From the Dover Express and East Kent Intelligencer, 3 March, 1882. Price 1d.

INFRINGING THE LICENSING ACT

Otto Dannenburg, landlord of the “Star Inn,” Church Street, (this is incorrectly addressed. Paul Skelton) was summoned for serving intoxicating liquors during prohibited hours, and Sergeant William Smith, Trumpeter, John Smith, and Gunner Martin Reeves, of the Royal Artillery, were summonsed for being upon the premises at the same time.

The landlord pleaded “Not Guilty,” and the soldiers said that they were guilty of being found on the premises, but were ignorant of the laws, as they had only just arrived from India.

Police-constable Wickham said: On Tuesday the 21st instant, at a quarter to twelve o’clock at night, I was on duty in the Market Square, when from information I received I went with a sergeant of the Garrison Military Police to the “Star Inn,” Church Street. I knocked at the door and the landlord opened it I asked him whether he had any persons inside, and he said, “No, only lodgers.” I then walked through into the tap-room, and found the three defendants of the Royal Artillery sitting down with a quart jug and two glasses in front of them, each containing beer. I asked them whether they were lodgers, but they made no reply, but drank up their beer and left the premises. Nothing further was said about the defendants being lodgers. The three defendants belong to the Royal Artillery, and are situated at Fort Burgoyne, their battery having come in last Saturday week.

Witness, examined by the landlord, said: You did not tell me that they said that they had come from Chatham.

Sergeant Gallaher, of the Royal Scots Fusiliers said: I am acting on Garrison Military Police duty. At about half-past eleven o’clock on Tuesday, the 21st instant, I saw three Artillerymen enter the “Star Inn.” There being Artillerymen about I wished to examine their passes. I got the last witness to obtain admittance to the inn. We went and knocked at the door, and the landlord answered. The constable asked if there were any persons inside the house, and the landlord said “only lodgers.” We went into the tap-room, and found the three defendants there. I examined their passes and found that they were on leave till midnight. They belong to Fort Burgoyne. The landlord said that they were lodgers in the presence of the men, but when I asked them if that were true, they said “no.” When we first went to the house it was shut, and the door fastened. The defendants left the house and went up Castle Street. If they had stopped any longer I should have made them prisoners.

By the Bench: The Artillerymen came to Fort Burgoyne about a fortnight ago from India.

The defendant Dannenberg said that he would not have got himself into that row for the sake of a pot of beer. He had taken the word of the soldiers that they were going to be lodgers.

The Artillerymen said that they were ignorant of the laws, having just returned from India, but seeing a light in the public-house, they had knocked and obtained a little beer.

The Superintendent said that this was not the first offence against the landlord. About nine months ago he found the house open late at night, but some explanation was given to the Bench about its being with a soldier’s dinner that they had there that night. Only last Saturday after the summons had been served on him, at twenty minutes to one o’clock, there were three men found in the top part of the house, and who belong to Dover.

The bench fined the landlord 40s. and 10s. 6d. costs, and the other defendants were ordered to pay the costs, 7s. 6d. The money was paid.

The Clerk told the artillerymen that this case would not be reckoned as a conviction against them.

From the Dover Express and East Kent Intelligencer, 10 March, 1882. Price 1d.

INFRINGING THE LICENSING ACT

Otto Dannenburg, landlord of the “Star Inn,” Church Street, (this is incorrectly addressed. Paul Skelton) was summoned for serving intoxicating liquors during prohibited hours, and two men were summonsed for being upon the premises at the same time.

Mr. Mowll appeared on behalf of the defendants, who, in answer to the charge, pleaded guilty.

Police-constable Cook said: On Saturday, Feb. 25th, at 11.35, I was on duty in Church Street, when I saw an artilleryman enter the “Star Inn,” and five minutes afterwards a man named Samuel Baker went into the house and remained for ten minutes, when someone forced him out of the house. I reported what I had seen to Police-sergeant Harman.

Police-sergeant Harman said: On Saturday night the 25th February, my attention was called to the “Star” public-house by Police-constable Cook. I went with Police-constable Pilcher at twenty minutes to one o’clock the same night to the house, and was let in by the landlord. The house was shut up and in total darkness when I knocked at the door. We walked through the passage into the kitchen, and found seven men sitting at a table, but with no drink before them. I asked the landlord if the seven men were lodgers, and he replied that they were. The men were strangers to Police-constable Pilcher and myself. I then went upstairs, and in the club room, over the bar, which was in total darkness, I found the two defendants, the one behind the door and the other under a table. I turned on my lantern and soon found the men. The landlord was present, and said that one came in as lodger. I asked him how he accounted for the other, and he replied, “Don’t’ say anything, as I am summoned to appear at the Court on Monday already.” I told him that I could not help his being already summoned, and that I was obliged to report the case.

Police-constable Cook, recalled, said: The man Samuel Baker was drunk when he left the “Star Inn,” and I had to separate him from another man whom he was fighting with, shortly after leaving the house.

Police-constable Harman, continuing, said: I took the defendant’s names and reported the case at the Police-station.

Mr. Mowll said that he appeared for the defendant, who had stated that they were very sorry that that had committed the offence. This case would be the cause of the landlord’s ruin, and he would be obliged the premises. He (Mr. Mowll) had received instructions to apply for the transfer of the license of the house this morning.

The Clerk said that the defendant, the landlord, had been summoned to appear at Court on Monday, 27th of February, and this offence took place on Sunday, the 26th. He was on the Monday fined 40s. and costs. The summons must have been in the house at the time when the defendant’s were found there.

The bench said that under the circumstances they felt compelled to fine the landlord £10 and costs 9s. 6d., or in default one months’ imprisonment, and the two men found on the premises were fined 10s. each and 9s. 6d. costs.

From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday 29 August, 1890.

DOVER BREWSTER SESSIONS

WRITTEN AUTHORITY ONLY

On the name of the landlord of the “Star,” Trevanion Lane, being called, no one answered.

Mr. Worsfold Mowll said as he knew the parties he would take that license.

Mr. Stilwell: Have you a written authority to make the application? If so, you must produce it.

Mr. Mowll: I cannot do that.

The name was passed over.

THE WRITTEN AUTHORITY RULE

When the list had been exhausted, Mr. Worsfiold Mowll asked if the new rule, requiring a written authority, was to apply to Solicitors. He could understand that it might be a very good rule to apply to agents who had no right of audience before the Magistrates, but he thought it ought not apply to Solicitors. He was there to watch all the cases of all the houses of Messrs. G. Beer & Co. This was one of their houses, and Mr. Sandford, their Manager, was present, and he knew that the landlord of the “Star” did not want his licence renewed.

Mr. Stillwell: You said yourself that you are here to represent the landlord, and not the tenant.

Mr. Mowll said that Mr. Sandford knew that the tenant wanted the license renewed.

Mr. Mowll again argued that the rule, as to written authority, ought not to be applied to Solicitors who had the right of audience at the Court.

Mr. T. V. Brown said he could not allow it to go forth that anyone except Solicitors, had the right of audience in the court. There were agent who introduced applicants, but they were never allowed to argue or address the court.