Revelations of ‘Club Life’ at Stanford Rivers

From the Chelmsford Chronicle 23 January 1891.

The monotony of the Petty Session at Ongar was on Saturday relieved by a number of prosecutions under the Licensing Act, affecting the management of the Holly Tree Working Men’s Club, Stanford Rivers, where an infringement of the law was discovered by police officers, who in disguise, worked as wood choppers in the neighbourhood, and were introduced to the club. Five summonses were down for hearing, the information in each being laid by Inspector Robinson. There was a crowded court, and the utmost interest was manifested in the proceedings, which at times were of an amusing description. The Magistrates on the Bench were the Rev. E.J. Reeve (chairman), Sir Chas Smith, and F. Carter, Esq. Capt. Showers (chief constable) and Mr. R. Somerset (deputy chief constable) were also present.

The first case was against John Edwards, described as a labourer of Stanford Rivers, who was charged with having on the 6th December, at the Holly Trees Working Men’s Club, unlawfully sold beer by retail, without being duly licensed.

Mr Grubbe, barrister appeared for the prosecution and said that the Club was registered in the month of August last year (1890) as a friendly society. It was alleged to have been established to afford to its members the means of
social intercourse, mutual helpfulness, mental and moral improvement, and rational recreation

The subscription was 6d per quarter, payable in advance. Assuming that the Holly Tree was a bona fide club, the police had no right to go there in the ordinary course of things; therefore, in order to find out whether the performances were of the innocent description the rules led them to suppose, they were obliged to recourse to stratagem. A police sergeant and a constable dressed themselves in working men’s clothes and worked as woodmen in the neighbourhood for some time, and on the 6th December the sergeant presented himself at the club. He said to the manager, James Edwards, “Is Bob Dorrington here?” Dorrington was a man known in the neighbourhood. Some other conversation ensued, with the result that the sergeant was introduced as friend of the defendant, under the name of ‘Thompson.’ Defendant asked ‘Thompson’ to drink, and they had a game of dominoes. The sergeant afterwards said, “I’ll pay now for a pint,” and he laid 2d. in front of the defendant, whereupon the latter ordered the beer. The liquor was brought in by the manager, who took the 2d., and the transaction was complete. With regards to the other charges they related somewhat upon the same principle.

Police Sergeant Harry Laver, examined by Mr Grubbe, deposed, I am stationed at Ingatestone. I visited the Holly Tree Working Men’s Club at Stanford Rivers on the 6th Dec. I went in the front door, and opened the door on the right of the passage and saw the manager and three others sitting round the fire, among them being the defendant. I said to the manager, “Is Bob Dorrington here?” He said, “No.” “Oh,” I said “he told me he he’d be here tonight. I am at work with him.” He said, “You’re not a member are you?” I said, “No, what’s the subscription?” “Sixpence,” he replied. I said “I don’t want to pay that, as I may not be about here after Christmas.” Defendant and the manager had a whispered conversation, and the later asked me my name. I replied, “Thompson.” I was then introduced as a friend of the defendant, who handed me a glass of ale. When the mug was empty I said to the defendant, “I’ll pay for a pint, how much is it?” Defendant replied, “2d.” I laid the money on table in front of the defendant, who pushed the 2d to the manager, and he picked it up. The manager did not see who put the money down. There were two notices hung up in the room – one against gambling, &c., and the other cautioning against visitors paying for refreshment served to them.

Mr Atkinson, “I think you changed the role of a policeman for that of a wood-chopper, and went in dressed as a labourer? – Witness: Yes. [laughter]. Cross examination continued: I was not informed that I was not a member, and could not be served. I had been t work with Dorrington on the 4th, 5th and 6th. Dorrington told me he was a member of the club, and I had made an appointment with him that evening. I put the money down and James Edwards, the manager supplied the beer. I said to the defendant, “You are particular here to what they are at Halstead.” I said this to throw of suspicion.

Inspector Robinson (see photo), stationed at Ongar, said: I know the Holly Tree Working Men’s Club. It is not a licensed house. The defendant John Edwards does not hold a licence to sell beer by retail.

In reply to Mr. Atkinson, Mr. Grubbe said the other cases were not on all fours with the present, and would be taken separately.

Mr. Atkinson then addressed the Bench for the defence. He submitted that he has a perfect answer to the case in law. He quoted the case of Newman v Jones, which related to a working man’s club at East Ham, where a stranger was brought in and paid for brandy, &c., which was supplied. He was convicted, but the decision was reversed on appeal. He also quoted Newell v Hemmingway, and contended that this was not a sale. Bone fide clubs were not sellers of liquors under the Act of 1872, which was never meant to apply to such cases. It was mean and despicable for policemen to go around and dress themselves in working men’s clothe, and act as they did.

He then called
James Edwards, who said he was the steward of the club, and recollected ‘Mr Thompson’ coming on the 6th Dec. [laughter]. He said he was a woodman, working “down by Goaling’s place.” [renewed laughter]. Witness called his attention to the rule forbidding non-members purchasing liquor. The sergeant entered his name in the visitors’ book as ‘J.S. Thompson,’ and he said he was a member of the Halstead Club. He asked whether we played for anything, and on being told “No,” he added, “You are particular here; at Halsted we can do what we like.” He then said, “Well, we’ll play for amusement, then.” [laughter]. John Edwards paid for the beer that was drunk, and witness saw no other money pass than by him.

By Mr. Grubbe: John Edwards paid for the beer. I cannot remember how many times he had it. Mr. Grubbe: I see that ladies are admitted to this club – witness: So they are to every club [laughter] – Oh! I see on the 6th Dec. There were two ladies there – Mrs Woolmore and Mrs Feast. They were introduced probably by their husbands? – Yes – How late do you keep this club open? – We generally close at 11, but if a party likes to stop they can do so as long as they like. So long as there are four members in the club it cannot be closed. – You can stop in the club then all night, as long as there are four members? – Yes, but I live on the premises. – Children do not come in? – No – well, the limit of age is 16. – Do babies ever come? [laughter] – Of course if a wife comes in she brings her baby – she don’t leave them out in the yard. [roars of laughter]. – They would be very unwise if they did. Do you enter babies names in the visitor’s book? – No of course not [laughter]. – Was it a fact that on the 6th of Dec. there were two babies there? – I don’t know – can’t recollect. [laughter]

John Edwards gave corroborative evidence, adding that he depended on ‘Mr Thompson’ being a visitor, and little thought that he was a police officer in disguise. Witness paid for the beer they drank together, and the evidence given by Sergt. Laver was not correct. Cross examined: ‘Thompson’ offered to pay for one pint of beer. There was 2d lying on the table. I do not know who laid it there. I picked it up and put it in my pocket. [laughter] ‘Thompson’ asked me the price of a pint before I saw the money on the table

The bench retired, and after a few minutes deliberation, the Chairman said: We have given this case our best attention, and find John Edwards unmistakeably guilty of the offence with which he is charged. We will now go on to the next case.
_______________

James Edwards was next charged with a similar offence on the 8th and 10th of Dec.
Mr. Grubbe said that on Dec.8th the sergeant, he believed still under the name of Thompson, visited the club about 6.15 in the evening. The defendant, who was a member as well as the steward, was the only person present at the time. Soon afterwards a man named Houchin came in, and after some beer had been drunk, Thompson asked the defendant to fill the mug with beer again. He did so, and when he brought it in, Thompson laid down 2d. upon the table. The defendant picked it up and said nothing. That was a direct sale by the defendant to a person whom he had not right to sell to, and who was not a member of the club. – The evidence and the defence were the same as in the first case.

The Chairman intimated that the decision of the bench was against te defendant.
________________

The charge against Frank Houchin, hay dealer, Stanford Rivers, for similar offences, on the 8th and 9th of Dec., was then proceeded with.
Mr Grubbe said the case was similar to the others, with the exception that on the 9thSergt. Laver visited the club in company with Pc Chenery, of Gosfield, who was also disguised as a woodman.
_______________

A further summons against James Edwards was next proceeded with for unlawfully selling beer to Pc Chenery, on Dec. 10th.
Police-sergt. Laver gave evidence that he was made a member on the suggestion of the defendant and received a card of membership endorsed ‘S. Thompson.’ The name of ‘Rand’ was on the card, but had been scratched out, and the witness’s nom de guerre was written over it. After the witness and Pc Chenery had been drinking, the latter handed the mug to the defendant and asked him to fill it up. He did so and brought it back. Chenery then aid 6d on the table and defendant picked it up and brought him back 4d change. Shortly afterwards witness asked defendant if he could lend him a bottle to put some whisky in, and on his asking for half-a-quartern he gave it him in a glass bottle. [The bottle containing the whisky was here produced]. Chenery laid down 4d on the table in payment, and the defendant picked it up.

Mr Atkinson: It is the first time in my experience that a person has been summoned for selling beer, and then a charge of selling whisky is brought against him.
Mr Gubbe: If you wish, a summons can issue for the selling of the whisky.
Mr. Atkinson: Oh! no. “Sufficient for the day is evil thereof.” [laughter].

_____________

The bench retired, and on re-entering the court the Chairman said: We convict in every case, after very careful consideration. And I may say, on behalf of myself and my brother magistrates, that the evidence given by the police officers is worthy of great praise. They gave their evidence in a very straight forward and clear manner. Indeed we think they are particularly worthy of commendation in that respect. Before giving the convictions and cost we must express our disapprobation of the manner in which this club is conducted. They seem to have set their own rules as defiance, and the whole thing is carried on in a very loose and irregular manner. They have all the advantages of a public house without having paying a licence and being under restrictions.

The first defendant John Edwards, will be fined £2.10s. and 15s.6d. costs, or, in default, month’s imprisonment.

There are two cases against James Edwards, and he will be fined £2.10s. in each, with £1.6s.6d. costs, or two month’s imprisonment. In this case the offence is aggravated, as he was the manager of the club, and ought to have known the rules thoroughly well.

With regard to Houchin, we have taken the lenient view of the cases because he may not have made himself master of the rules, as he ought to have done. We give him the benefit of the doubt, and fine him £1 in each case, with £1.6s.6d costs, or a moth’s imprisonment.

The defendants were granted a fortnight for payment.

Mr. Atkinson gave notice of appeal.

Death through Excessive Drinking at the
Stanford Rivers Holly Tree Club

The Newsman, October 17th 1891

An inquest was held at the Ongar Union-house into the death of William Berry, hay and straw carter, aged 44 years, of Stanford Rivers. He was a member of the Holly Tree Workmen’s Club. Surgeon Dr. Grattan said he had died of epileptic convulsions aggravated by excessive drinking.

James Edwards, manager of the club gave evidence.

After the jury had given their verdict, the Coroner, Mr. Lewis was requested to forward a report of the case to the Home Office in the hope that something might be done to regulate the Holly Tree Club.

DOES ANYONE KNOW WHERE THE SAID CLUB PREMISES WERE?

Martyn Lockwood