Mexborough & Swinton Times – Friday 29 April 1892
Alleged Breach of the Licensing Act at Conisborough.
Hard Swearing
Joseph Thompson, shoemaker, Conisborough, and Wilfred Woolhouse, joiner, Conisborough, were summoned for being drunk on licensed premises and the landlord, William Martin, was summoned for permitting drunkenness
Mr. Hall appeared for the landlord.
Police-sergeant Ambler stated that at twenty minutes to ten on the night of Saturday, the 16th inst., he visited the Eagle and Child Inn, at Conisborough, along with Police-constable Trueman. The two defendants were an a tap room with beer before them He said, “You have been turned out of one house and have come to another.” He told the men to go outside. Thompson took up the pint and had a drink and staggered outside. The men went arm in arm along the street. About ten minutes previously, at the Alma Inn, the landlord had complained about the defendants
Thompson : When you came you said, “Thompson, I want you,’ and I said ” Sir, I will come.” I had asked for no drink. Why did you say I was drunk?
Police – Sergeant Ambler: I say so now.
The Chairman: Why did you say you was drunk?
Police – Sergeant Ambler: By his appearance.
Thompson: I was not served with anything; I had not the privilege or the chance of getting anything. I was not drunk and had had nothing to drink.
The defendant said the sergeant had told “lots of untruths.”
The defendant Woolhouse said he had not had to buy a drink all the day.
Police constable Truman was called to corroborate the evidence of the sergeant.
The Chairman: Did they walk straight?
The constable: No, they wanted all the road to walk on.
The landlord of the Alma Inn said the two men have been to his house. Thompson said, “Let’s have a pint,” and witness said “get off home; you have had plenty.” The men were drunk. Thompson said “I am going to have a drink with someone,” and he took up a pint belonging to another man. He afterwards went away.
Thompson accused the landlord of not been able to tell whether he “Thompson” was drunk or sober. (Laughter.)
A witness named Joe Woodward was also called to give evidence, and he was cross-examined by Thompson as follows:
Did I do anything wrong? – Did I not go out like a gentleman? – Yes, you went out. – Did I leave the house like a right man? – Yes. – Did I do anything wrong? – No. – Was the policeman there? – I did not see any. – Woolhouse: You don’t know that I was drunk? – No; you said nothing to anyone.
The defendant Thompson then went into the witness box. He said on the night in question he had had a walk around the village of Conisborough. Moody, the landlord, was not capable of filling him any drink, so he said, “I will sup with you, Woodward.” But Woodward said “No, he said he would not fill you any, so you must go.” He then said, “All right,” and went. He went down the street to the other public house, and the sergeant opened the door and said “I want you, Thompson.” He at once went to the policeman. The officer said nothing about him being drunk, and he (Thompson) never said a wrong word to anyone. What the officer wanted to do with him he did not know, but he “Thompson” could tell the magistrates a lot if he liked. (Laughter.) However he had done no wrong that night – no more than a newborn child. He had no opportunity of asking for anything in the Eagle and Child and he was not in the house three minutes.
The Chairman: You had no drink?
Thompson: No; I should have liked some no doubt, but I’d not a chance. (Laughter.) I had not had a deal of beer the whole day.
Superintendent Blake: What time did you go to the Station Hotel? – About 3 o’clock.
What did you get to drink there? Now be careful. – Oh I’m careful. (Laughter.) I had a bottle of cider with a gentleman. (Laughter.)
Were you turned out there? – No, I was not.
Were you not turned out for being disorderly? – No.
Who was there with you? – James Conway went in with me.
What drink was paid for? – I don’t know, I did not pay for any, so I should think he did.
What time did you leave? – I really could not say, I did not notice that minutely. (Laughter.)
What was on the table at the Eagle and Child? – I did not see.
The witness further stated that so far as Woodward was concerned “they had scores and hundreds of pints together”; his wishing to drink with him was “from friendliness and not from drunkenness.” (Laughter.)
The case against the landlord, Martin was then proceeded with.
Sergeant Ambler repeated evidence here previously given. He told the landlord that the two men were drunk and that they had been turned out of another house. The landlord replied that the men had only been in the house a few minutes, and that that was their first pint.
The Chairman: What was their conduct to induce the landlord think they were not sober?
Mr Hall (to the policeman): Did you follow them in? – Ambler: No.
Were they seated together talking? – Yes.
There was no disturbance? – No.
Mr Hall said he did not know whether it was necessary for him to call any witnesses. He could call up a score of witnesses to show that the officer’s statement as to drunkenness were not true.
The Chairman said the magistrates felt they could not convict in either case.
The men might have had a glass of beer or two, but even if they were the worse for drink they did not think there was sufficient evidence to put it into the landlords head to do anything. All the cases would be dismissed.
Thompson: Thanks your worship.
The Chairman: We have done with you.
Thompson: It’s a long time since I had any justice. (Laughter.)