FOR many people, visiting the pub on a weekend – including Sundays – is a normal occurrence, but prior to the 1960s, pubs in Wales were not allowed to open on a Sunday.

Here we take a look at one of the cases in court in 1888 of a Llandybie pub landlord who was summoned after his pub was allegedly open on the day of rest.

Before we look at the case, lets look at that law that stopped people from having a pint (or several) in their locals on a Sunday.

The law itself was called the Sunday Closing Act 1881. While probably an unpopular Act, it was undoubtedly an important one as it applied to Wales only and was the first Act of its kind to recognise Wales as a more independent character, which would set precedent for future laws.

It was introduced by the Liberal government in 1880 under William Ewart Gladstone. It came after pressure from the temperance movement – a movement that promoted abstinence from alcohol. It was believed that pubs in Wales had become ‘recruiting centres for the Conservative party.’

The legislation didn’t however relate to private social clubs and so many more of those opened up, meaning the law had no effect on drunkenness.

The law was repealed in 1911 but consolidated into other licensing acts including the Licensing Act 1953. When the Licensing Act 1961 came into force, it allowed Wales to vote in a referendum whether to keep, remove or readopt the Sunday closing and following the referendum, it was removed in a number of areas across Wales, with the last area to open up pubs on Sundays being Dwyfor in 1996!

So what happened if a pub was opened on a Sunday during the Act’s life? Here we take a look at the case of Rees Thomas, landlord of the Golden Grove Arms in Llandybie in 1888.

On Friday, October 26, 1888, the Carmarthen Weekly Reporter highlighted the court case against Mr Thomas after he was charged with ‘keeping his inn open during illegal hours.’

The case was brought after P.C. Evan Davies, who was stationed at Ammanford, charged him with the offence after it was alleged that an Ammanford carpenter – William Williams – was at the pub on a Sunday.

PC Davies said that he had been watching the Golden Grove at about 8.30pm on Sunday, September 2, 1888, as he believed he had seen men prowling nearby and believed that the Sunday Closing Act was being broken.

He told how he found a place to observe while himself hidden from view. He said that after some time, he saw two men coming from behind the pub and a few minutes later, two different men went into the lane nearby as if they were going to the back of the premises.

He quickly tracked the two men and as he was nearing the back door, the daughter of the landlord arrived behind him and both entered at the same time.

The article stated that the officer found two men and a servant girl in the one kitchen with the girl holding ‘a quart jug and two empty glasses on a tray.’ The men tried to leave but the article states: “the P.C. was too wily for one, and so he fell into his snare and had to extricate himself the best he could.” The officer asked the carpenter ‘what are you doing here?’ to which he received no response and left without a word.

The officer continued to look about and then saw the daughter was trying to push the servant into the bar. He examined the quart and believed it to have contained beer and asked the daughter – Miss Thomas – where her father was. She responded that he was upstairs and that for the time being, she was in charge.

Miss Thomas turned to the servant and asked ‘with surprise’ when she had the key for the place where they kept the liquor after being asked by PC Davies why she had allowed two men on the premises.

MORE NEWS:

The servant admitted that the key was there and Miss Thomas asked her who told her to give the men alcohol, but PC Davies said he did not catch the response.

On leaving the premises, PC Davies was accosted by Mr Thomas’ stepson. He informed him that he was in charge of the pub on Sundays and said he ‘would like to know what right the constable had to enter the place, and threatened to ill-treat the officer on duty.’

It was said that the distance between Ammanford, where Mr Williams was from, and the pub was less-than three miles, which meant that he could not be classed as a ‘bona fide traveller’ under the Act.

The officer was cross-examined by Mr W. W. Brodie who was representing both men. He tried to shake the evidence on the basis that there had been some bad blood between the officer and the landlord of the pub.

A number of questions asked by the defence were objected to by the magistrates’ clerk which according to the report in the paper amused those in attendance.

During cross-examination it was found that there had been no supper laid in the kitchen and no one had actually been seen drinking beer. The constable admitted both the men and the servant girls were in different rooms which were styled as kitchens. He also admitted to not seeing the landlord or the stepson in the house.

Mr Brodie stated that there was no contravention of the Sunday Closing Act nor that there was any evidence to conclude that the servant girl knew the men were there or that they were speaking with each other.

He said it was a case of suggestion rather than anything else. He also stated that there had been nothing against the house in 19 years and there was no intention to supply drinks.

Mr Brodie also spoke about how the constable said he heard the landlord speaking as he was on the roadside. Although he couldn’t clearly understand what was being said, he thought that the landlord was talking about the incident. Mr Brodie said that it was absurd ‘to assume that it had reference to a fear on the part of the defendant or anyone else in the house concerned that he had broken the law.’

He admitted that the two men may have been in the house in a dark room without anyone in charge knowing about it and he ‘respectfully’ stated that there had been no breach by the landlord.

The defence said how they had witnesses who would ‘not distort the truth’ and who would be available to take the stand if directed by the bench. Mr Brodie also said that there was no link between Mr Thomas and the men so there was no case.

The bench decided they would hear from the defences’ witnesses and were given a completely different story.

Four witnesses – Mr Thomas himself and fellow defendant Mr Williams, along with the servant Anne Evans and William Thomas, the defendant’s 15-year-old son – told how Mr Williams went to the front door of the pub but didn’t get an answer so went around the back.

Master Thomas answered the door and spoke with Mr Williams about his father’s sawmills and how they would be ‘on the go the morrow’ and that any orders given would be attended to then.

During this conversation, the officer appeared and pushed Mr Williams into the pub and moved him on a few steps into the passageway. Mr Williams then left to go to another room to allow the officer to conduct his business.

A supper had been partly prepared and the servant girl had the jug in her hand and was just about to get some beer from the cellar for master Thomas and his brother for their supper. Mr Williams had no beer and there was no suggestion that anyone else had done in the day either and none of the witnesses recalled seeing anybody else there.

Mr Williams told the court that the constable had said he wouldn’t have brought a summons if “Johnnie, the stepson, had not given him cheek.”

The chairman ruled that “the case is proved. The landlord is fined £1 and costs.” He denied the clerk’s question as to whether his licence should also be endorsed.

The sum of fine was however reduced following consultation with the bench, a statement from Mr Philipps, the superintendent of police, and the fact that the defendant had no previous convictions, so he was fined 5s and costs.

The Golden Grove Inn is still a pub to this day and reopened in late 2021 after refurbishment (and don't worry, it is now legal to drink on Sundays!)