NORFOLK PUBLIC HOUSES | ||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Included in September 1789 Diss Hundred Register as the HORSESHOES Shown on Bryant's 1826 map Licence not renewed at the Diss Brewster Sessions held Tuesday 14th February 1906. Future of the licence to be determined at the Adjourned licensing Meeting to be held on Tuesday 6th March 1906. At the adjourned meeting held Wednesday 14th March 1906 Police-sergeant Green formally objected to the licence renewal. He said that the house was 2396 yards away from the RAILWAY TAVERN, Tivetshall and 2664 yards from Gissing CHEQUERS and 96 yards away from the highway. With a population of 341 that gave one house to every 113 of the population. The house was hard to supervise and there was no evidence of many waggons or carts travelling along the track to the house. Trade was reported to be 79 barrels and 103 dozen bottles of beer, also 23 gallons of spirits. The Reverend Cooper said that it was in the interests of the parish that the licence be granted. Superintendent Southgate thought it was the CHEQUERS that should close not this house. Hearing that the house was frequented by waggoners who travelled to Tivetshall Station, who did not care to put up their horses so close to the railway line as would be the case at the RAILWAY TAVERN and since it was useful to those in the immediate area and not 1½ mile away, the Bench decided to renew the licence. ~ Daniel Culling was charged on the 9th October 1907 of having sold beer, in a greater quantity of a reputed pint and not in a sealed vessel, to a person under 14 years, on the 21st September 1907. Police constable Page had observed a nine year old lad named Wicks proceeding from the house towards Tibenham carrying two half-gallon bottles which were not sealed. Mrs. Culling admitted that they often sold beer to children, but always in sealed bottles, this case was an oversight. Mr. Culling said he was not at home at the time of the offence and this was the only complaint against him in the years that he had been at the house. The Bench considered that the police had acted correctly in bringing the matter to them, but it struck them as a matter of trivial indifference and not intentional. Mr. Culling was cautioned to ensure the event did not reoccur and the case was dismissed. |