Landlord was ‘not drunk, but not sober’

editorial image

1914 Court

At Scarborough Police Court today before the Mayor (Mr CC Graham) and other magistrates, David Broadbent of the Elephant and Castle Inn, Cross Street, was summoned for being found drunk on licensed premises on Friday May 28th.

Defendant, who was represented by Mr J Whitfield, pleaded not guilty.

Inspector Carter stated that on the 28th of May at about 2.30pm, he went to the Elephant and Castle Hotel, which is occupied by defendant. He saw defendant, and he appeared to be drunk. The defendant said to him: “If I have done anything wrong I can get up and come with you.” He asked him to get on his feet. He again said: “I will come along with you, anytime.” Witness advised defendant to go away, and told him he was drunk, and he was unfit to have charge of a public house.

Mr Whitfield: Are you satisfied that defendant was drunk, and unfit to have charge of a house, in consequence of drunkenness? - Yes.

Continuing, witness said Sergt Witty was in his company all the time, and PC Wood came in.

Mr Whitfield: You were not quite sure when he was sitting down that he was drunk, and you wanted to make yourself quite sure? - Yes. He walked once across the bar and staggered, and he had to catch hold of the counter.

Sergt Witty and PC Wood both gave evidence to the effect of seeing defendant drunk.

George Folkard, a carrier, of Sherburn, stated that he came into Scarborough once a week and put up at the Elephant and Castle. He had been told by defendant on the day in question to go.

Mr Whitfield: And did you not then go and give information to the police? - Yes.

The last witness’s wife, Mary Folkard, who accompanied him, stated that she had nine years’ experience of managing a public house, and she could rarely tell when a person was drunk. She had a conversation with defendant’s wife.

Wm Dickinson, employed at the Labour Exchange, said he had known defendant many years. He had known him in Wakefield. Defendant, in his opinion, was not drunk. This was corroborated by Thomas Kirkean, 33, Cross Street. Both these men stated that when defendant served them on that day they received proper change.

The defendant then went into the box. He said that he came to Scarborough with excellent testimonials from the Chief Constable of Wakefield, and others. On that morning he had had an unfortunate row with his wife. He had had no breakfast, but during the morning he had two brandies. Since coming to Scarborough he had not had good health, and during the last few weeks, he had been very unwell. The brandies might have affected him a little, but still he was not drunk. He denied having staggered across the bar.

Addressing the bench, Mr Whitfield said the point in the charge is that he is not charged with having being drunk, but that he was not sober. In the evidence there is reason to believe that he was not so drunk as is made out. No doubt in conjunction with the dispute with his wife it might have affected him a little.

He was fined 10s 6d and 14s 8d costs.