Kentish Gazette, 22 June 1852.

ST. AUGUSTINE'S PETTY SESSIONS. Saturday, June 19th.

EXCISE CASE.

(Before Edward Foss, Esq., (chairman,) Wm. Delmar, Esq., W. Hyder, Esq., G. M. Taswell, Esq., and the Rev. J. Hilton.)

John Giles, landlord of the "Rose" beer-shop, Whitstable, appeared to answer an information preferred by the officers of the Inland Revenue, charging him with having certain quantities of British brandy and gin in an "entered" room on his premises, contrary to the provisions of the Act of Parliament.

The defendant admitted having the articles on his premises, but said it was with no intention of defrauding the revenue.

The case was then gone into.

Robert Hamilton, supervisor of Inland Revenue for the Canterbury district, deposed, that on the 3rd of March last he surveyed the premises of the defendant at Whitstable, who was a licensed retailer of beer, under various Acts of Parliament. He went into the cellar, and found eight gallons of British brandy and eight gallons of British gin.

By the Bench:— In licensing a house the rooms required for the business are named. The defendant had entered three of his rooms; the cellar, in which the spirits were found was one of the rooms so entered, and specified as "No. 2." (The clause of the Act of Parliament was here referred to, and read by the Clerk.)

Witness:- I seized the liquor, and told the defendant I supposed he knew he had acted wrong in having it there. He replied that he was not aware the spirits were in the cellar.

By the Bench:— We can visit the rooms "entered" at any time we wish to do so.

Defendant:— I did not consider my back cellar was an entered room; I never had any beer in it in my life.

Mr. Hamilton explained that there was but one cellar to the defendant's house, with supports in the centre. It had been entered by himself, as "the room under the bar."

Defendant:— I thought my spirits and my brothers' were quite safe in my fore-cellar.

The Bench:— What induced you, Mr. Hamilton, to go to the defendant's house?

Witness:— It was in consequence of having received information that the defendant was in the habit of selling as much spirits as the duly licensed publicans of the town were. I have never given him notice that I should inform against him on any other charge.

The Bench then consulted together for a short time, and the Chairman, said they were afraid that what the defendant had been guilty of was greatly practised in the town, to the great injury of the regularly licensed publicans. But as it was the first offence with which he had been charged, they had determined to fine him in the lowest mitigated sum the Act allowed, which was £12 10s. and £1 1s. costs and expressed a hope that it would act as a caution to him for the future.

The defendant paid the money, thanked the Magistrates for not imposing the full penalty of £50., and then left the Court.

Kentish Gazette, 28 September 1852.

ST. AUGUSTINE'S PETTY SESSIONS. Saturday September 25th.

Before Edward Foss Esq; (chairman,) and a full bench of magistrates.

This being the adjourned day for granting public houses licences, many of the publicans of the Home Division were in attendance.

There were 6 applications for licences to additional houses, vis. William Williams, ("Plough and Harrow") parish of Bridge; George Foreman ("Victoria") and John Giles, Whitstable; Thomas Holtum, Sturry; William and Frederick Wood Herne Bay. The bench refused to grant the licences, as they considered that at present the number of public houses in the different parishes was quite equal to the requirements of the inhabitants.