Mexborough and Swinton Times October 18, 1929
“Not British”
Police Action Criticised By Solicitor
Beer On Credit.
What was described by Mr. W.L. Crawford, solicitor, as the first case of its kind to come before the Bench during his twenty years’ experience was heard at Doncaster (West Biding). Police Court on Tuesday, when Wm. Tarlton, licensee of the Eagle and Child. Hotel, Conisborough, was summoned in four cases for supplying liquor on credit to John Parish and Albert Morton, labourers, of Conisborough. Parish and Morton were summoned for consuming the beer, not having paid for it at the time.
Mr. Crawford, who defended and pleaded guilty, criticised the action of the police and their attitude towards his client. The day after other charges had been dismissed against him, a police constable disguised as a waterworks engineer came to the hotel to make observations, it was not British; it was not cricket, and it should be stopped, declared Mr Crawford.
Mr WR Smith stated that on August 23 to Gleeson visited the hotel and so the landlord supply men with beer for which no money was paid. Apparently was the landlord’s practice to end up the amount owing on a slip of carbon which was kept in the bar. On August 30 the police constables been similar visit, and again some drinks consume without being paid for. They also had a man ask for 1s 6d change, saying that he owed for 4 pints.
Further visits were paid on September 4 and six and September 9th went to the house with PC McCloed and saw Parish and Morton receive beer without paying for it. Their names and addresses were taken, and the sergeant took a copy of the names on the piece of cardboard.
Mr Smith was about call evidence when Mr Crawford said he did not dispute a single word of what had been said. He did not see slightest necessity for going into the evidence. “If you are going to call evidence I should like to see the witness who came dressed up as a waterworks engineer,” he added
Mr Smith intimated that he did not intend: that witness, Mr Crawford replied that he would have some comment to make upon the matter.
Sergeant Hawke was called a bore out Mr Smith’s statement, and said that when charged with the offence, Morton denied it.
Pointing to the defendant parish, Mr Crawford remarked, “And this is a terrible criminal who committed this appalling offence. Did he say, “what the hell’s the matter now?”
Sergeant Huck: No
Mr. Crawford said that with the exception of the war he had been practising in that Court for 20 years, and it was the first time such a case had come before the magistrates. A section of the Licensing Act made it a criminal offence for it licensee to “put beer on the strap,” and the Bench could find all the defendants £30 each, but he did not think he was wrong when he said that without exception every “pub” and club in the district had been carrying out the practice of giving credit
There was more in the case than met the eye. It was within the knowledge of the magistrates that Tarlton was before the court on certain charges under the Licensing Act which, were dismissed. On the very next day, the 28th, a police-constable went to the house in the guise of a waterworks and pretended to be a bona-fide customer. The visits were repeated, though the man did not receive beer “on the strap.” It was significant that such a thing should have happened the day after the other charge was dismissed. The proper course for the prosecution to have taken would have been to warn the licensee. Could anything he more reasonable than for a licensee to allow men drink when they came back from the pit without any money in their pockets? Yet those proceedings were brought without a single warning.
Mr. Crawford commented on the serious consequences of the conviction. It was one of those cases where the prosecution might have used their discretion, and under the circumstances he thought the magistrates should dismiss the case under the Probation Act. The other defendants were hard-working honest men, who paid for their beer on a Friday night, as they were regular, customers. Reviewing the action of the police, Mr. Crawford added, “It is not British, it is not cricket, and it wants to be stopped. He expressed’ the” hope that the attention of other licensees would be drawn to the case because the practice of supplying beer on credit was widespread. No doubt that case would act as a, warning to others.
The Chairman (Mr. Hinchcliffe) : Are you pleading ignorance?
Mr. Crawford: No Englishman can plead ignorance of the law.
The Chairman said that as the case was the first to come before them, they would dismiss it under the First Offenders’ Act, but they did not want it to be taken for granted that the same thing would happen if a similar case came before them. They wanted it to be a warning to other people, and they hoped landlords in the district would take notice of what they said.