The Conisborough Licensing Case

The landlord of the Red Lion Hotel, Conisborough, Thomas Nesbitt, was summoned for having kept his licensed premises open during prohibited hours on the eighth inst.

Mr W Baddiley, who appeared for defendant, put in a medical certificate, which stated that defendant was confined to his bed.

PC Horton stated that at 10.40 on Sunday morning, the eighth inst. in company with PC Wales, he visited the Red Lion Hotel. They entered through the front door, which was unlocked, no one being in charge. They walked into the taproom, where there were 12 or 14 other men, amongst them being James Connor of New Conisborough and Daniel Yates of Denaby. They had each a pint pot partly filled with beer in front of them.

When asked where they came from, Connor said Mexborough; close to the church, “Witness did not recognise him at that time. Witness knew Yates and he asked him what he was doing drinking. He replied: “I know I am not the distance; I know I am under the 3 miles. I followed a Mexborough chap in. Witness then asked the landlady what the man said when he came into the house, before she could answer Yates said: “I never said anything; I was never asked when I came from.”

The landlady replied, “He must have said he came over the distance or else he would not be admitted.” Yates replied “I never said anything; I was never asked.

In answer to Mr Baddiley, witness said he believed Yates had only been in the district a few months. Connor had been in the district for five months.

PC Wailes gave corroborated.

Mr Baddiley, for the defence, said it was clear that the men must be bone fide travellers, and, he admitted that these two men were not. The law also provided that the landlord or landlady must use all reasonable precautions to find out that they were. They believed that these men were bone fide travellers, and he contended that the licence holder had taken all reasonable precautions to verify that they were.

Both defendants were practically newcomers to Conisborough, and were not known to Mrs Nesbitt or any of the household. Yates was well known to the police, and on the date in question, along with a mate who worked with him, and who lived on Mexborough Common, went for a walk. When they got to the Red Lion Hotel, Yates mate, who was known as Jim, asked him to go and have a drink. Yates told him he was not far enough from his home, but Jim told him he could tell them he came from Mexborough, and Yates consented. The door was answered by a serving girl name Caton were asked where they came from. Jim said Mexborough, and Yates replied “The same.” He went into the taproom and before they were served with asked where they came from, and both men made the same remark again.

A minute or two after the man Connor came in and all three men were supplied with beer. Shortly after the police entered, and Yates, in answer to their question, told them he came in with the other man.

Continuing, Mr Baddiley said it was a question as to whether their worships believe the servants and the two men he proposed to call, all representing themselves as residing on Mexborough Common and whom the landlady honestly believed. Mr Nesbitt at kept licensed premises many many years, having been in the Red Lion for about 11 years without a complaint. He was a man who tried, if any man possibly could do, to conduct his house in a reasonable way, and not to infringe the law in anyway.

The servant girl, Caton, and a waiter named Kitchen; Daniel Yates, of 56 Adwick Street, Denaby; and James Connor gave evidence in support of Mr Baddiley’s statement.

The Chairman said the Bench were of the opinion that proper precautions and not been taken to ascertain where the people came from. No doubt the fact of the landlord being ill in bed had something to do with it. There had been a great deal of slackness. The Bench, however, would take into consideration the fact that there was nothing against the house, it having been conducted properly up to the present. They would order the defendant to pay the costs, and hope that it will prove to be a warning in the future that more care should be exercised, especially when considered in the neighbourhood and the class of the people.