Somerset Guardian and Radstock Observer - 23 November 1901
A PENITENT DEFENDANT.
William Nash, of Paulton, was summoned fee being drunk upon licensed premises, the Old Lottery Beerhouse, at Paulton, on October 21. Mr J E G Sandford appeared for the defence, and asked as a favour and a matter of fairness, that the charge that had been made against Alfred Kempster, for permitting drunkenness, should be taken first, but the Bench declined to accede to the request. Mr Sandford pleaded guilty on behalf of defendant, and said defendant desired him to say that a although be had unfortunately on that occasion "broken out" — he used that expression advisedly — yet for over 12 months he (defendant) had made strenuous efforts to remain a sober, respectable citizen. Defendant was fined 5s 6d and costs 5s.
A LICENSING CASE DISMISSED.
The summons for permitting drunkenness brought against Alfred Kempster, landlord of the Old Lottery Beerhouse, was then taken. P.C. Gould stated that at 9.30 p.m. on October 21, he went, at the request of Mr Butler, the landlord of the Red Lion Hotel, to eject Nash from that house. Mr Butler told Nash to go, and he went away quietly in the direction of his home. To go home, Nash had to pass the Old Lottery Beerhouse. Witness going by there at 9.45 heard Nash's voice inside the house. He heard him ask Mrs Kempster to lend him 1s, and she refused. Nash then asked her to trust him with a pint of beer and he (witness) heard liquor being poured into a cup and heard a cup being placed upon a table. He (witness) then went into the taproom and there saw Nash standing by a table with a cup three-quarters full of malt liquor. The landlord was in the taproom at the time, and Nash left after he had spoken to the landlord about the matter. Nash said he had had no beer in the house, and defendant and his wife each said he had had nothing to drink. Supt. Sparkes gave evidence as to a conversation that he had had with defendant on the following morning when defendant came to Temple Cloud to see him. He said he was sorry for the occurrence, and also stated that Nash had a drink from a cup of beer he, the defendant, had upon the table. The defendant and his wife each gave evidence upon oath, and denied Nash was served with any beer. He never asked for the loan of a shilling or to be trusted with a pint of beer. He asked for a bottle in which to take some beer home with him, but there was no bottle in the house to lend him. Both had known defendant for some years, and for 12 months he had had nothing to drink at their house except ginger beer. Neither of them defected any sign of drunkenness when he came into the house, and he spoke in a proper manner. The defendant had some beer in a cup upon the table, and was in the act of warming it when Nash came in. Mr Sandford delivered a long and elegant speech for the defence, and, after an adjournment for lunch, the Chairman announced that the case would be dismissed, as the Bench were divided in opinion.