Folkestone Observer 24 August 1866.

Licensing Day.

The magistrates issued their licensing certificates on Wednesday to all established publicans who applied for them, Mr. Morford, of the Fountain, being the only pub who got a lecture, and that a not very severe one. There were seven applications for new houses, and certificates were granted for four, namely: The Rendezvous, Mr. S. Hogben (another publican lost a £10 bet over this, we hear); Alexandra, Mr. Spurrier: Raglan, Mr. Lepper; and a house in Bouverie Mews, Mr. J. B. Tolputt.

Notes: If this is the first license for the Raglan it puts the accepted date of 1864 into doubt. Also, no record of Tolputt having a license anywhere. Could this, however, be the first license for the Albion Hotel?

Folkestone Observer 22 December 1866.

Wednesday December 19th:- Before the Mayor, J. Kelcey and R.W. Boarer Esqs.

William Sanford, 20, and Edward Stone, 28, were charged with stealing some cigars.

Godfrey Lepper said: I am a carpenter, and landlord of the Raglan Tavern at the corner of Mill Lane. I know both the prisoners. I saw the prisoners in my house at five minutes past five on Sunday afternoon the 16th instant. They were in the bar. The prisoner Stone was sitting down and the prisoner Sandford was leaning against the counter. They remained there from half an hour to three quarters of an hour. Before they left I missed two boxes of cigars from a shelf beside the clock in the bar. I had seen them safe at five minutes past three o'clock in the afternoon. Both the prisoners were in the bar at that time. The shelf is about eight feet from the floor, and you have to get on the counter to reach it. Superintendent Martin showed me some cigars last evening tied up in a handkerchief. I compared the cigars with some which I had in a box, and I am able to identify them as my property. The cigars produced are the same cigars as those produced by Superintendent Martin showed me. The value of the two boxes of cigars I lost is 25s. I went with Superintendent Martin to the prisoner Stone's house in Charlotte Place last evening about a quarter to eleven o'clock. P.C. Reynolds, who was with us, dug a hole in the back garden by the wall, and found the handkerchief now produced, containing two bundles of cigars. I identify them by comparison with the other cigars that I have, and by the ribbon with which they are tied up. I saw the prisoner Sandford in custody at the station house last night about half past ten o'clock. I heard the prisoner Sandford say Stone had taken the cigars and given them to him. I was present at Stone's house when he was taken into custody by P.C.s Woodlands and Reynolds, and accompanied them to the station house, where we arrived about half past ten o'clock. I heard Stone say he was innocent. When the cigars had been produced which had been taken from Sandford, Stone then said he had taken the cigars, and told us we should find the others at the back of his house in the garden.

Cross-examined by Sandford: I can swear that the cigars were my property, and I have cigars in court with which they can be compared.

Robert Fisher said: I am landlord of the Black Bull. I know both the prisoners. Sandford lives about forty rods from me. Last night about four o'clock I was in my meadow at the back of my house, and happening to turn my head I saw lying in the dyke between my meadow and Sandford's garden a parcel tied up in a red and white cotton handkerchief. I took it up and opened it, and found it to contain ninety six cigars and a cork. I took them indoors and thought someone had taken them from my house. My wife told me that P.C. Reynolds had been up the night before enquiring about some cigars. I handed the cigars to P.C. Sharpe.

P.C. Sharpe said: I went to the Black Bull last night about seven o'clock, and received from the last witness the parcel of cigars now produced, which he said he had found at the top of the meadow near Sandford's garden.

Henry Newman, bricklayer, living at No. 23, Darlington, said: I know both the prisoners. I was in the company of Stone on Saturday, about twenty minutes to three in the afternoon at the Raglan Tavern. On Monday morning I saw Mr. Lepper, and he asked me if I knew anything about two boxes of cigars, which he had missed on Sunday afternoon. I told him No. He said “There were only you, Stone and Sandford there yesterday afternoon”. Afterwards, while at work behind the Chequers, I saw Stone and asked him if he knew anything about the cigars. He said No. I told him if he had anything to do with them, if I was he, I would take them back to save any farther bother, for Mr. Lepper said if they were taken back he would forgive them. He said he knew nothing about them. I said Mr. Lepper was going to send a policeman and have Sandford locked up. He then said “What's he done with his box of cigars?”. I took him on one side and told him if he had got the cigars and would let me have them I would take them back to Mr. Lepper and try to make it up. He said he had not got them.

Cross-examined by Stone: I believe I came and saw you on Monday morning. It was not four o'clock in the afternoon.

Prisoner: I will settle up with him next year. I have nothing more to ask him.

P.C. Reynolds said: Last evening about half past eight o'clock, from information I received I went to the prisoner Sandfard's house. He came and opened the door and I told him I wanted him to come with me, and I charged him with stealing two boxes of cigars from Mr. Lepper on Sunday evening. He said he knew nothing about it. I took him to the station. On the road I told him there had been some cigars found at the back of his premises. After I had him at the police station the Superintendent charged him with stealing two boxes of cigars, and cautioned him as to what he said. He then asked hm if he wished to give any explanation as to the cigars that were placed on the table in front of him. He said Stone took them and gave them to him. I afterwards, about ten o'clock, apprehended Stone at his house in Charlotte Terrace. I charged him with stealing two boxes of cigars at Mr. Lepper's house on Sunday evening. He said he knew nothing about it; he was innocent. I asked him if he had any cigars about his premises. He said No, he was innocent. I might search the premises where I liked. I then took him into custody and brought him to the police station. Superintendent Martin charged him with stealing two boxes of cigars, and cautioned him as to what he had to say. He fetched the prisoner Sandford out of the cell, put him in front of Stone, laid the bundle of cigars on the table and the question was asked Sandford if Stone did not give him the cigars. He said “Yes, Stone took them and gave them to me”. Stone made no answer, but directly afterwards Stone said “I took them, and you will find mine buried in a garden at the back of my house, in a handkerchief, underneath some shavings”. I went about a quarter to eleven last night and dug in the garden, and found the bundle of cigars produced (a second bundle) tied up in a handkerchief.

Superintendent Martin Said: I received the handkerchief, paper and cigars produced (the first bundle) from P.C. Sharpe last evening; and from P.C. Reynolds the handkerchief and two bundles of cigars now produced (the second bundle). They have been in my possession since I received them. I heard the deposition of Reynolds, and it is quite correct so far as the statements made by the prisoners are concerned.

The prisoners being cautioned, Stone pleaded Guilty; Sandford said nothing.

The bench then committed the prisoners for trial at the next quarter sessions, and bound the witnesses to prosecute.

Both prisoners then applied to be permitted to give bail. The bench refused to allow bail to Stone, who admitted his guilt, but would take bail for Sandford in two sureties of £30 each and himself in £60.

Folkestone Observer 5 January 1867.

Quarter Sessions.

Thursday, January 3rd: Before J.J. Lonsdale Esq.

Edward Stone, 28, plasterer, who can neither read nor write, pleaded guilty to stealing two boxes of cigars, the property of Godfrey Lepper, on the 16th of December, and to a previous conviction on the 9th July, 1857, for felony.

Thomas Sandford, 20, plasterer, imperfectly educated, pleaded not guilty to indictments – one for stealing two boxes of cigars, and one for receiving with guilty knowledge.

Mr. Minter appeared for the prisoner.

Mr. Thomas Cobb, addressing the Recorder, said it was the intention of the Grand Jury to find a true bill on the count for receiving and not for stealing.

The Recorder looked at the indictment and said it was endorsed “A true bill”.

Mr. Brooke, foreman, and other members of the Grand Jury confirmed Mr. Cobb's statement.

The Recorder said as a Grand Jury they did not then exist (the learned gentleman had previously dismissed them), and he could not take notice of them. They were dead.

After some consideration the Recorder proceeded with the case, complaining, however, that no legal gentleman appeared for the prosecution.

Godfrey Lepper, being sworn, said: I am a carpenter. I recollect Sunday afternoon the 16th of December. On that afternoon I missed two boxes of cigars off a shelf in the bar of the Raglan Tavern. I am landlord of the Tavern. The shelf is about eight feet from the floor. I saw them at three in the afternoon. I missed them about half past five. I saw Sandford there about five o'clock outside the bar. He was in and out the whole of the evening. I cannot say that I saw him go out. I saw Stone there, sitting down. They were the only two in the bar at that time. I saw the cigars through Superintendent Martin bringing them to me on the following Tuesday evening, about eight o'clock. They were tied up in a red handkerchief in paper. One box of cigars was Henry Clay's; the next were Mexican cheroots. I compared others that I had with them. The cigars brought me were some of the same kind. It is only from the general appearance that I believe them to be mine. When I missed the cigars I used every exertion to find out the persons who had taken them. After Superintendent Martin brought me the cigars, I went with police constables Reynolds and Ovenden to Stone's house to take him, and afterwards I went to the station house, and there Sandford said in the presence of Stone that Stone had taken them and given them to him. Stone then said the other portion of the cigars would be found at the back of his (Stone's) house, in the garden, buried in a handkerchief. Superintendent Martin and P.C. Reynolds and myself went to Stone's back garden and found them there. Superintendent Martin took those cigars. (Cigars produced). There is nothing but their general appearance that makes me think they are mine.

Cross-examined by Mr. Minter: There were other people in the house, but there were no persons in the house during the time that these cigars must have been taken. I did not see them taken. I did not go with the policeman when Sandford was taken. There was not much general conversation when I was at the station. There was a conversation about the stealing of the cigars. Sandford did not say that he did not steal them at all; he said Stone had taken them and given them to him. Stone denied taking them at first, but when he saw the cigars that had been found at the Black Bull, he admitted that he had taken them, and that some of them would be found at the back of his house. Part of the cigars had been in my house eleven months and three weeks. The Mexican cigars had been there that time; the others had been there five months. I was adjudicated bankrupt on the 28th of October. I have not received my order of discharge.

Mr. Minter here took objection to the indictment, the cigars being the property of the assignee, but the Recorder said it would be a mere misdescription, if anything, and he had full power to amend. The indictment was accordingly amended.

Mr. Lepper: I beg your pardon, Mr. Minter; they are my property. It was arranged on the 12th that the property is to remain mine, and I am to pay for it by instalments.

Robert Fisher, landlord of the Black Bull: I live near the prisoner Sandford. On the 19th December I found a handkerchief in the dyke between my field and Sandford's garden. I opened the parcel and found ninety six cigars in it. It was a red handkerchief. I believe the handkerchief produced to be the same. I took them indoors and said “I have found a prize”. I told P.C. Sharpe that I had found some cigars, and let him have them.

Cross-examined: Prisoner lives next door to me, and has lived there three or four years. He has always borne a good character.

P.C. Sharpe received the cigars from last witness, and handed them over to Superintendent Martin.

Henry Newman, being called, said he had nothing to do with Sandford's case, and the Recorder looking over his deposition directed the next witness to be sworn.

P.C. Reynolds said: In consequence of information received I went to Sandford's house and he came to the door. I told him I wanted him to come with me, and I charged him with stealing two boxes of cigars from Mr. Lepper's on Sunday evening. He said he knew nothing about it. On the way to the station I told him some had been found on the back of his premises. He made no answer. I brought him to the station. Superintendent Martin told him he was charged with stealing two boxes of cigars, and putting the cigars on the table, asked him if he wished to give any explanation. He said Stone had taken them and given them to him. I searched him, but did not find anything on him.

Cross-examined: I have known the prisoner for some years, and his friends are very respectable, and he has borne a very good character himself, as far as I know. When I took him into custody, I did not take him to the Black Bull, nor call there, nor see Mr. Fisher. I did tell him something, I believe, about Stone stealing the cigars.

Superintendent Martin received the first lot of cigars from P.C. Sharpe, and was himself present when Reynolds dug up the second lot in Stone's garden. The cigars had been in his possession ever since. Was present when Sandford was brought in, and cautioned him about what he should say. Asked him if he had any explanation to give respecting the cigars.

Mr. Minter submitted that what followed could not be received in evidence on the ground that Superintendent Martin had no business to produce the cigars and say “Now what have you to say about them? What explanation have you to give?”. In fact it was holding out a theft – not in language, but in substance.

The Recorder said he thought the evidence might not be excluded.

Witness continued: I charged him with stealing the cigars, and asked him if he had any explanation to make about their being found on his premises, having previously cautioned him. He said Stone took the cigars, and gave him the cigars produced.

Cross-examined: I have known prisoner for some years, and considered him to be a respectable young man living at home with his father.

Mr. Minter then addressed the jury, contending that Sandford had no knowledge of Stone's theft when he took the cigars, and that when he became aware of that theft through the enquiries of the prosecutor he threw the cigars away, and his statement of Stone's having stolen them was but a repetition of the policeman's statement to himself.

The Recorder summed up the evidence very carefully, and the jury retired, but in a short time returned with a verdict of Acquittal.

The Recorder then sentenced Thomas Day to twelve months' hard labour.

Folkestone Observer 23 November 1867.

County Court:

Monday, November 18th: Before J.C. Scott Esq.

Godfrey Lepper v Joseph Memphis: Claim for £1 3s. 8d. for goods supplied.

Defendant said he owed some, but did not know how much. This was for bread and cheese and beer. He never kept no account.

Order for 5s. a month, His Honour remarking that such a case could not be brought after this year.

Folkestone Observer 25 January 1868.

County Court.

Monday, January 20th: Before J.C. Scott.

Lepper v Hughes: This was a claim for 9s. for refreshments.

To be paid in a month.

Lepper v Memphis: This was a case where defendant was ordered to pay 5s. a month, but had failed to comply.

Ordered to stand over for a month to allow defendant to pay the first instalment of 5s., or sent to prison for 14 days.

Lepper v Newman: This was a claim for £1 2s. 5d. for refreshments generally, and the defendant had been ordered to pay 5s. per month, but had not done so. The defendant said that he did not owe the money, and he should not pay the debt; he would rather go to prison. Ordered to stand over for a month, or 14 days' imprisonment.

Lepper v T. Newman: In this case the defendant denied the debt, and said he would rather be in prison all his lifetime than pay what he did not owe. Committed for 14 days.

Lepper v Hollis: In this case the defendant admitted the debt, but had been unable to pay his instalments of 5s. per month in consequence of being out of employ. To pay in a month or 14 days' imprisonment.

Folkestone Observer 15 August 1868.

County Court.

Monday, August 10th: Before W.C. Scott Esq.

Alfred Kingsford v Godfrey Lepper: This was an action to recover possession of the Raglan Tavern, Dover Street, Folkestone.

Mr. Percy Claris appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. Minter for defendant.

Mr. Claris, in opening the case, said this was an action brought by plaintiff, a brewer residing at Buckland, near Dover, to recover possession of the Raglan Tavern, Dover Street, let by plaintiff to defendant under an agreement dated October, 1867, at the yearly rental of £25, the tenancy commencing on the 29th of September of that year. The agreement contained a clause to the effect that the tenancy could be determined at any time after three calendar months notice any rule or law to the contrary notwithstanding; and in addition to this there was the usual “provision for entrance in 21 days” upon non-payment of rent. Notice was served on the defendant on the 6th of April to quit on the 6th of July, but defendant had not quitted, giving as an excuse that he would not leave until plaintiff had agreed as to the payment for certain fixtures, but as those fixtures belonged to the plaintiff he did not agree to that little proposition.

Mr. Minter, on seeing the agreement, said he did not think it was properly stamped; it was a half crown stamp instead of a lease stamp.

His Honour overruled the objection.

Plaintiff then gave evidence in corroboration of his lawyer's statement, adding that he received the letter produced from the defendant. (It was to the effect that as plaintiff had decided to let the house, he would be prepared to give up possession upon a fair valuation being made of the fixtures and agreed upon between them. A letter from Mr. Minter was also read which stated that defendant had directed him to say that the fixtures belonged to him and he would not part with the possession of the house until the valuation was settled and agreed upon.)

Charles Browning proved the service of the notice at half past two on the 6th of April.

Mr. Minter said that was not a proper notice to quit for two reasons; first, they must take the notice to quit as it stands – that the tenancy should be a yearly tenancy from the 29th of September, at the yearly rent of £25, giving the quarter days upon which that rent was payable, and he contended therefore that the notice should be given on one of those days. The agreement said the tenancy should cease and determine at any time after three calendar months' notice. Now he contended that that clause meant at any time after three months' notice expiring upon one of the quarters named in the agreement. He cited the case of Kemp v Derritt, Campbell's Law Reports, where it was decided that it must be at one of the quarters upon which the rent was payable that notice to quit was to be given and expire. If the agreement meant that the tenancy should be determined at any moment after three months' notice had been given and expired, then there would have been a provision that a proportionate part of the rent should then and there become and be made payable to the proprietor, but explicit as the agreement otherwise was, it contained no such thing. Taking this, his friend's contention, to be right, then the defendant would occupy the house for six weeks without paying any rent. He said, in the reasonable meaning of the agreement, and also in law, by which the case had to be decided, the quarter should be taken to end at some quarter named in the agreement. If His Honour was against him on this point, he had a second to fall back upon. The agreement stated that three calendar months should be given, and this should be exclusive of the day of service; therefore the notice was informal because that day had been calculated in the time. The notice was specific in itself and binding upon them, giving the day which it expired, and including both the first and last days to make the three calendar months notice. It had been decided that the time must be exclusive both of the first and last days, both of which in this case the matter was quite clear; the agreement – three calendar months after notice had been given. He confidently submitted the first point as being entitled to succeed upon it; if His Honour was against him, then he called his attention to the second.

His Honour said this was a close point to take.

Mr. Claris said in ninety nine cases out of a hundred notices were served as this had been.

Mr. Minter said he must call His Honour's attention to the agreement which stated clearly that it must be three calendar months after the notice in writing, which, he contended, must be given on a quarter day.

His Honour replied that there was a special clause introduced in that agreement, that at any time whatever notice should be given, any rule or law to the contrary notwithstanding. He therefore overruled Mr. Minter's first objection; and as to the second, he should overrule that too, because it was too technical to notice. He would decide the case upon it's merits.

Mr. Minter then asked His Honour to defer judgement until the next case had been heard.

His Honour consented.

Plaintiff brought a further claim against the defendant, for £17 5s. 6d., of which £14 9s. 3d. was the balance, and £2 16s. 3d.for one and a quarter years' hire of fixtures to the Raglan Tavern.

Mr. Claris stated that defendant had admitted his liability over and over again by the payment of sums on the account, and he therefore thought His Honour would have no difficulty in deciding in favour of the plaintiff.

Plaintiff stated that defendant agreed to give £2 5s. per year for the use of the fixtures, that being a charge of 5 percent on the purchase money. The account had been delivered, but never disputed.

Cross-examined: I know nothing of defendant being asked to stay in the house as a tenant. I was not at the sale; my son was there. I simply bought the fixtures as belonging to the house. The defendant was to pay me rent for those fixtures – 5 percent on the purchase money. I did not advance the £45 as a loan at interest to Lepper at 5 percent, and it was not agreed that he should pay me back at £10 at a time. I never said I would rather have the whole £45 back at one time; you are putting words into my mouth that I know nothing about. The understanding was that if another person accepted the house the fixtures were to be taken by him at a valuation, and any over-plus to go to defendant.

His Honour: That is, would you have been satisfied with the return of the £45 you paid for them?

Witness: Yes.

Mr. Minter: I don't call any witnesses, and it it not necessary for me to address Your Honour on the present case.

His Honour then gave judgement for plaintiff.

A third case was then gone into, being a claim for rent.

Mr. Claris said he did not know what defence could be set up to this, as defendant had been in the house and paid no rent. Mr. Minter had given them two very ingenious defences, and perhaps he would now give them a third.

Mr. Minter said he would give his defence at once, and referred to the 63rd Section of the 9th and 10th Victoria, chapter 95, which refers to splitting the accounts, under which he contended that by plaintiff's first case he was debarred from obtaining a judgement on the second.

His Honour: Not at all.

Mr. Claris: We are not bound to bring the action for rent and beer together. This defence is still more ingenious.

His Honour: That is no defence to it.

Plaintiff then gave evidence stating that £31 5s. 0d. were due for five quarters' rent.

Mr. Minter contended that under the agreement under which they were suing, three quarters' rent only were due.

Mr. Claris replied that he was suing for three quarters under the agreement, and two quarters due before that agreement was entered into. This was simply a dishonest and dishonourable defence set up by the defendant.

Mr. Minter did not know what his friend meant by those terms, but he should learn the law before he came there.

Mr. Claris replied that defendant ought to have paid the money, knowing as he did that it was owing.

His Honour: Stick to the law upon the matter, please.

Mr. Minter still contended there was no tenancy before the agreement existed, defendant having lived in the house, and it was his own property up to the time of his bankruptcy, after which he continued to reside there.

Plaintiff, however, stated there was an agreement between them on his purchasing the house, but failed to prove more than one quarter previous to the agreement.

Mr. Minter then fell back upon the statute relating to a multiplying of suits. Three cases had been taken against the defendant besides one in equity, making four, simply, it seemed to him, to multiply the costs. The whole of the accounts together, with the £29 odd due before the bankruptcy, would have taken it out of the jurisdiction of that Court, and he contended that plaintiff had no right to split up his accounts to bring it there, therefore the latter claim must be abandoned.

His Honour having asked for some more explanation, Mr. Claris said he had intended to distrain for rent as his best mode of obtaining it, but on sending in he found that defendant had taken great care there was nothing there to distrain upon. If the defendant had any ground of complaint, it was against himself. The summons for the beer account was taken out in the meantime, consequently the claims were not made separate. If Lepper had abided by his agreement made on his first interview with him, not a sixpence might have been expended in these matters.

His Honour gave a verdict for four quarters' rent.

Mr. Minter then made an application with reference to the fourth case, viz., that the injunction issued – to restrain the defendant from removing any of the fixtures of the Raglan Tavern, should be dissolved. He was in a position to prove that the fixtures belonged to the defendant, subject to £45 lent by plaintiff, and such being the case, defendant would be damnified by that injunction.

His Honour ordered possession to be given up in 10 days, and renewed the injunction to that time.

Folkestone Observer 19 December 1868.

County Court.

Monday, December 14th: Before W.C. Scott Esq.

Kingsford v Lepper: This was an action to recover possession of the Raglan Tavern, Dover Street.

Mr. Claris said the facts of the case were very peculiar. It appeared that in August last His Honour gave judgement for plaintiff in this case, and on the defendant's becoming bankrupt plaintiff had bought the house of Mr. Lepper, and afterwards let it to him. He fixtures were also bought of and let to defendant, which was an unusual proceeding on the part of the plaintiff, but he was obliged to do so. The defendant now wished to extort money from plaintiff for the fixtures, and on the demand being refused, he declined to give up possession.

The agreement was put in and read, and Mr. Kingsford proved that there was more than half a year's rent due on the 3rd of November.

By Mr. Minter: He had refused to supply the defendant with more beer. The letter, which was a demand for rent, was in the handwriting of a clerk.

Mr. Minter made a lengthy speech on behalf of the defendant, after which His Honour thought they had better enforce the judgement of the last court.

Folkestone Observer 27 February 1869.

Tuesday, February 23rd: Before Captain Kennicott R.N. and S. Eastes Esq.

Mr. Claris, solicitor, Dover, applied on behalf of Mr. James Morford for permission to sell excisable liquors at the Raglan Tavern, Dover Street. A license had been granted to Mr. Lepper, but as he had been ejected for non-payment of rent, he had refused to transfer his license, contrary to his agreement with Mr. Kingsford. They had offered to pay for the unexpired term of the license, but Mr. Lepper would not accept it, his object being to keep the house shut up, that he might extort money from Mr. Kingsford.

Mr. Claris then called James Morford, who said he was the tenant of the Raglan Tavern, and took possession on the 20th January. The house had been shut up previously. On asking Mr. Lepper to transfer the license and sign the necessary papers, he said he could not do it.

Mr. Lepper opposed the application, stating that this case had been going on since August last, and had been carried into a superior court. Mr. Minter would have been there that morning, only that he was engaged. Mr. Kingsford had broken the agreement by refusing to supply him (Mr. Lepper) with beer; and as to the tenancy, Mr. Kingsford had acknowledged him as such by sending in a demand for money.

Mr. Claris said an action was brought to eject Mr. Lepper from the premises, and a verdict was given for ejectment in 10 days, and Mr. Minter gave notice of appeal, but at the October court he stated that he should not go on with the case. It appeared that during that time a clerk of Mr. Kingsford's had, in mistake, sent in a demand to Mr. Lepper for rent, thereby, Mr. Lepper said, renewing the tenancy, but at a subsequent court it was ruled that the mistake was not sufficient to make a new tenancy, and the verdict of the former court should remain in force. There was money due to Mr. Kingsford from Mr. Lepper for rent, beer, &c., to the amount of £60 18s. 6d.

Mr. Lepper said the fittings did not belong to Mr. Kingsford.

Mr. Bradley asked if he was ejected under the orders of the court.

Mr. Claris said he was an intruder, and was therefore put out.

The Bench granted the application.