—Issac Buckby, beerhouse-keeper (outdoors), Desborough, was summoned
on a charge of selling liquor without having a license to sell on the
premises.
—Inspector Barwell stated that on the 10th of May he went to
Desborough. About a quarter past six o'clock he saw ten men drinking
round his door in the open street opposite his door. He watched several
minutes, and saw jugs filled twice and drunk in the street. The last jug
brought out he saw some money given, and change brought back to them.
Asked them what they were drinking, but they would not tell him. He then
went and asked defendant's wife why they were serving beer. She said the Exciseman told them so long as it was took outside the house they might
do it. Went and told the defendant, who said he did not know he was
doing anything wrong, as the man who lived there before did it. He met
the Exciseman in the village and took him to the house, and told him in
the presence of defendant's wife what she had told him about him. The
wife then denied having said so.
—The inspector was cross-examined by Mr. Rawling, on behalf of the
defendant.
—Mr. Rawling said the defendant was summoned for allowing liquor to
be sold on the highway. He held that it was private property, and had
never been taken by the proper authority. Also, that the drinking had
not been proved to have been going on with the knowledge of the
defendant. He also said he did not find either jugs or glasses.
—Emma Kirby stated, in answer to Mr. Rawlins, that on the 10th of
May, between three and four, she recollected serving some men with beer.
The men brought the jug in. She denied supplying any glasses. They did
not drink the beer in the house.
—Mrs. Buckby, mother of defendant, stated that she was at her son's
house. Some persons were supplied with beer. They brought their own
vessels with them. The drink was consumed outside the house on the
causeway. They were supplied five times altogether.
—Defendant, Isaac Buckby, stated that he was not at home when the
alleged offence took place, and he did not know of it. He did it,
thinking there would not be any harm in it.
—The magistrates retired, and on their return said that they had
found him guilty, and fined him £1 and 12s. 6d. costs.
—Defendant complained of his premises being continually watched by
the police.
Northampton Mercury,
Saturday 31 May 1879