no good between three of us, give me one for my mate” (meaning Baker). This the landlord gave him, and he then naked for one for his “missus” (meaning the woman O’Brien). Lackford said “That is not your wife, but here is one for her.” When Baker left he gave him the two bottles to take. They all left at eleven o’clock, and took some cider away with them in the square bottle produced. They then went straight down to Mrs. Reid’s, and when they got inside they drank the cider. He then went home to fetch the three bottles he had had given him. He could not say want was in the bottles when they opened them at Mrs. Raid’s but it was spirits of some sort. When charged at the police station he said that the three bottles had been given to him. The coat of Millar’s was nothing whatever to do with him, nor was he in Miller’s company at all during the evening.

In reply to the Superintendent he should say the whiskey was given him between seven and eight o’clock. He took the three bottles home himself.

In reply to Mr. Mercer witness said he gave the two bottles to Baker as the boy Reynolds had said, and Baker ran up to the “Riding Gate” with them to see if two girls were there whom they had promised to meet. They were not there, and Baker came straight beck and handed the two bottles back to witness unbroken. He admitted that Lackford could hardly know what he gave them as he was not himself.

Baker in the witness box said he lived at 7, Fortunes Passage, Stour Street. He corroborated Scamp about the Christmas boxes being given, and also about running up to the “Riding Gate” and coming back as the ladies were not there. He denied that he broke any bottle during the whole evening. He was not in Millar's company at any time daring the evening, and knew nothing about him.

Harry George Baker stated that on the day in question he was engaged as tapman at the public-house in question. During the evening he saw Mr. Lackford give Scamp a bottle of whiskey as a Christmas box. Scamp afterwards told him he had lent Lackford a sovereign and asked witness to remind Lackford about it the next morning. This was about eight o’clock and he then went home.

In reply to the Superintendent witness said the shelf from which Lackford gave Scamp his Christmas box was a different one from that from which the thirteen bottles were missed.

Mrs. Harris said her husband had been employed at the “Flying Horse” as ostler, and she was engaged in serving in the bar on the evening in question. Just before she left Lackford gave Scamp a bottle of spirits.

Mrs. Miles stated that her husband had been cleaning soma stables out for Mr. Lackford and on the evening in question she went for his money. She saw the landlord borrow it from Scamp between seven and eight o'clock. She also saw the three bottles of spirits given to Scamp by the landlord as Christmas boxes.

In reply to the Chairman witness said the landlord took all three bottles from the same shelf just beside the clock.

The bench retired to consider the evidence, and on returning the Chairman (Mr. Amos) said that Millar would be sentenced to one months' hard labour, and the other two would he committed to take their trial at the next Quarter Sessions. Bail would be allowed as before.

From the Whitstable Times, 25 January, 1902.

ALLEGED THEFT OF SPIRITS. PRISONERS FOUND NOT GUILTY.

James Baker, 24, groom, and George Scamp, 32, dealer, were indicted for feloniously stealing four bottles of sprits, value 11s. 6d,the property of Ernest Alfred Lackford, on the 27th December, 1901, at Canterbury.

Both prisoners pleaded “not guilty.”

Mr. Pitman, instructed by Mr. J. Plummer, appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. G. Thorn Drury, instructed by Mr. Bradley, Dover, defended the prisoners.

Ernest Alfred Lackford, formerly landlord of the “Flying Horse” identified the bottles produced as four of the thirteen bottles or spirits he missed on the 27th December.

In cross-examination witness admitted that he had known the two prisoners all the time he was landlord of the house and that he had been very friendly with them. He usually gave Scamp a Christmas box but he would not swear that Scamp asked for a Christmas box for his missus. He could swear that Scamp did not ask for a Christmas present for Baker. Just after he saw the shadow of a hand going up to the shelf he went to look and then missed the bottles of spirits. At that time Scamp was in front of the bar so it was not his hand that want up to the shelf. His hand went away very quickly and evidently the man went out of the front door of the house or out into the yard.

George Charles Reynolds, a boy employed at Messrs. Smith and Son's bookstall, repeated his evidence as to going to the house on the night in question to deliver the Evening Standard and when he left the place to seeing Scamp come out of the front bar with two bottles which he gave to Baker. Baker put them under his coat and ran away. As he ran he dropped one but did not stop to pick it up. When Scamp gave Baker the bottles he said “Here’s two bottles of gin.”

In cross-examination witness said his father was a police-constable. He did not think Scamp said to Baker “Here’s two bottles, Jim.”

Sergeant Hollands stated when he went to Mrs. Read’s house and saw the prisoners and found the bottles. Scamp said “I don’t know anything about the bottles” and Baker said “Nor do I.” He took them to the police station where he charged them. Scamp said Mr. Lackford gave him three bottles of spirits for a Christmas box and Baker said “Yes, that is right, the landlord gave us three bottles of spirits for a Christmas box.

In cross-examination witness stated there was nothing known against Baker except that he was charged with being drunk about ten years ago, while George Scamp had never been convicted of felony.

Mr. Drury called no witnesses for the defence.

Mr. Pitman said he wished to put in the depositions.

The Recorder said the usual statutory caution did not appear to have been giving to the two prisoners when they made statements before the Magistrates.

Superintendent Farmery was called and stated that the caution was read to the prisoners by the Magistrates Clerk.

The Acting Clerk of the Peace (Mr. J. F. Whichcord) then read the statements made by the prisoners before the Magistrates.

Mr. Pitman, in addressing the jury, asked whether it was consistent with innocent men for them to come out of a house with the bottles, and for one to run off so fast with them that he dropped one. Was it likely that men would act like this if the bottles of spirits were given them as a present.

In an able speech Mr. Drury asked the jury to dissociate anything that they might have heard concerning the name of Scamp for there was nothing known against him of dishonesty during the whole time he had lived in Canterbury. Mr. Lackford, he submitted, was excited on the occasion and his evidence could not he relied upon. His evidence was not to he relied upon for he could not recollect properly what did take place on the night in question. It was extremely probable that Lackford was asked to make those presents and that he did give the bottles of spirits being in a very liberal mood. The case was full of doubt, and he submitted that there was never a case which was enveloped in more doubt than the present.

The Recorder having summed up the jury found both prisoners Not Guilty and they were discharged.

From the Whitstable Times and Herne Bay Herald, Saturday 14 October 1905.

ORDER AGAINST A CANTERBURY PUBLICAN

Frederick Anderson, a publican, was summoned at St. Augustine's petty Sessions at Canterbury on Saturday to show cause why he should not contribute towards the maintenance of the illegitimate female child of Jane Jarvis, of which he was the alleged father.

Defendant did not appear.

Complainant said she was a single woman living at Bekesbourne. She produced a written agreement drawn up by Mr. P. Maylam, solicitor, according to which defendant promised to pay 3s. a week towards the maintenance of the child, which was born in 1903. He paid from November, 1903, up till June 10th this year and since that summons had been issued he had paid up to the end of September.

In reply to the Bench it was stated that defendant keeps the "Flying Horse" public-house at Canterbury.

The Bench ordered the defendant to pay 3s. a week until the child if fifteen years of age and they also ordered him to pay the costs 13s 6d.

From the Whitstable Times, 19 February, 1944.

Extra Half-Hour Refused.

JUSTICES REPEAT DECISION.

On behalf of the Canterbury and District Licensed Victuallers Association at the Canterbury Brewster Sessions held on Thursday at the Canterbury Guildhall. Mr C. A. Gardner asked the Bench to consider, and, if they thought it advisable, advertise that they would hear an application for half-an-hour's extension of opening hours during Double Summer Time.

It was emphasised by Mr. Gardner that gardeners needed all the daylight possible to get on with food production. He suggested that, as an alternative, the opening time should be put back to 6.30 p.m. and the half-hour added later.

The Chairman of the Canterbury Licensed Victuallers' Association, Mr. F. G. Belsey, licensee of the "Flying Horse," Canterbury, stated that there was a definite public demand for such a concession—in fact the demand came from the public rather than from the licensees. He also thought it would be a good idea to alter the hours so that they could open and close half-an-hour later.

After retiring, the Chairman (Mr. Wright Hunt) announced that the justices had come to the conclusion that there was not sufficient ground on which to advertise the application to the general public and it would therefore be refused.