Mexborough and Swinton Times November 7, 1908

Doncaster West Riding.

Conisboro’ Councillor as Defendant.
Charge of Permitting Drunkenness
Conflict of Evidence.
Fined One Shilling.

At. Doncaster West Riding Police Court on Saturday, Ellen Goodrich, married, New Conisboro’, was summoned for being drunk on licensed premises, and Arthur Moody, landlord of the “Alma” Inn, was summoned for permitting drunkenness at Conisboro’ on Oct. 19th. Moody is a member of the Conisboro’ Parish Council.

P.s. Hayes said that at 9-20 p.m. on Oct. 19th he was on duty in West Street, Conisboro’, near the Alma Inn, kept, by defendant. He was accompanied by other constables.   He heard a female voice shouting and using bad language in the Alma Inn.

On entering the tap-room he saw the female defendant sitting at a table. On the table was a glass containing stout. On her right hand was a female with an empty glass in front of her. Opposite Goodrich was the defendant Moody. Goodrich was waxing her arms about and using bad language, and Moody sat laughing at her. Witness could see that Goodrich was drunk. She had no hat on, and her hair was disarranged. A shawl she was wearing had slipped down. She had a purse in her right hand.

He drew Moody’s attention to the fact that the woman was drunk. He said, “Now missus outside. She then got hold of her glass of stout, drank some of it, and spilt some of it, on the floor. She then got en to her feet, staggered about, and was about to fall when her female companion got hold of her and took her off the premises. As she was leaving he told her, in Moody’s presence, that she would be reported for being drunk on licensed premises.

She replied, “All right, old love; I’ve known you for 19 years.”

After the woman left he told Moody that she was drunk, that should be supplied with drinks, and that witness should report accordingly.

Moody said “She has only been in a few minutes, and she has been asked to leave.” Moody son said “she has been in about 20 minutes.”

Witness point out to Moody that he was taken no steps to get this woman when witness arrived. Moody replied “I wanted to do it quietly.” Witness then left the premises. A few yards down the street he again saw Goodrich, who was behaving in a disorderly manner. He had known Goodrich for several years, and had no doubt as to her condition.

Cross-examined: He did not know that Moody had been the licensee of the house for 20 years, nor did he know that he had from time to time given valuable assistance to the police. He believed it was true that Moody had not been summoned before. Moody should have had no doubt as to the woman’s condition. No singing was going on in the house at the time. Witness could hear the foul language from outside. Witness certainly saw Goodrich drinking stout in the house. Moody never protested that the woman was not drunk.

PC Lundy said he was on duty in plain clothes in West Street, in company with PS Hayes. He gave evidence similar to that of PS Hayes. He was certain that Goodrich was drunk.

Cross-examined: Goodrich was using bad language and she was not merely joining in the chorus of the old song, “Down by the Riverside.” There was no singing.

PC Ransom also gave corroborative evidence.

PC Laycock said he was on duty in Station Road at 9:40 PM. He saw Mr Goodrich and another woman coming down the road. The form was very drunk, rolling about, and shouting. Just before they got to witness the other woman said to Goodrich, “Shut up, is another of ‘em.” Goodrich then became quiet. When witness saw the woman he had no idea what the other councils had been doing, and was not aware at the time that she had been in the Alma Inn.

John Powell, miner, New Conisborough, said he appeared as a witness on summons. On the evening of October 19 he went to the Alma Inn at about half-past six. He went in the bagatelle room. Later on in the evening he saw Goodrich, whom he had known for some time. It would be about 9:05 when he first saw her. She was sitting the taproom with another woman. Goodrich had a glass of stout. Witness was just leaving the house as a constables entered. When witness saw the woman she was very excited, and had been “falling out” with a man. He should say that when he saw Goodrich he was worse for drink, but neither drunk or sober. He called a person drunk when he or she staggered about.

This was the case for the prosecution.

Mr Andrew submitted that the case was “very, very exaggerated.” He did not like to do it, but he must ask the Bench to say that the Police had seriously exaggerated the facts in this case. Moody had held the licence of this out for 20 years, and no complaint had ever been made before against the way in which he had conducted it. This being so, what is reasonable to suppose that he would permit the condition of things described by the officers who visited the house.

Arthur Moody was then sworn. He said he was the landlord of the Alma Inn, and had been the licensee for over 27 years. No complaint had previously been made with respect to his conduct of the house. On the evening of the 19^th Goodrich came into his house just before 9 o’clock. She came in with another woman, Mrs Mangham. Goodrich had a parcel with her, and placed it on a table. Mrs Goodrich was feeling ill, and came into the house and asked for witnesses wife. Mrs Mangham asked for a glass of stout, which was supplied to her. Just afterwards Mrs Goodrich came into the tap room from the rear of the house. She neither asked for drink, or was supplied with any. He had no suspicion that she was the worse for drink. If he had he would have ordered her straight off the premises, as he had done many others. Mrs Goodrich had only just entered the tap room with a sergeant and the constables came in stop

Ps. Hayes said the woman was drunk. Witness said he did not think so, but that if the sergeant objected to her being in the house he would ask Italy. He then asked Goodrich to leave the house, and she went straight out. She did not stagger at all. She did not drink or spill any style. There was nothing whatever in the woman’s behaviour to suggest to him that he was not a desirable customer. He always made a point of watching people who came into his house.

Cross-examined: Witness thought the woman was sober. He would take is diagnosed that PSA did not say anything about reporting him. Witness had asked the man named Hague to be a witness for him, but he was not there that day. He had no idea he was going to have a summons until last Wednesday. He said “Oh, dear!” When he received the summons.

Mr Goodrich said that on Monday, October 19 she left her home at about 7 o’clock to go shopping. Mrs Mangham went with her. She called in one public out, and had “two pennyworth,” but did not drink it all. On the way home she called at the “Alma.” She had never been in the house before. Witness went to the rear of the premises, and afterwards enter the tap room. A friend I got a drink. When witness got into the tap room she found a lodger of hers in there. He was wearing a top hat, and this made her laugh. Then the police came in. She never ordered any drink, and she did not drink or spill any stout. She did not use any bad language. Hayes came in, and said she was drunk. She said if he wished to leave the house she would do so. She was not disorderly in the street.

Cross-examined: Witness was perfectly sober when she was in the “Alma.” She had no drink whatever in the “Alma.” She had no chance to get any, because she had only just gone into the tap room when the police came in. She was not drunk, and she had Moody deny that she was drunk.

Mrs Mangham said that on the evening of October 19 she went with Mr Goodrich to Conisbrough stop they called at the “Fox,” and after visiting the co-operative stores went to Mr Moody’s. Mr Goodrich left her in the taproom while she went to the rear. She would be away from witness about five minutes. Witness ordered a glass of stout, but Mrs Goodrich did not order anything. Witness asked her to drink from a glass of stout, but she did not do so. All the drink she had while she was with witness was a little whiskey in the “Fox.” Mrs Goodrich did not use bad language. She merely “laughed hearty.” Mrs Goodrich walked out of the house by herself, and did not appear as if she might fall.

Cross-examined: Witness was a friend of Mrs Goodrich. When the sergeant spoke to Moody latter said he did not think Mr Goodrich was drunk. He did not mention to the sergeant that he had not supplied Mrs Goodrich with any drink. On leaving the house they went straight home, and did not see a police constable on the way.

Arthur Moody, Junior, said he was in the house when Mrs Goodrich and Mrs Mangham came in. Mrs Goodrich did not order any drink, and was not supplied. Mrs Mangham ordered some stout. He did not see Mr Goodrich drink anything. No bad language was used. Both women were sober.

Cross-examined: witness would swear that the Police came in at 8:45 and not 20 past.

Harold Moody gave similar evidence. In cross examination, he saw that the police came in at 8:57.

This concluded the case for the defence.

After the Bench retired and returning to court, the Chairman said they had to decide two things. The first was as to whether Goodrich was or was not drunk. He came to the conclusion that she was from, and as she had been previously convicted she would be fined five shillings and costs.

Secondly, they had to consider whether Moody at the knowledge all the opportunity of knowing what the condition of the woman was. They had given very careful consideration to this question, because Moody bore a good character. In his long connection with this house he had never been convicted. They thought, however, that character could not possibly outweigh evidence. They had given careful attention to the evidence given that day, and they thought that Moody should have been aware of the fact that the woman was the worse for drink, and that he ought to have turned her out of the house.. There must therefore, be a conviction.

In the matter of the penalty they thought that character must be taken into consideration, and they would impose a nominal penalty of one shilling and costs stop