Quorn historical image   Quorn Village On-line Museum   Quorn historical image

Thursday 15th November 2018  

Museum Home
About our museum
Artefacts by Number
Quorn's location
The name change
Village publications
Information sources
Museum Award
Contact us
Copyright

Police Court – Charges against a Quorn Landlord. 1893

Loughborough Herald - 12th October 1893

Alfred Sault, licensed victualler, Quorn, was charged with selling beer to Samuel Bee during prohibited hours on the 10th September. Mr Deane appeared for the defendant, who pleaded not guilty. PC Kirby said that on Sunday, the 10th of last month, he was on duty at Quorn, and saw Samuel Bee go into the White Horse Inn about four o’clock in the afternoon. Witness went into the house, and saw Bee drinking out of a jug. - Mr Deane: Where was the landlord? – Witness: He was close by. I said to the landlord, “Do you know this man?” and he replied “No”. I then took the whisky produced out of Bee’s pocket, and said, “Mr Sault, did you supply this man with this whisky?” He replied, “Yes, he came in and asked for half-a-pint of whisky. I supplied it, and he paid for it.”

Witness told the defendant that he knew the man, and that he came from Barrow-on-Soar. Bee said that a friend of his had paid for a pint of beer for him. Witness told defendant that he would have to take the whisky and report the case. There were a lot of people from Leicester in the house, the door of which was wide open. – Rev R Burton (magistrate): Did Bee go in with the Leicester party or did he go in with himself? Witness: He went with another man a minute or two afterwards. – By Mr Deane: He saw two brakes drive up to the house from Leicester. The landlord did not tell him that Bee had said that he came from Leicester. Mr Sault had kept the house all the time witness had been at Quorn, and he had several times asked witness to assist him in detecting who were not bona fide travellers. – Samuel Bee, Barrow-on-Soar, said he went to defendant’s house on the 10th September. There were two brakes outside the house, but he did not know where they came from. He went into the house directly after the brake people went in, and asked the landlord for a pint of ale. A man named Breffitt was with him. The pint of ale was supplied by the landlord, who did not ask him where he came from. Witness asked for half a pint of whisky, which was supplied to him. The policeman then came in, and took the whisky from him. Witness had no conversation with the Leicester people, nor did he mix with them in any way.

By Mr Deane: There were four men from Barrow there. He did not wait outside until the second brake came up in order to go in with the crowd. He was summoned to that court last week, and fined. While witness was in the house some people who had come in a third brake entered the house. He had told the policeman that he came from Leicester. – Mr Deane: You did! When did you mention Leicester to the policeman? – It was while I was inside the public house. Mr Deane: Now the policeman denies that. Now sir, have you not said the same thing to Mr Sault? – Witness: No, sir. – By the Deputy Chief Constable: There was no one in the passage of the public house when he went in except himself and Breffitt. – George Breffitt, Barrow, hosiery hand, said he went into the White Horse on the afternoon of the 10th September in company with the last witness. He corroborated Bee’s statement. – Mr Deane, addressing the Bench for the defence, contended that as Bee had told the policeman in the house that he had come from Leicester, it was highly probable that he had told the landlord the same story. – Mr Deane called the defendant to give evidence, when the Chairman stopped the case, and said that the Bench had come to the conclusion that the defendant had shown a little negligence in not inquiring closely whether the two men Bee and Breffitt had come with the party from Leicester. If Mr Deane desired to call evidence upon the point, he might do so. The Bench, however, would certainly dismiss the case. – Mr Deane said he agreed with the decision of the Bench.

The defendant felt that he should have made closer inquiry, and he regretted that he had not done so. He felt that the decision of the Bench was perfectly just.

   
 Submitted on: 2011-05-13
 Submitted by: Kathryn Paterson
 Artefact ID: 1273
 Print: View artefact in printer-friendly page

   Quorn Village On-line Museum
 copyright notice
 search tips
 view latest news
 view latest news
 view latest news
 what's new What's New
See what items have been added recently.
 can you contribute? Can you Contribute?
We need historical material relating to Quorn village.
 filling in the gaps Filling in the gaps
Help us with names, places, locations and years.

 artefact counter

Artefact Counter
How many artefacts does this online museum contain?

 leave a comment

Seeking Information
Post your information request onto our notebook.

 make a donation

Make a donation
Help to secure more museum artefacts and this site's future.

 see our Facebook page
 login / register