The Birkenhead News and Wirral General Advertiser. — 1893-05-20 (Birkenhead, Merseyside, England)

NEW FERRY PUBLICUS SUMIOSED.  THE NEW FERRY ROTEL.  At the County Magistrates' Court on Thureday, before Messrs. T. Russell Le and C. J. Busheil George Douglas Rourke, licensee of the New Ferry Hotel, was summoned for selling intoxicating liquors to Owen Humphreys, a person then and there drunk, on the 15th April. He was also summoned for permitting drunkenness on his premises. Mr. A. F. Moore prosecuted on behalf a the police, and Mr. Swift defended.—Mr. Mocre said that on the 15th April, Humphreys was at the New Ferry Hotel. He returned home about 8 o'clock the worse for drink, and his wife tried to persuade him to stay in. He would not, but went out again. He (Mr. Moore) would tram him to the New Ferry Hotel and would prove that there he was served with drink. The sad part of the case was, that after Humphreys was left by one of the witnesses at about 11 on the night in question, nothing was seen of him until he was found drowned in the river.  Ellen Humphreys, widow of Owen Humphreys, stated that on the 14th of April her husband came home about 8-30 in the evening. He was the worse for drink, and she tried to persuade him not to go out again. He would not stay in, and she gave him threepence. Since that time she had not seen him. Robert Hayes, 6, Neleon.road, Rook Ferry, said that he went into the New Ferry Hotel on the night in question. Humphreys was there, and had a glue of beer before him. After he had been in a short time, Humphreys took up his (witness') beer in mistake, and drank some of it. Witness would not tho beer, and Humphreys paid fcr some more. Witness did not think Humphreys showed any sign of drink. In answer to Mr. Swift, he said that when Humphreys took his (witnesses) beer, he was right at Humphreys' elbow, and Humphreys did not look round before putting it to his lips. When he left at ten o'clock, Humphreys was there. When witness left. Humphreys was sober. Robert Wright, 27, Bebington road, New Ferry,. stated that on the night of the 15th nit., he went into the Hotel at about 9.30. Humphreys was there, but he could not soy whether he had any drink before him. He left in about fifteen minutes, and called again about 10 o'clock, Humphreys was still there. Humphreys did not appear the worse for drink, but they could tell he had had some.  Alfred Robison, Flatman, said he was in the New Ferry Hotel about 10 o'clock. He saw Humphrey., who had about half a-glass of beer before him. Witness asked him if he would havo a drink, and he replied yes. Witness had some wbiatey. tie admitted that when he asked for his second whiskey the barmaid asked him if he would not have a soda.. water. He left the hotel in company with Humphreys, just before closing time. In answer to Mr. Moore, witness mid that when Humphreys got outside the hotel, he fell down twioe. Witness went down on the stage. Humphrey. afterwards followed, and when asked by witness to go home, he refused. When witness last saw Humphreys, he was on a box on the stage asleep. In answer to Mr. Swift, 'witness said that Humphreys was not drunk, but was a little intoxicated. Humphrey. was not drank in the hotel, he was worse when he got outside. Mr. Swift submitted that upon a matter of this sort, the Bench would not convict upon evidence like that which had been adduced. There were four witnesses. The first was Mr.. Humphreys and she said her husband when he came home, ha,i had some drink, but was sober. Then there was the second witness, Robert Hayes. Their Worships would remember that this witness was a stageman, and he supposed occupied a responsible position. He appeared to be a respectable man, and he stated that Humphreys showed no signs of drink. Robt. Wright was the next witness. He was with Humphreys from about 9.30 to nearly 11 o clock, and was of opinion that Humphreys was not drunk. The lag witness was Alfred Robinson. He admitted that he himself was " fresh.' He also said that in the hotel, Humphreys was not drunk. Of course it was deplorable that Humphreys had met such an untimely end, but there was no evidence to show it was through drink. The coroner's jury had re. turned a verdict of " Found drowned,'' which was exactly the same as an open verdict. They did not find whether he had met his death from mieadven. tore or suicide, or what. He ventured to think that had not Humphreys met his death, they would not have heard of the case.  The Magistrates, after considering for a while, came to the conclusion that there was not sufficient evidence to convict, and the case was dismissed.