Watney's Brown Ale 1929 - 1964

Random beer from a random brewer again. This time everyone's favourite: Watney.

Bizarrely, I now feel sort of sorry for Watney. Unloved and unmourned, unlike most defunct breweries. Then again, they did try pretty hard to bugger up British beer and British pubs. Not that I ever went into one of their pubs, unless dragged. Even when they did start selling something drinkable, I still wasn't keen on their pubs. They were kings of the tasteless tarting up, ripping out the character and replacing it with bland, cheap tat.

The company I remember with so little fondness was the product of the first big brewery merger. Now here's an irony. When Watney, Combe and Reid merged in 1898, the latter two breweries closed and production was transferred to Watney's Stag Brewery. The irony? There's not a brick left standing of that brewery, while there's a substantial chunk of Combe's brewery in Long Acre left. Until last week I'd thought that Reid's Griffin Brewery had completely demolished. Then I found a large-scale OS map of London online. Which shows that the brewery was on both sides of Leather Lane. Only the part to the West was knocked down.

Back to Watney. They kept the Reid and Combe names alive until WW II. The former for Stout, latter for Brown Ale. Though there were also Stout and Brown Ale sold under the Watney brand. Given the similarity of the specs, I suspect there were the same beers differently labelled.

I'm going to indulge in some wild speculation now. What was the relationship, if any, between Watney's Mild Ale and their Brown Ale? Without any brewing books, this is a tricky one. All I can go by are the gravities I have from analyses. The Brown Ales from Barclay Perkins and Whitbread were most definitely not versions of their Mild before WW II. They were single-gyle beers with their own distinctive grists. And different gravities from their Milds. Whitbread's Double Brown had a much higher gravity than their Milds.

In the case of the first three examples in the table, the gravity is suspiciously close to the 1043º of their X Ale. But after 1931, it gets more complicated. 1931, if you remember, was the year of the disastrous rise in beer duty. An increase which actually saw the amount of tax collected fall, as brewers dropped gravities to be able to leave the retail price the same. The gravity of Watney's X Ale dropped from 1043º to 1034º, and the price remained at 6d per pint. But look at what happened with Brown Ale: the gravity only dropped to 1038º and the price increased from 7d per pint to 8d.

That in itself tells us something. Punters were prepared to pay more for Brown Ale, but weren't for draught Mild. It implies that Brown Ale was more fashionable and upmarket. I know, it's difficult to believe now that Brown Ale could have been either of those things.

After the tax increase was reversed in 1933, Watney's X Ale remained around the same gravity, but fell in price to 5d per pint. While the gravity of their Brown Ale went back to the pre-1931 level and its price dropped by 1d. Which is how things remained until WW II. By the end of which both had dropped to around 1030º. Post-war, both bubbled along in the low 1030's. My guess is that by then they were basically the same beer, with maybe the odd tweak to the Brown Ale, as at Whitbread with Best Ale and Forest Brown.

Here's an interesting fact. Watney's Brown Ale was about exactly the average OG of all beer brewed in the UK in the late 1920's and early 1930's. And Mann's, the original modern Brown Ale, had a very similar gravity, too. While post-war Watney's Brown Ale was 3-4 degrees below average gravity.

Year	Average OG	Year	Average OG	Year	Average OG
1928	1043.31	1941	1038.51	1953	1036.87
1929	1043.21	1942	1035.53	1954	1036.97
1930	1043.05	1943	1034.34	1955	1037.13
1931	1042.69	1944	1034.63	1956	1037.22
1932	1041.19	1945	1034.54	1957	1037.42
1933	1039.69	1946	1034.72	1958	1037.48
1934	1040.99	1947	1032.59	1959	1037.52
1935	1041.06	1948	1032.66	1960	1037.25
1936	1041.02	1949	1033.43	1961	1037.41
1937	1041.10	1950	1033.88	1962	1037.70
1938	1041.02	1951	1036.99	1963	1037.70
1939	1040.93	1952	1037.07	1964	1037.66
1940	1040.62
Sources:
Brewers' Journal 1921, page 246.
Brewers' Almanack 1955, p. 50
Brewers' Almanack 1962, p. 48
Brewers' Almanack 1971, p. 45

One last point. That XX Brown Ale. Judging by the colour, it wasn’t really brown at all but the colour of Bitter. I’ve no idea why it was called Brown Ale.

Watney's Brown Ale 1929 - 1964
Year	Beer	Price	size	package	Acidity	FG	OG	colour	ABV	App. Atten-uation
1929	Brown Ale	7d	pint	bottled		1010	1042		4.16	76.19%
1931	Brown Ale	7d	pint	bottled	0.05	1011.4	1043.3		4.14	73.67%
1931	Brown Ale	7d	pint	bottled	0.08	1007.5	1042.3		4.53	82.27%
1931	Brown Ale	8d	pint	bottled	0.06	1008.8	1038		3.79	76.84%
1932	Brown Ale	8d	pint	bottled	0.05	1008.2	1038		3.87	78.42%
1933	Brown Ale	8d	pint	bottled	0.06	1010.4	1038		3.58	72.63%
1936	Brown Ale	7d	pint	bottled	0.06	1011.6	1041.7		3.90	72.18%
1936	Brown Ale	13d	quart	bottled	0.05	1012.6	1040.6		3.62	68.97%
1937	Brown Ale		half pint	bottled			1040.13
1937	Brown Ale	13d	pint	bottled	0.05	1014.5	1040.8		3.40	64.46%
1938	Brown Ale	7d	pint	bottled	0.06	1010.8	1040.8		3.89	73.53%
1938	Brown Ale	7d	pint	bottled	0.05	1013.6	1041.1	13 + 40	3.56	66.91%
1938	XX Brown Ale	6d	pint	draught	0.04	1015.6	1043.4	23	3.59	64.06%
1941	Brown Ale	6.5d	half pint	bottled	0.07	1009.9	1034.3	12 + 40	3.16	71.14%
1944	Brown Ale			bottled	0.05	1010.4	1031.6	10 + 40 Brown	2.74	67.09%
1946	Brown Ale	13d	pint	bottled	0.06	1011.4	1031.2	17 + 40	2.56	63.46%
1946	Brown Ale	12d	pint	bottled	0.05	1008.5	1029.6	12 + 40	2.73	71.28%
1947	Brown Ale	12d	pint	bottled	0.04	1010.3	1028.3	13 + 40	2.33	63.60%
1947	Brown Ale	12d	pint	bottled	0.07	1005.5	1028.7	10 + 40	3.01	80.84%
1947	Brown Ale	13d	pint	bottled	0.04	1009.7	1029.8	11 + 40	2.60	67.45%
1947	Brown Ale	13d	pint	bottled	0.06	1007.4	1029.3	17 + 40	2.84	74.74%
1948	Brown Ale	15d	pint	bottled	0.05	1009.3	1030.6	14 + 40	2.76	69.61%
1948	Brown Ale	16d	pint	bottled	0.07	1005.7	1031	18 + 40	3.29	81.61%
1949	Brown Ale	16d	pint	bottled	0.05	1009.7	1030.3	16 + 40	2.66	67.99%
1949	Brown Ale	15d	pint	bottled	0.07	1007.8	1030	16 + 40	2.88	74.00%
1950	Brown Ale	15d	pint	bottled	0.08	1007.8	1029.4	10 + 40	2.80	73.47%
1950	Brown Ale	15d	pint	bottled	0.04	1007.9	1030.4	15 + 40	2.92	74.01%
1950	Brown Ale	8.5d	half pint	bottled	0.06	1010.8	1032.6	16 + 40	2.82	66.87%
1951	Brown Ale	8.5d	half pint	bottled	0.05	1010.3	1031.1	40 + 17	2.69	66.88%
1952	Brown Ale	9d	half pint	bottled	0.05	1009.3	1031.1	16 + 40	2.82	70.10%
1952	Brown Ale	9d	half pint	bottled	0.06	1010.8	1032	16 + 40	2.74	66.25%
1953	Brown Ale	9.5d	half pint	bottled	0.06	1009.9	1032.1	17 + 40	2.87	69.16%
1953	Brown Ale	9.5d	half pint	bottled	0.05	1009.8	1032.8	16 + 40	2.98	70.12%
1954	Brown Ale	9.5d	half pint	bottled	0.05	1010	1031.9	18 + 40	2.83	68.65%
1954	Brown Ale	10d	nip	bottled	0.06	1010.2	1032.8	120	2.92	68.90%
1955	Brown Ale	10.5d	half pint	bottled	0.05	1010.9	1032.3	125	2.77	66.25%
1956	Brown Ale	10d	half pint	bottled	0.05	1011.1	1032.2	120	2.73	65.53%
1963	Brown Ale	12d	half pint	bottled	0.04	1013.4	1033.1	135	2.54	59.52%
1964	Brown Ale	22d	pint	bottled	0.04	1012.4	1033.4	135	2.71	62.87%
1964	Brown Ale	22d	pint	bottled	0.04	1013	1033.4	115	2.63	61.08%
Sources:
Whitbread Gravity book held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document number LMA/4453/D/02/001.
Whitbread Gravity book held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document number LMA/4453/D/02/002.
Truman Gravity Book document B/THB/C/252 held at the London Metropolitan Archives

Crime and punishment

Not really anything to do with beer this time. Just random court reports from the 1860's.

"NEWARK BOROUGH POLICE.
Thursday.—(Before the Mayor and the ex-Mayor.)—
Assault. —Thomas Burgess, fruiterer, charged Andrew Ford, coach-maker, with an assault on Wednesday afternoon, in Bridge-street.—Case dismissed, complainant pay the costs.

Assault.—Ann Andrews charged Hannah Mobley and JOHN Palethorpe, of Wells-yard, with assaulting her.—Complainant and witnesses stated that Palethorpe struck her on the head in the contest, and from the evidence adduced there was no doubt she had met with some foul treatment, marks made by his fingers being still visible, and good deal of hair was torn from off her head. The Mayor passed some severe remarks upon the degrading nature of the case.—The magistrates thought there were faults on both sides, and when that was the case they ordered the expenses to divided between the parties, which would done in this case, and which amounted to 7s 6d.

Friday.—(Before the Mayor.)—Vagrancy.— Robert Wilson Kilk, an old man, and a native of Brodholme, well known as an old vagabond and thief, was brought up charged with begging in Balderton-gate, on the 8th inst. —Committed to Southwell for ten days.

Monday.—(Before the Mayor, J. Handley, Esq., M.P., and Dr. Morton.)—Assault and Intimidation.—Thos. Turner charged Joseph Halvey, Geo. Hinckley, alias George Walker, and Richard Catley, with an assault on Saturday.—The complainant's face was much disfigured.—The defendants were fined £1 each, including costs ; in default of payment one month's imprisonment, with hard labour.

Drunk.—Catherine Judson, a notorious drunkard and prostitute, was sent to prison for being drunk and not being able to pay a fine and costs inflicted.—Term of imprisonment, 21 days' hard labour. She was taken to the police office in a wheelbarrow, not being able to walk.

Wm. Dyson was sent to Southwell for 14 days for being a rogue and vagabond. He pretended to be deaf and dumb, and swore at the officer when charged with the offence."
Lincolnshire Chronicle - Friday 13 June 1862, page 2.

It's really the Catherine Judson case that caught my eye. Why couldn't she walk? Was she pissed again?

De-alcoholised beer

I came across this bizrre article when looking for something else. It bears many hallmarks of the debate about alcohol going on in the years running up to WW I.

Certain, mostly obsessively miserable, elements in society had got it into their heads that any form of alcohol consumption was a Bad Thing and needed to be stopped at any cost. There was, however, one slight problem these nutcases had: temperance drinks tasted like shit and most, quite rightly, preferred beer. Which is why Mr. Overbeck came up with this idea:

"DE-ALCOHOLISED BEER.
GOVERNMENT VETO SALE.
GRIMSBY INVENTORS POSITION.
(SPECIAL FOR THE "DAILY MAIL.")
Our Grimsby representative writes: —Mr Otto Overbeck, F.I.C., analytical chemist at the Tower Brewery, Grimsby, is contesting an issue raised by the Customs and Excise Authorities respecting a matter the outcome of which will be watched with the keenest interest by the entire brewing trade, and incidentally by the general public.

Some two years ago, as stated in the "Mail", at the time, he discovered, after lengthy and patient research, a process of de-alcoholising beer. In other words, he was able to extract the alcohol out of beer, leaving the beverage unimpaired in its nutritive qualities, but minus its inebriating effects. This discovery, when announced, attracted the attention of the whole of Europe, since it seemed to settle what had long been needed, viz., the question of the ideal temperance drink. There was true temperance reform emanating from the laboratory of a well-known brewery firm. The irony of the situation!

After securing patent rights for the invention, Mr Overbeck took the obvious course preparing for the manufacture of the beverage. He had received inquiries and promises of orders from all parts of the civilized world. A private company was formed, and arrangements completed for the installationof a working plantat at Retford. This plant was duly set up, and without any breach of confidence it may be said that Mr Overbeck has incurred expenditure of about £2,000.

The fact of having invented not only a novel beverage, but taken a step along the road of moral well-being was a matter on which Mr Overbeck had just claim for pride, but his anticiptaions of due reward for his labours have for the moment been ruthlessly thwarted.

A BOMBSHELL.

The erection of the plant at Retford was but the preliminary to the erection of plants in other centres in the United Kingdom, with, of course, distributing centres in the Continental cities, but the Excise authorities in May last threw a bombshell at Overbeck's enterprise, and on the principle that often operates in Government intervention, the policy was completely thorough in its aim. It not only forbade Mr Overbock to sell de-aJcholised beer, but it nought to prevent his making any further experiments. The embargo came in the following letter:—

May 11th. 1914.
Sir, —I ajn directed by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise to inform you that if you wish to continue experiments in the de-alcoholising of your beer, you must apply for a renewal of your indulgences granted to you the Commissioners' letter of 4th June, 1912, and undertake that the experiments, which can only be allowed for a strictly limited period, shall be conducted under such arrangements as will render it impossible for any part of the alcohol to be collected. I am further directed to inform you that the Commissioners are not prepared to allow plant to set up for the purpose of de-alcoholising beer on a commercial scale, and that the permission accorded to you to the present to carry out certain experiments is not to be understood to imply that any extension of such a concession can be allowed. The application (if any) for a further renewal of the indulgence should be sent through me, and it should state what arrangements of the plant are proposed to render the collection of alcohol impossible.— I am, sir your obedient servant,
J. R. Freeman (Surveyor, Newark).

Overbeck replied to this that under the patent granted to him he had full power to continue his experiments, and he did not require any indulgence from the Customs authority.

Following correspondence, the authorities in London entered upon the scene, and Mr Overbeck received the following important letter:

Customs House, London, E.C.
June 8th, 1914.
Sir, —In reply to your letters of the 4th inst. and previous dates, I am directed by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise to inform you:
1. That the permission de-alcoholise beer was originally granted to your solely for the purpose of an experiment on your urgent representations that you had conducted laboratory experiments over period of thirty years, and that you wished to ascertain by means of a small working model whether there was anything in the opinion you had formed to the feasibility of producing a temperance beverage from beer treated in the manner proposed.
2. That the separation of spirits from fermented liquid elsewhere than at a licensed distillery is illegal.
3. That, with regard to any rights you may have under a patent, the Commissioners can only deal with the question as affected by the Revenue laws in force, and
4. That, under these circumstances, and seeing that alcohol can be recovered from beer by means of the de-alcoholiser, the Commissioners are unable to depart from the terms of the decision that they are not prepared to allow plant to be set up for the purpose of beer on a commercial scale.—I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
(Signed) J. C. Byrne,
Otto Overbeck, Esq.,
Tower Brewery, Grimsby.

The whole point at issue is simple one, but Mr Overbeck and the Commissioners of Excise hold exactly the opposite view.

Taking as an illustration for the purpose of argument, say, a 36-gallon cask of beer with a fifty-five gravity, the duty is 7s 9d, which, of  course, Mr Overbeck would pay. These 36 gallons would be reduced on the basis of 55 gravity to 40 by attenuation, or, roughly, eight per cent. of proof spirits, and the yield would be 2.8 gallons od proof spirits, which at an excise of 14s 9d per gallon, would be a trifle over £1 9s 6d. The Excise authorities contend that in the de-alcoholismg of the 36 gallons of beer Mr Overbeck by distilling would obtain 2.8 gallons of proof spirit upon which he would not pay duty, and which he might use for other purposes and so the revenue would lose £1 9s 6d upon every 36 gallons of beer de-alooholi6ed.

MR OVERBECK'S CONTENTION.

Mr Overbeck's contention negatives this idea. First, he claims that the process is not distillation, and, secondly, that the spirit by the de-aicoholisation is absorbed and destroyed in the vast quantity of water utilised in the process of the manufacture. He submits confidently that after the process of de-alcoholising there is no spirit left, and as a proof of his statement, says the local Surveyor of Excise has visited the premises at Retford and seen the whole procedure from start to finish, and has failed to find any spirit whatever.

This suggests that the point view taken up by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise is wrong, and if Overbeck's contention as to entire absence of spirit after the process is correct, the Commissioners' objection must necessarily fall to the ground. From their point of view, they regard Mr Overbeck as being able to obtain spirit from the process, which he could use in other ways, and upon which he would not pay duty. That is the sole reason for the imposition of the veto upon the manufacture of this particular beer. The principle actuating their decision is, in a word, the safeguarding of the revenue.

Viewed from another aspect, assuming that de-alcoholised beer is manufactured and becomes popular, the decreased sale of alcoholic beer would naturally mean a great falling off in revenue duty. Probably this idea has also suggested itself to the Commissioners' minds.

It will, of course, be easily determined whether Mr Overbeck's or the Commissioners' contention respecting the presence or the absence spirit following the process is the correct one, but in the meantime Mr Overbeck is "held up."

The question is of too great, importance to be left where it isn and without betraying any confidence it may be said that the matter will be raised in Parliament. Until then Mr Overbeck in his efforts to advance the cause of temperance will have the sympathy of all true social reformers.

It is no small thing to tilt, single handed at the Government armoury, but Mr Overbeck, having gone so far, and being sure of the correctness his contention, will carry the matter as far it is possible to take it."
Hull Daily Mail - Monday 15 June 1914, page 6.

I'll begin with the huge misassumption at the start of the article: "leaving the beverage unimpaired in its nutritive qualities". That's bollocks. The bulk of the food value in beer is in the alcohol. Remove that and the mass of the calories are also removed. It's as bad as the pemerance twats who claimed that brewing beer destroyed all the food value of the barley. Also total bollocks.

Mr. Overbeck, being a brewing chemist, was very naive if he didn't anticipate problems with the Excise. They were a suspicious bunch, especially when it came to spirits. Their thinking seems pretty logical - if the alcohol was being removed from the beer, where was it going?

Now here's the second bit of bollocks: "the decreased sale of alcoholic beer would naturally mean a great falling off in revenue duty". Why is that bollocks? Because Mr. Overbeck was still planning on paying the duty on his de-alcoholised beer. The system of taxation in effect at the time meant that he had to. Duty was charged on the gravity of the wort before fermentation. Not on the alcohol content when it left the brewery, as it is today. Unless Overbeck started brewing his beer at a much lower gravity, the revenue would get just as much income from de-alcoholised beer as the normal stuff.

I can't help wondering what happened next. Probablt not a great deal as this was just a few weeks before the outbreak of WW I.

Mitchell & Butler Mild Ale 1935 - 1993

Seeing as I've written about Ansell's Mild, I may as well discuss its West Midlands evil twin, M & B Mild.

As I said in my last post, I wasn't a huge fan of M & B's beers from Cape Hill. A shame, as it was the largest producer of cask beer in the world in the 1970's and 1980's. The Mild was better than Brew XI, but that's not saying very much. The Springfield Brewery in Wolverhampton produced much better Bitter. But last time I forgot to mention the oddest brewery in the Bass group: Highgate.

Why odd? For two reasons. First, it was by a long way their smallest brewery. Second, it only brewed Mild. Which for most large brewing groups would have put it top of their closure list. So why did it stay open? Because it made money and was cheap to run. And its Mild was very popular locally. It wasn't worth their while to close it. Which is how it managed to outlive Cape Hill, something I don't think anyone would have anticipated in the 1960's or 1970's.

Highgate Mild was in a different league to the usual M & B Mild. Probably one of the best Dark Milds in the country. And, believe me, I drank a lot of different Dark Milds in the 1970's and 1980's. Only problem was, outside of the occasional appearance at beer festivals, you had to go to the Black Countryto find it.

It's always fascinating to compare beers that were direct rivals, which was certainly the case with M & B and Ansells, especially in Birmingham itself. More often than not, such beers have very similar specs. That's definitely true here.

Let's kick off with the gravity. Ansells Mild was 1034.8º in 1950, 1038.3º in 1950, 1038º in 1960, and 1033.9º in 1971. That's remarkably similar to the gravity of M & B Mild. And a sign that the two breweries were probably analysing each other's beers. I've a feeling that a large number of breweries must have kept Gravity Books. It's just that most haven't survived.

The degree of attenuation and ABV don't differ much, either. 85% plus attenuation in the 1950's, falling to a more typical level of 70-odd% by the 1970's. And the ABV was around 4% in the 1950's, pretty high for a Mild of that period, falling to a more typical sub 3.5% by the 1970's

The colour of the two beers is also very similar, in the 40 to 45 EBC range. Or not really very dark. More on the cusp between amber and brown.

Looking at the gravity, you might suspect that Highgate Mild was similar to M & B Mild. I suppose they were, but only in a very general sense. When it came to flavour, Highgate was a clear winner.

Mitchell & Butler Mild Ale 1935 - 1993
Year	Beer	Price	size	package	Acidity	FG	OG	colour	ABV	App. Atten-uation
1935	Family Ale		pint	bottled	0.05	1008	1040	34	4.16	80.00%
1949	XX	1/6d	pint	draught	0.05	1003.9	1034.6	35 Brown	4.00	88.73%
1949	Mild Ale	1/1d	pint	draught	0.10	1003.5	1034.5	38.5 B	4.04	89.86%
1950	Mild Ale	1/1d	pint	draught	0.04	1005.4	1034.6	37 Brown	3.80	84.39%
1950	Mild Ale	1/5d	pint	draught	0.05	1003.8	1034.5	38 B	4.00	88.99%
1950	X	15d	pint	draught			1038.44	41
1961	Keg Mild	19d	pint	draught	0.04	1009.9	1038.5	45	3.58	74.29%
1962	Keg Mild	22d	pint	draught	0.05	1007	1038.3	50	3.91	81.72%
1963	Keg Mild	20d	pint	draught	0.04	1010.2	1037.9	50	3.46	73.09%
1966	Mild	19d	pint	draught	0.05	1005	1036.9	45	3.99	86.45%
1972	Mild	11-13p	pint	draught		1009.8	1034.5		3.20	71.59%
1977	Mild		pint	draught			1034.6
1977	Highgate Mild		pint	draught			1034
1979	Mild		pint	draught			1034.6
1979	Highgate Mild		pint	draught			1034
1981	Mild		pint	draught			1034.6
1981	Highgate Mild		pint	draught			1036
1982	Mild		pint	draught			1036
1983	Mild		pint	draught			1035
1983	Highgate Mild		pint	draught			1036
1986	Mild		pint	draught			1036
1986	Highgate Mild		pint	draught			1036
1989	Mild		pint	draught		1009.8	1036		3.40	72.78%
1989	Highgate Mild		pint	draught		1011.3	1036		3.20	68.61%
1993	Mild Ale			draught		1008.1	1033.5	48	3.3	75.82%
Sources:
Whitbread Gravity book held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document number LMA/4453/D/02/001.
Whitbread Gravity book held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document number LMA/4453/D/02/002.
Daily Mirror July 10th 1972, page 15.
1993 Real Ale Drinker's Almanac
Good Beer Guide 1978, 1980, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1987 and 1990.

Where you can buy my book

Due to circumstances completely beyond my control, The Home Brewer's Guide to Vintage Beer isn't currently available on Amazon. Some sort of logistical problem.

Luckily it is available directly from the publisher:

http://www.qbookshop.com/products/211087/9781592538829/The-Home-Brewer-s-Guide-to-Vintage-Beer.html

A bit annoying, but there's nothing I can do about it.

The Royal Oak, Stodman-street, Newark (again)

Samuel Taylor certainly had a good run as landlord of the Royal Oak. But not quite as long as I first thought. Why, because he had a son, also called Samuel, who took over the pub in 1876.

The following articles refer to Samuel Taylor junior.

"NEWARK BOROUGH POLICE COURT.
THURSDAY.— (Before the Mayor, Mr. J. Handley, Mr. P. Handley, and Mr. Riddell.)
Disorderly Conduct and Assault.— Samuel Sharpe, of Weston, was charged with having been drunk in the Royal Oak Inn, Stodman-street, and with refusing to quit when requested to do so.— Mr. Smith prosecuted. — According to the evidence of Mr. Samuel Taylor, the landlord, defendant came into his house about a quarter to 11 o'clock on the previous evening and asked for a glass of port wine. As defendant was intoxicated witness refused to fill him anything and requested him to leave. Defendant thereupon used abusive language to him and to the barmaid, and as he would not go witness had to put him out. A scuffle ensued during which witness was hit on the head with a stick. A few minutes later a brick came through the window. - Robert Spencer gave corroborative evidence, and Sergeant Free deposed to apprehending defendant in Kirk-gate. — In reply, defendant said he would have gone out quietly, but complainant seized him by the collar and struck him. He denied that he was drunk, having only had two glasses of ale. — The Bench considered the charge proved, and ordered defendant to pay £3, including costs. — A second charge was preferred against him for assaulting Mr. Taylor, who alleged that the defendant hit him on the forehead with a stick. A scuffle arose, and in trying to defend himself and put him out he knocked defendant down. — Mr. Spencer said he saw defendant with a stick, and told Mr. Taylor to look out. Immediately defendant hit Mr. Taylor on the head. — Defendant, in reply, said he received various blows on the head, and had suffered in consequence of them — He was fined 1s. and costs."
Nottinghamshire Guardian - Friday 29 December 1876, page 6.

Odd priorities they had back then. A three quid fine just for being drunk, but just a shilling fine for whacking someone over the head with a stick.

It seems this kind of incident wasn't a rarity. Funny how it was always just before 11 when the trouble kicked off:

"Samuel Taylor v. Samuel Sharps. — This was a claim of £5 5s. for damage done to a door; also for one bottle of sherry and three bottles of ale. — Mr. Smith appeared for the plaintiff, who stated that he was the landlord of the Royal Oak Inn, Stodman-street, Newark. A few minutes to eleven o'clock on the night of Wednesday, December 20th, defendant came into his house. As he was drunk and misbehaved himself witness ordered him to go, and as he refused to quit he turned him out. In the course of two or three minutes defendant tried to re-enter, and witness put him out again. Defendant assaulted him, and was fined for the offence by the magistrates. After witness had put him out defendant said he would serve him one for that, and shortly after a brick was thrown at the glass door, and the glass was smashed. He subsequently saw defendant at the police office, and at that time there was brick dust on his hands and trousers. — Defendant, who is a farmer at Weston, did not now appear, and His Honour gave judgment for the plaintiff, the money to be paid in a mouth."
Nottinghamshire Guardian - Friday 23 February 1877, page 7.

Putting a brick through a glass door for being refused a drink - sounds just like Newark today.

Samuel Taylor junior was still the landlord of the Royal Oak in 1881. And still having trouble with drunken customers:

"NEWARK BOROUGH POLICE.
MONDAY.— (Before the Mayor, Ald. Branston, and Mr. Oldham.)
Assaulting the Police. — John Rowland was charged with assaulting P.c. Watson whilst in the execution of his duty on the 13th inst. P.c. Watson said that he was sent for by Mr. Taylor, landlord of the Royal Oak, Stodman-street, to remove defendant from the premises. He requested him to leave, but he refused to do so, and the officer thereupon attempted to put him out. Defendant then struck him on the chest, and kicked his legs. With some difficulty he got defendant outside, and brought him to the police office. Joseph Low corroborated. Defendant said be was drunk at the time, and had no recollection of what took place. Fined 11s and 9s costs, or 14 days' imprisonment."
Nottinghamshire Guardian - Friday 19 August 1881, page 2.

But Samuel Taylor wasn't going to be there much longer, as we'll find out next time. And guess who took over the lease of the pub from him?