|
From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 20
November, 1908.
GAMBLING AT THE GLOBE
SMART RAID BY THE POLICE
LANDLORD FINES
At the Dover Police Court on Friday, before Messrs. L. J. Bradley and
H. F. Edwin, William Henry Rogers, landlord of the "Globe" public house,
was summoned on the information of the Chief Constable for unlawfully
suffering gaming, to wit, card playing, on his licensed premises, on
Sunday, November 1st.
Mr. Budden, from the Town Clerk's office, prosecuted, and Mr. Rutley
Mowll defended, and pleaded not guilty.
Mr. Budden, in outlining the case, said that on the evening in
question, Acting Police-sergeant Finch, with Police-constable Dunford
went into the private bar of the house. The sergeant returned later with
Police-constable Taylor, and went through the public bar into a room
behind it. As the constable went through the defendant tapped the window
communicating with the room. When the sergeant opened the door, he saw
several men scrambling for money and cards, which were on the table, and
he captured three of the cards, but none of the money. It was not
necessary fro him to prove that the landlord had actual knowledge, but
it was for the landlord to prove that he did not shut his eyes to the
offence.
Acting-sergeant Finch said he visited the "Globe" public house on
Sunday evening, November 1st, at 8.05 p.m. with P.C. Dunford. They
entered by the private bar, where they found a man and a woman. They
then left the house, went into the Street, and then through the public
bar into the room behind, which did not communicate with the part of the
house they first visited. In the room were six men sitting round a
table, on which was a single glass; otherwise the table was clear. When
they passed through the bar the landlord was in it. He an Dunford then
left the premises. About 8.45 witness returned to the house in company
with P.C. Taylor. They went through the public bar, witness going first,
and the police-constable following, into the same room at the back. On
opening the door witness saw several men sitting round the table, in the
centre of which was a board, about two feet square, covered with a green
baize cloth. On the board were three playing cards, a king of hearts, 7
spades and 7 clubs, also some money, which some of the men were
scrambling up. Witness made a rush and got hold of the three cards, but
did not get any of the money. He took the names and addresses of the men
in the room, seven in number. He did not recognise any of the men who
were there on his first visit. The names of the seven men were, Walter
Gibbons, John Knox, Henry Hoile, Frederick Hogg, two deaf and dumb men,
brothers named Head, and Frederick Ballard. The door leading to the
public bar faced the street, and the back room was straight through. At
the back of the public bar was a glass wicket, communicating with the
back room in which the men were. He sent for the landlord, who was in
the public bar, and found him what he had seen. He said, I was not aware
that it was going on; I know nothing about it." Witness asked who served
the customers in the back room, and stated, "They come to the bar
themselves, and I server them over the bar." He showed the landlord the
cards, and he said they did not belong to him. On November 10th he
served ma summons on the landlord personally, and he said, "All right, I
think I shall clear myself all right; I know nothing about it." It was
not possible to see the bar door from the table in the room. The wicket
was shut, and it was made of opaque glass. He did not think there was
anyone behind the counter assisting the landlord when he went in a
second time.
Mr. Rutley Mowll; When you say that you do not mean that there were
customers in the public bar behind the landlord? - I did not notice any.
There are a lot of partitions, and it would be hard to see, especially
when rushing through as I did.
Cross-examined. On the occasion of his first visit after he had been
in the room at the back of the public-bar, he said nothing to the
landlord. The wicket mentioned was really a window, but the glass was
worked with a design of leaves, rendering it opaque. There was only one
glass on the table.
In explanation to the Bench Mr. Mowll said there was no question in
serving in improper hours.
Mr. Bradley: No. If drink was served someone must have gone into the
room, or the customers to the bar? - That is so.
Cross-examination continued: On his second visit he went straight
through the bar to the door of the smoking room, and opening that
brought him directly into the room, there being no passage between. When
he entered the room he only saw the three cards, which were lying on the
board. The money he had spoken of consisted of five or six coppers.
Police-constable Mark Taylor stated that he went to the "Globe" with
Police-sergeant Finch at 8.45. He followed the sergeant through the bar
to the room at the back, and as he went through he saw the landlord tap
the window. He followed the sergeant into the room, and saw three cards
on the table, and also some money. Several men round the table scrambled
for the money, and he thought more than one had some of it. The names of
seven men were taken. Another man came from the back, but as he was not
seen at the table his name was not taken. All the men belonged to Dover.
Don't you know whether there were people in the bar; you went
through? - No, we were too much interested in the other job.
You mean in a great hurry? - Yes.
Cross-examination continued. He saw several coins on the table, but
he did not know how many. It would be about 12ft. from the bar door to
the other room, and the sergeant was about 2ft. from the door when the
landlord tapped the window.
Mr. Mowll: You saw all this while you were rushing through the bar,
and yet you are not prepared to say whether anyone was in the bar?
The witness said he watched the landlord while the sergeant's eye was
fixed on the door.
Mr. Budden. It was your duty to keep an eye on the landlord? - Yes,
and the house as well.
William Henry Rogers, the landlord, said that on Sunday, 1st
November, he was without assistance in the house, his wife, who
generally assisted him, being ill. That evening he had an exceptional
number of customers in the house, and was somewhat busy. He did not go
from the public bar into the smoking room at the back that evening, as
he had no occasion to, and the serving hatch mentioned was not once
opened; all the customers were served at the public bar, and took their
drinks into the other room. Until the police directed his attention to
the fact that he had not the slightest idea that there were any cards in
the smoking room, or that there was anything in the nature of gambling
going on. On the occasion of the last visit of the police he was behind
the counter wiping glasses.
Mr. Mowll: On the arrival of the police did you rap the window? - No.
As the constables came in I put a glass on the shelf, which is directly
under the wicket window.
By Mr. Budden. Some of the men in the back room were regular
customers, but others were strangers.
You were extraordinarily busy? - Yes, I was. I have been in the trade
27 years, and never had anything against me.
Cross-examined: The green baize board was his property, having been
left by a former landlord. It was seldom used. He did not know if the
chink of money could be heard upon it. He always kept in it the back
room.
Mr. Mowll said the charge, one of unlawfully suffering gaming on the
premises, resolved itself into two parts. First, was there gaming on the
premises? and secondly, did the defendant suffer gaming on the premises. He would impress on the Bench that it was undoubtedly a fact that to
play cards on licensed premises was perfectly lawful and constituted no
offence. If a licensed victualler asked him the question, he would have
to tell him cards could be played on the premises, but he should most
strongly advise him to have nothing to do with them, because one knew
that some people who played cards were tempted to do what was wrong, and
not allowed on licensed premises - play for money. The mere fact of
having cards or of cards being played on licensed premises was no
offence whatever. In this case there was no very clear evidence that
there was gaming on the premises. Though it was stated there was part or
a pack of cards on the table it was made clear there were only three
cards, and it was not at all clear why the coppers were there. They may
or may not have been for the purpose connected with the three cards. It
was perfectly impossible for him on behalf of his client to answer that
question, for the simple reason that his client was not there. He had
been a licensee for 27 years, and had had licenses in the town for 14
years of that time, and he had never been summoned, much has previously
convicted on any occasion. He, therefore came before them with a
perfectly clean sheet. The next point to consider was whether he
suffered that gaming to take place. The defendant did not keep a potman.
his wife assisted him a s a rule, but on this particular evening she was
unwell. He consequently had his hands very full, with a larger number of
customers than usual, and having people in the two bars, the living room
at the back, and this smoking room. Customers from this room went into
the bar for their drink, and took it into the smoking room with them.
His friend, in opening the case, said it was not necessary for him to
prove actual knowledge on the part of the landlord, but one had to bear
in mind the true legal aspect in order to understand what that meant. He
quoted a case which laid it down that if a game is played without the
knowledge of the licensed person or the manager, and if of a mere casual
nature, no penalty was incurred, but the conduct of the landlord was
such that if he left the conduct of the house to a servant, and either
he or that servant closed his eyes to what was going on, the landlord
would be guilty of the offence. Mr. Mowll was proceeding to quote other
cases when the Chairman said he did not think he need go right through.
Mr. Mowll: I rather think I must read you the whole. I do not quite
know how your mind is working. (Laughter.)
Mr. Mowell read this and the next case, in which a potman was as
actual witness to gaming on his master's premises. The Magistrates
referred to convict, and their ruling was upheld by the High Court. He
pointed out that there was no suspicion of the landlord shutting his
eyes to what was going on. It was quite the reverse. The police had only
been in the house for a few minutes previously, and he had asked the
sergeant if he had any complaint to make against the conduct of the
house then, and instead of the landlord knowing that there was something
wrong going on, and shutting his eyes to it, it was the opposite, for he
knew the police had just visited the house. Here must be proof that the
landlord knew of it, or that he deliberately refused to take notice of
it. There was nothing of that sort here. He would like to refer to one
point which Police-constable Taylor, who appeared to have very quick
eyes, said he had noticed. He said he saw the landlord tap the window
when the sergeant was 2ft. away from the door of the very room in which
these men were. All he could say was that the constable must be a
marvel. (Loud laughter.) he was most sorry to hear that laughter,
because he would be the very last person in the world to make a
suggestion against a Dover police. But this young constable, on this
occasion, did see a great deal. There was the sergeant going on as fast
as ever he could to he room where the cards were found on the table and
the coppers picked up. The constable followed the sergeant, and saw all
the same things. He told them there was a scramble, and that he saw the
landlord tap the window, not one word of which had been mentioned by the
sergeant. He thought in that he had made a mistake. It was admitted that
whatever happened happened very quickly, and people often made very
honest mistakes. He could not for the life of him see what advantage it
would have been for the defendant to have tapped on the window, because
the sergeant was at the door of the room, and the passage of time
between that action and the sergeant's entry would be infinitesimal, and
would not give time for anything to be done. The landlord's explanation
of this was a very probable one. He submitted that the charge had not
been proved.
The Magistrates retired to consider their decision, and on returning
the Chairman said they had carefully gone through the evidence, and
given it full consideration. They were bound to say that they had
considered the offence had been proved, but they took into consideration
the length of time the landlord had borne the character he had up to the
present, and therefore they would inflict but a very light penalty, £1
including costs.
|
(Stoker of Peter Street)
beer retailer
