Alleged Drunkenness

Henry Smith, landlord of the Eagle and Child, Conisboro’, was charged with selling drink during prohibited hours, on the 10th inst., and also for permitting drunkenness on the 10th and 11th inst. Detective-sergeant Brown said he and Sergeant Bradbury, acting under the instructions of the Chief Superintendent, took lodgings at the defendant’s house during Doncaster Race week. On the 10th inst. at 10-25 a local contractor, named MacLaren, came into the kitchen. The landlady called out that MacLaren was in the kitchen, whereupon the landlord called him in the front room.

MacLaren was drunk at the time, but the landlord supplied him with a glass of gin and afterwards with two bottles of champagne, for all of which MacLaren paid in his presence. He then left the house, being very drunk. Asked where he lived and was told “across the road.” The money paid for the drink would be about 14s. or 15s. Cross-examined by Mr. Hall, witness said he and his companion drank a little of the champagne. He would swear that MacLaren did not stay all night. I said “that man is drunk” and reported to Superintendent Todd the next day. Detective-sergeant Bradbury said he was at the house in question at 10-25 on the 10th inst., in the front room. MacLaren came in and was fresh at the time. He paid for a glass of gin and two bottles of champagne. He told the landlord the man was “fresh.” He did not tell the Conisboro’ police officer about it.

Mr. Hall then commented strongly upon the conduct of the two detectives. He was in a position to prove that MacLaren was lodging there on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday of the race week. His client admitted selling the drink, but what about the detectives? They had doubtless come to Doncaster for a “job.” If it was bad for MacLaren and the rest to be drinking the champagne, it was bad for the detective to be drinking it as well, indeed he would say to the magistrates “don’t believe them.” He then called Mrs. Smith, who said she was the wife of the defendant. She remembered the 10th of September. MacLaren lodged at Mrs. Johnson’s, but came to their house on the night in question and asked if he could be accommodated with lodgings during the race week, as his landlady expected some friends. He lodged, therefore, at their house on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday nights. The two detectives came for lodgings for the week. I asked them to pay 30s., but they only paid 15s. MacLaren, in answer to Inspector Todd, witness said MacLaren lodged at their house on Monday night, did not know what time he got up in the morning, generally rather early, but was quite sure he lodged there that night as she gave him his candle to go to bed, and the bed he usually occupied wanted making in the morning.

James MacLaren said he was a contractor, and lodged at defendant’s house on the Monday night. I asked if I could have a bed there during the race week, and “on my solemn oath” I slept there. Paid for some champagne, but was not drunk. I detest drunkenness. Got up next morning about seven o’clock. George Reynolds said he was at defendant’s house on Monday night and played the piano. He corroborated the evidence of the previous witnesses, and the bench therefore dismissed the first case against the defendant.

The second case for permitting drunkenness on the 10th and 11th inst., was then proceeded with. Sergeant Brown said that on Monday night the two Beeson’s came in the house very drunk and the landlord filled them several glasses of spirits. The latter Beeson was singing some immoral songs. Found that they had secured lodgings at the house. MacLaren came in and he was drunk. The landlord was present and he was worse for drink. They kept up singing, &c., till one o’clock in the morning, some fell down stairs and kicked up a fearful noise till two o’clock.

Cross-examined by Mr. Hall: Witness said he was there to see how they conducted the house. Did not say a word to the landlord, but reported to Superintendent Todd. Went according to my instructions. Sergeant Bradbury said that when the two men named Beeson came in they were drunk, and were supplied with liquor. They were song singing and drinking. The songs were immoral ones. The landlord was singing as well. At one o’clock they commenced rolling up stairs.

On Tuesday night the drunkenness and singing was repeated. One of the company sang a song called “Rule of Three” which was a most immoral song. One man blacked his face and commenced throwing up his heels round the table. The landlady had to call out to them. The landlord was drunk himself. One of them tumbled off a seat and knocked his head against the fireplace. The landlord was asleep till ten o’clock and then he got up and said he had been to Doncaster and got drunk, but he would sing any man with hair on.

Mr. Hall said he should bring witnesses to prove that what really occurred was a bit of fun and larking. They were in fact enjoying themselves in a proper manner. No improper songs were sung. His witnesses were disinterested and not like two fellows of this sort. They had brought no disinterested witnesses, not even the police officer of Conisboro’. Mrs. Smith said that none of those present were drunk on either of the nights in question, and no immoral songs were sung. As for the two Beeson’s, they were not drunk, neither were they gamblers. They had a machine for people to strike at in order to ascertain their strength, &c. Three men did come in drunk one of the nights and they ordered them out, but as they did not go they sent for the police and then they went. Did not hear a song called “Rule of Three” sung.

Mr. MacLaren said he did not see any one drunk, neither did he hear any immoral songs sung, nor see any one black his face, &c. Mr. Isaac Shaw said he was a cabinet maker at Conisboro’, and was at defendant’s house from 8-30 to 9-55 and heard no immoral songs, saw no one drunk. I was playing the violin, but not for money, only for a little amusement. The songs sung were good sentimental and comic songs. The landlord was perfectly sober. Mr. Reynolds said he was playing the piano on the night in question and sang some songs. They were not immoral songs. He sung “The Shakers” and “They all do it.” All those present were sober.

Joseph Travis, innkeeper, of Manchester, said he was staying at defendant’s house on Tuesday night. When he was there all were perfectly sober and everything was right. Mr. Barlborough, Mr. Smith (landlord), and P.C. Garnett were then called.

After which Mr. Hall addressed the bench on behalf of the defendant. After a brief consultation the chairman said there was strong evidence on both sides, but as the greater weight of evidence was for the defendant, they dismissed the second case also.