The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1869-05-15 00:00:00

PUBLICANS AND THE POLICE
ON DUTY.

On Monday, a case of some interest to publicans came
before the bench of niagitrates at Cheshunt, iberla, Captain
Saunders, chairman. Thomas Pattie, landlord of the
"Wheelwrights' Arms," Goff's-lane, was summoned for
knowingly harbouring the police. The defendant pleaded
"Sot Guilty."

It appeared that on the 2.lrd ult.' a constable on duty
in the neighbourhood went to the defendant's house a
few minutes before eleven at night, and called for a
pint of beer, which he drank and paid for. He left
after being in the house about four minutes, but did
not sit down. David Marshall, the officer referred to,
did not deny that he had gone into the defendants
house and drank the beer. He went outside imme-
diately afterwards, and was not on the premises more
than four or five minutes. He was in uniform at the

time and on duty, but it w‘s a very wet night, and he
went in for the beer because the house was on the
point of closing.
Several other witnesses confirmed the constable in
stating that he did not remain more than five minutes
in the house. Mr. Peckham (fur the defendant) con-
tended that no "harbouring" had been proved, and
that a constable had a right to enter a pubLichouse for
refreshment. . _

The Chairman was not satisfied that a publican had
any right to serve a constable who had not been on
duty an hour, and who must have been known to be
upon his brat.
Mr. Peckham said no licensed victualler could refuse
to serve any person who presented himself. If a police- ,
man purchased beer or spirits while on duty he might
be called upon to explain his conduct to the authorities
at Scotland-yaud, but no complaint would hold against
the keeper of the house. He held that publicans are
bound to admit and serve a constable on duty; and,
further, that the former would be subject to indictment
for refusing.
The Bench referred to the Act, and drew Mr.
Peckham's notice to the words in the clause making it
illegal for a publican to allow a constable "to abide or
remain in his house for any time while he was on
duty," and asked what answer he had to that.
Mr. Peckham said the defendant was not charged
with that offence—he was accused of "knowingly har-
bouring" a constable while on duty.
'lnc chairman believed the defendant had committed
an illegal act, although the constable's stay was so
short. The extent of the oiffence would be matter for
consideration. The defendant must have known the
constable, and the Bench did not recognise the right to
serve under those circumstances.
Mr. Peckham called attention to the short time the
policeman had remained in the house, and mentioned
that, althom;h the constable had not been long on
duty, after the closing of the defendant's house he
would not have been abld to get any refreshment until
six o'clock in the miming. He also stated that the
bar was ohly the fillitlMlON of a yard from the street,
and he beer was handed to the policeman outside.
After souse turther discussion, the Chairman said
the point to l.a dedided wan a rather knotty one, and
under all the circumstances the Bench had come to the
conclusion to dismiss the case.