COOPERS' ARMS #
45 or 46 Bridge Street
on the 25th January*
MINE HOST:
1839 - 53 James Hall (A Cooper)
*
James Hall, a beer-shop keeper, of Bridge Street, Marsh Lane, was called before the magistrates to answer a charge of selling, on the 25th January, eight-pennyworth of gin. Mr. F. Armstrong appeared to support the information, and Mr. Catterall for the defendant.
Mr. Elmey, officer of excise, stated that on the morning of the day in question, he went to the house of the defendant, in company of Mr. McNaughton, and first had some ale. They afterwards had some peppermint, and subsequently eight-pennyworth of gin. The gin, after being asked for, was served in three or four minutes. The witness was cross-examined by Mr. Catterall but nothing material was elicited.
Mr. McNaughton was next called, and he gave the same statement as the last witness. The ale was brought in two or three minutes after being called for, and he did not see any great difference of the time in bringing the gin.
Cross-examined by Mr. Catterall: I might have had a glass too much the night before; I did not complain of feeling ill at Mr. Hall's. I was not ill. I signed Mr. Elmey's memorandum in reference to this case. I cannot tell the exact day on which I signed it. Mr. Elmey paid for the gin. I cannot recollect whether I saw Mr. Elmey in the afternoon after we had been at Hall's. I had several glasses that day. I was at Craven's (Plough Inn, Friargate), on the evening of the same day; it was about eight o'clock. There was rum drunk at Craven's.
Mr. Catterall, in a very able and eloquent speech, address the Bench for the defendant. From the statement that had been given to him, the facts that had occurred on the occasion when the alleged offence was committed, were as different as possible - in all essential respects, the very reverse of what had been represented.
The unfortunate defendant had six children; he had kept a beer-shop for several years, and there had never been the least complaint against his house, and the character of it was completely irreproachable. The fact was that the gentlemen had gone into the house, and after having some ale, Mr. McNaughton complained of being ill, and requested to have some gin. Mrs. Hall said they did not keep or sell gin, but they could send for some. They requested her to do so, and she accordingly sent for it to the Crown and Thistle public-house; the landlady of which would prove having served it to the defendant's daughter. The learned gentleman then called the following witnesses:-
Ellen Hall, the daughter of the defendant, said, I am eleven years of age; I recollect the two excise men coming to our house, and I went at the request of my mother, to the Crown and Thistle for a noggin of gin, for which I paid sixpence. It was afterwards served to the men. The Scotchman paid for it.
Mrs. Lund stated that she was the landlady of the Crown and Thistle public-house. She recollected late in January last the defendant's daughter coming for a noggin of gin, for which she charged sixpence. She did not recollect their sending for any gin either immediately before or since that occasion.
Cross-examined by Mr. F. Armstrong: It was the best gin. We have lived at the Rose and Crown five years. I have never been asked to sell the best gin in the house. I never was asked for any of the best gin by customers in the house. It was on a Friday when the girl came for the gin.
This closed the case for the defence, and Mr. F. Armstrong made an ingenious reply; the magistrates consulted for a few minutes and gave their decision for dismissing the case.
At the conclusion of this case, Mr. Kay, the collector, intimated that he should appeal against the decision, seeing that there was decided evidence that a sale had actually taken place. At the same time he should have no objection to under-write a memorial for the mitigation or remission of the penalty.
Preston Chronicle 23rd March 1839
*
James Hall, a beer-shop keeper, of Bridge Street, Marsh Lane, was called before the magistrates to answer a charge of selling, on the 25th January, eight-pennyworth of gin. Mr. F. Armstrong appeared to support the information, and Mr. Catterall for the defendant.
Mr. Elmey, officer of excise, stated that on the morning of the day in question, he went to the house of the defendant, in company of Mr. McNaughton, and first had some ale. They afterwards had some peppermint, and subsequently eight-pennyworth of gin. The gin, after being asked for, was served in three or four minutes. The witness was cross-examined by Mr. Catterall but nothing material was elicited.
Mr. McNaughton was next called, and he gave the same statement as the last witness. The ale was brought in two or three minutes after being called for, and he did not see any great difference of the time in bringing the gin.
Cross-examined by Mr. Catterall: I might have had a glass too much the night before; I did not complain of feeling ill at Mr. Hall's. I was not ill. I signed Mr. Elmey's memorandum in reference to this case. I cannot tell the exact day on which I signed it. Mr. Elmey paid for the gin. I cannot recollect whether I saw Mr. Elmey in the afternoon after we had been at Hall's. I had several glasses that day. I was at Craven's (Plough Inn, Friargate), on the evening of the same day; it was about eight o'clock. There was rum drunk at Craven's.
Mr. Catterall, in a very able and eloquent speech, address the Bench for the defendant. From the statement that had been given to him, the facts that had occurred on the occasion when the alleged offence was committed, were as different as possible - in all essential respects, the very reverse of what had been represented.
The unfortunate defendant had six children; he had kept a beer-shop for several years, and there had never been the least complaint against his house, and the character of it was completely irreproachable. The fact was that the gentlemen had gone into the house, and after having some ale, Mr. McNaughton complained of being ill, and requested to have some gin. Mrs. Hall said they did not keep or sell gin, but they could send for some. They requested her to do so, and she accordingly sent for it to the Crown and Thistle public-house; the landlady of which would prove having served it to the defendant's daughter. The learned gentleman then called the following witnesses:-
Ellen Hall, the daughter of the defendant, said, I am eleven years of age; I recollect the two excise men coming to our house, and I went at the request of my mother, to the Crown and Thistle for a noggin of gin, for which I paid sixpence. It was afterwards served to the men. The Scotchman paid for it.
Mrs. Lund stated that she was the landlady of the Crown and Thistle public-house. She recollected late in January last the defendant's daughter coming for a noggin of gin, for which she charged sixpence. She did not recollect their sending for any gin either immediately before or since that occasion.
Cross-examined by Mr. F. Armstrong: It was the best gin. We have lived at the Rose and Crown five years. I have never been asked to sell the best gin in the house. I never was asked for any of the best gin by customers in the house. It was on a Friday when the girl came for the gin.
This closed the case for the defence, and Mr. F. Armstrong made an ingenious reply; the magistrates consulted for a few minutes and gave their decision for dismissing the case.
At the conclusion of this case, Mr. Kay, the collector, intimated that he should appeal against the decision, seeing that there was decided evidence that a sale had actually taken place. At the same time he should have no objection to under-write a memorial for the mitigation or remission of the penalty.
Preston Chronicle 23rd March 1839
*
CENSUS RETURNS
1841
James Hall 40 years Cooper
Nancy Hall 35 Wife
Bella Hall 15 Daughter
Ellen Hall 12 Daughter
James Hall 10 Son
William Hall 8 Son
Thomas Hall 6 Son
? Hall 2 Daughter
1851
James Hall 50 years Cooper b. Preston
Betsy Hall 40 Wife do
Ann Hall 15 Daughter do
Mary Hall 13 Daughter do
Hannah Hall 9 Daughter do
Robert Hall 5 Son do
*
No comments:
Post a Comment