|
From the Dover Express and East Kent Intelligencer,
29 June, 1866.
TOUTING AND TOUTING
John Kittle, proprietor of the "London Hotel," Council House Street,
was summonsed on the information of Mr. Henry Cox, the
station-superintendent at Dover of the London, Chatham and Dover
Railway, on a charge of obstruction and disorderly conduct at the
harbour station.
The same defendant was also summoned, on a second information,
preferred by Mr. Charles Spice, proprietor of the "Harp
Hotel," Strond Street, the defendant, as it was alleged having been
guilty of threatening and obscene languages towards him.
Mr. E. Knocker appeared in support of Mr. Cox's information, and Mr.
T. Fox on behalf of Mr. Spice. The defendant was represented by Mr.
Minter.
The charges preferred by Mr. Cox was first proceeded with, and to
this Mr. Minter, on the part of the defendant, pleaded not guilty.
Mr. Knocker said the information against the defendant was for having
infringed the 3rd and 4th Vict. by refusing at the request of the
company's premises, and he had thereby subjected himself to a penalty
not exceeding £5. The occurrence which was the subject of the
prosecution took place on the evening of the 21st June, on the arrival
of a down train, by which, he believed, the defendant was a passenger
from the Ewell station. The defendant took advantage of this
circumstance to do what he had been expressly prohibited from doing,
viz. to solicit some of the other passengers arriving by the same train
to repair to his hotel. The interference of the company's officers
became necessary, and the present prosecution was the result. But the
particular offence for which the prosecution had been instituted did not
stand alone. It was one of many misunderstandings which had transpired
between the defendant and the officers of the company. He stated this
because he should like the Bench to understand that the company would
not have thought it necessary to put the statutory powers in force in a
mere isolated case. But they had found it necessary, for the proper
conduct of their business, and the good order and quiet of their
station, to put a stop to such conduct as the defendant was in the habit
of indulging in. Mr. Knocker then detailed the circumstances of the
case, which are reported in the following evidence.
Mr. Henry Cox: I am station-master of the London, Chatham, and Dover
Railway, appointed to the Harbour terminus. On Thursday, June 21, in
three or four minutes after the arrival of the train due at 8.20 p.m., I
saw the defendant in altercation with one of the company's policemen
engaged upon the station. Seeing that the policeman could not succeed in
inducing the defendant to leave the station, I walked up and asked the
cause of the disturbance. In consequence of what the policeman had told
me, I went to Mr. Kittel and civilly asked him to leave the station. He
replied in a foul and abusive manner, and I then told the constable to
put him off the platform. He afterwards made an attempt to re-enter the
station, and also made a third attempt, but was repulsed, and the door
was shut. I have had abuse from the defendant on prior occasions.
My Mr. Minter: I heard that Kittel was a passenger. The defendant has
complained on me to the directors. Kittel does complain that I favour
Mr. Spice. I do permit Mr. Spice to be upon the platform, but I object
to Mr. Kittel.
By Mr. Knocker: I refuse Mr. Kittel admission to the platform,
because it is contrary to the instructions of my employees to permit him
to tout for his hotel. The general manager wrote to Mr. Kittel, telling
him that he could not be allowed to come upon the platform. That was the
result of the investigation made by the general manager in consequence
of Mr. Kittel's complaint.
Charles Edward Camps: I am the police officer attached to the harbour
station of the London, Chatham, and Dover Railway. On the evening of the
21st June I saw the defendant on the platform, about two minutes after
he arrived of the 8.20 p.m. train. I have had orders not to allow him to
remain on the station. He had a card in his hand and was touting. A
family was alighting from the train, and he went to them and touted for
his hotel. I went up to him, and said, "Mr. Kittel, you know you have no
business here. You have had orders not to come upon the platform. and I
beg you will leave, and not give me any trouble." He said in reply that
he should not go off till he liked, not all the time Mr. Spice was
allowed to remain. I told him that was nothing to do with me. I had had
orders to keep him off, not Mr. Spice. At that time Mr. Cox came up. In
reply to Mr. Cox's request that he would leave the platform, he made use
of some obscene language, and said that he should not go off till he
liked. Mr. Cox then ordered me to put him off. After I had done so, he
turned round and shaking his fist at Mr. Cox, said, "Mr. ---- Cox, I'll
have my revenge on you." He afterwards returned to the platform.
By Mr. Minter: I was on the platform upon the arrival of the train,
but I did not see Kittel get out of it. I was afterwards told that he
was a passenger by the train. I am a company's policeman, and have been
regularly appointed, but not sworn in.
Emmerson Ward: I am signal man at the harbour station in the employ
of the London, Chatham, and Dover Railway Company. I was at the harbour
station on the arrival of the 6.20 train on the 21st June. I saw the
defendant, Mr. Kittel, there. He was in the act of offering his card to
a gentleman, one of the passengers. I heard Camps tell him to leave the
platform. Kittel, in answer, said he should not, declaring that if Mr.
Spice was allowed to tout he should tout also.
Mr. Knocker: Did you ever see Mr. Spice tout?
Witness: I have seen him ask passengers to go to his hotel.
Mr. Minter: In fact you have seen Mr. Spice doing the same thing as
you saw Mr. Kittel doing, recommending his hotel as a very nice place?
Witness: Yes.
John Caleraft: I am an omnibus driver. On the 21st June, on the
arrival of the 6.20 p.m. train, I saw the defendant leave one of the
compartments of a first-class carriage. I saw him present a card to a
gentleman, and heard camps tell him to leave. I also heard him abuse Mr.
Cox.
By Mr. Minter: I was formerly in Mr. Kittel's employ. I am not in the
employ of the London, Chatham, and Dover Railway Company now, but in the
employ of Mr. Clements. Previous to seeing Mr. Kittel present his card
to the gentleman, Mr. Spice was talking to the same gentleman. I did not
hear what either of them said. I was too far off and was attending to my
business. I had walked a little further when I heard what passed between
the defendant, the policeman, and Mr. Cox.
The witness, after Mr. Minter had concluded his cross-examination,
volunteered to report that he heard the defendant grossly abuse Mr. Cox.
Mr. Minter: You were not asked that. (A laugh.)
This being the evidence in support of the information,
Mr. Minter addressed the Bench on behalf of the defendant. He
congratulated his friend Mr. Knocker on having a case supported by such
extremely willing witnesses as those which had appeared in aid of this
information. But there were two classes of witnesses whose evidence had
to be received with a good deal of caution - the extremely willing and
the extremely reluctant. There seemed in this case in more than one
respect a great deal which did not appear upon the surface. Indeed the
Bench had been frankly told by his friend, Mr. Knocker, that the
present prosecution had been influenced as much by prior circumstances
as by the circumstances of this particular transaction. The Magistrates,
however, he had no doubt, would confine themselves strictly to what was
actually before them, and would consider how far the charge brought
against Mr. Kittel had been supported by the evidence adduced that day. He had no hesitation in saying that the present prosecution was one of
the hardest he had ever known, and he believed it would be the opinion
of the Bench that that railway officials had been a little too hasty in
taking the steps which they had thought proper to adopt. No doubt Mr.
Kittel was obnoxious to the station-master, who was armed with
instructions to keep him out of the station, which instructions he had
communicated to the policeman and other officials. On the other hand,
Mr. Kittel was anxious, so far as he could legally do so, to conduct his
business with the facilities which other persons in the same line of
trade were permitted to enjoy. Mr. Kittel, therefore, sometimes ventured
within the precincts of the railway station; but no sooner was he seen
then a kind of hunt commenced. Directly the policeman saw him in this
instance, he walked up to him and without waiting to know what his
business in the station was, told him that he was on forbidden ground
and that he must retire, or he would be forcibly put out. It turned out,
however, that Mr. Kittel was a passenger by a train which had arrived,
and that he had just alighted from one of the carriages, so that
whatever the policeman might have been justified in doing under ordinary
circumstances, at appeared to him (Mr. Minter) that on this occasion he
had a little overstepped his duty. As to Mr. Kittel presenting his card
to one of his fellow passengers, he (Mr. Kittel) had yet to learn that
it was an offence punishable by any law in England. Mr. Kittle might
simply have been introducing himself, or he might, in addition, have
been recommending his hotel as best that could be found. He was
perfectly justified in doing either, and such an interference with him
as that described was an outrage which, he thought, could not in any way
be countenanced, even though the whole force of the London, Chatham, and
Dover Railway Company, represented as it was by the forensic ability of
his friends, Mr. Knocker and Mr. Fox, was brought to bear in support of
it (A laugh.)
Mr. Fox: I appear for Mr. Spice.
Mr. Minter: My friend says he appears for Mr. Spice. No doubt he
appears for Mr. Spice; but the case has not proceeded thus far without
it being apparent to everyone that this is a railway prosecution, and I
am sure I am correct in saying it is a railway prosecution "supported by
the entire strength of the company." (A laugh.) Or is it, that Mr.
Spice, for the sake of morality and the better government of the
borough, has thought it necessary to lay this information against my
unfortunate client? Mr. Minter then continued - It was perfectly true
that his client did refuse to leave the station when he was roughly told
to do so by the policeman, and he thought his conduct was very natural. He submitted that any passenger by a railway train would feel indignant
if treated, immediately upon arriving at his destination, like a felon -
in other words as the defendant in this case was treated. In conclusion
he maintained that the defendant had a perfect right to do what he had
done in presenting his card to a fellow passenger, and as the
interference of the railway officials which followed was simply a gross
outrage upon the defendant, he called on the Magistrates to dismiss the
summons.
The Court was cleared, and after a few minutes' deliberation the
doors were re-opened, when the presiding Magistrate said the Bench
considered the offence proved and had determined to inflict upon the
defendant a fine of 5s. and the costs.
The defendant paid the money, and at the same time pleaded guilty to
the second information, which, it was stated, arose out of the
circumstances of the case just disposed of.
In this case the Bench inflicted a fine of 2s. 6d. and costs, which
was also paid.
|
