From the Deal, Walmer, and Sandwich Mercury, 11 September, 1869. 1d.

ANNUAL LICENSING DAY

William Adams applied for  a license for the "Royal Exchange," Walmer. Refused.

From the Deal, Walmer, and Sandwich Mercury, 12 February, 1870. 1d.

AN INFRINGEMENT OF THE BEER ACT

William Adams, landlord of the "Royal Exchange, beer-house, Walmer, was summoned for having his house open beyond the limited time, vic., 11 o'clock on the night of the 20th ult.

On being asked whether he was guilty or not, defendant said the house was open when the constable entered on the night in question although the door was shut, and the persons who were present had been invited by his wife to spend an hour or two with them, as it was both his and his daughter's birthday. The refreshment they were having when the police entered was what he gave them.

P.C. Ralph said: On Thursday night the 20th of January I was passing defendant's house at 35 minutes past 11 o'clock. I heard singing going on in the house, and I went in. I found the front door unlatched, although shut. I went into the tap-room, opened the door, and asked the defendant if he was aware what time it was. He replied, "I really was not." I said, "You must be aware it is nearly half-an-hour over your time," but he said, "I was really not aware of it. I have had a little company in, and I was not aware of it." I pointed him to his own clock, which was 25 minutes to 12. There were five men in the tap-room besides the landlord, and also a woman or two. There were glasses on the table with beer in them. The landlord has never been brought here before, and I have never before had occasion to complain of the house. It is usually an orderly and well-conducted house. The house ought to have been closed at 11 o'clock.

Admiral Montresor: Were the people quiet or noisy - drunk or sober?

Witness: Sober, sir, and directly I made the complaint they came out of the house.

In defence, the defendant said the constable's evidence was quite true, but the room where the parties were was his living room, and they had been asked there by his wife.

The Magistrates said they were quite satisfied the defendant had kept his house open beyond the proper time, whereby he had rendered himself liable to a fine of 40s. However, as this was his first offence and he had previously conducted his house in a proper manner, he would only be fined 10s., including costs.

The Magistrates' Clerk said Mr. Miller, who kept a public-house in Walmer, wished publicly to state before the Magistrates that he had not given information in the case against Mr. Adams. It had been reported, however, that he had done so.

Mr. Davey said that from what he knew of Mr. Miller he thought he would be the last man to do such a thing.

Supt. Stokes said Mr. Miller had never made the slightest complaint to the police against Mr. Adams's or any other house.

Mr. Miller said the report was not only hurtful to his feelings, but also likely to injure him in his business.

Admiral Montresor said he did not think Mr. Adams would have any feelings of that sort after the statement of the police and Mr. Miller.

Mr. Adams: Not at all. I really don't think the man would do such a thing.

Adrl. Montresor said it was quite right of Mr. Miller to mention the matter, but in the opinion of the Magistrates, the police, and the man himself he was thoroughly clear.

W. Dewell, W. Blows, and Alfred Blows, were then charged with being present and drinking in the above-named house, during prohibition hours on the 20th January. Each of the prisoners admitted the charge, but stated that they and two of their wives had been invited there by Mrs. Adams to drink her husband's and daughter's healths, and said they did not know they were doing wrong by being there.

Mr. Davey said the defendants aught to know that the house should have been closed at 11, and that under the new act of Parliament they were liable to be fined for drinking in the house after hours. However, as they seemed to have broken the law unintentionally they would pass it over this time, but they must take care and not come there again for a similar offence.

From the Deal, Walmer, and Sandwich Mercury, 26 May, 1900. 1d.

ASSAULT CASE

Maud Grace was summonsed for assaulting and beating Violet Knight, at Walmer, on the 12th May.

Defendant pleaded not guilty.

Complainant deposed that she was 13 years of age, and lived with her parents at the "Royal Exchange," Lower Walmer. On the previous Saturday week, about a quarter past 10 at night, she was opposite the Lower Walmer Post-office, on her way home from deal, when defendant, who had been following her, grumbling, and saying something in an undertones, came behind her and slapped her on both sides of her face, telling her that she had been waiting until she was alone.

Ald. Hayman: Did you say anything to her?

Complainant: No, sir, she struck me on both sides of the face, and followed me home, using most disgusting language.

The Magistrates' Clerk: You are not next-door neighbours, are you?

Complainant: No, sir. She has annoyed me ever since I took a bill to her house. She tore the bill up, swore at me, and slapped my face.

The magistrates' Clerk: Have you ever insulted her in any way?

Complainant: No, sir. I have been too much afraid of her, and have got out of her way. She had struck me before.

The Magistrates' Clerk: Are you quite sure you have done nothing to give any cause of grievance?

Complainant: I have done nothing but take a bill there.

By Defendant: She had not called her (defendant's) child "carrots and ginger," and she had not struck her.

P.C. Stokes said that about 10.15 on the night in question he was on duty in the Strand, when, hearing someone speaking rather loudly on the other side of the road, near the Post-office, he turned round and saw defendant strike back-handedly with her left hand at the last witness. He could not say whether the blow hit her, though from the way in which she reeled he should think it did. He then followed her and overheard defendant say that complainant, her mother, and her two sisters were a dirty, low, thieving lot. Just as they got into Dover Road he heard defendant use most disgusting language with regard to complainant's sister. he followed them as far as the "Royal Exchange," defendant remained outside. He had not known defendant previously, but he had to caution her about using bad language. She was then quiet, and he left.

In reply to the Magistrates' Clerk complainant said that she did not know that a policeman had seen what occurred, and she was surprised to see one come forward and give evidence.

Defendant said that this had arisen through something that took place two years ago, with which she had nothing to do, and through which she and her child had been insulted. She did not assault complainant, but touched her on the shoulder and spoke to her about calling after her child. Complainant asked her to come and see her mother and she went up to do so. She did say that she would not enter the house as it was too dirty for her to do so. She did not use any bad language.

Ald. Hayward said that the case had been fully proved. The constable had come forward and had sworn to what took place, and they must accept his evidence. She had no one to rebut what he had said, and there was no corroboration of her statement. The magistrates thought the language most unbecoming, whatever the difference might have been. If she had been insulted, she had a remedy. The fine would be 5s., and the costs 8s. 6d.

Complainant's father asked that defendant should be bound over to keep the peace. His daughter went in fear of her.

Ald. Hayward said that they could not both fine and bind over, but if there was any further annoyance, and it had been corroborated, that course might be taken if he brought the case before them.

A fortnight was allowed for payment.