Masons Arms, Hereford Street
1871 James & Ann Price
1875 James Price - (Worrall’s Directory)
1881 James & Ann Price
Eddowes's Journal -11th March 1885
Infringement of the Sunday Closing Act: - James Price, innkeeper, Masons' Arms Inn, was charged by Sergt. Pain with this offence, on 22nd ult.
Mr Corner, Hereford, appeared for the defence.
The case was proved and defendant was find £2 13s.costs.
1891 James & Ann Price
1901 James & Ann Price
Hereford Journal - 7th March 1903
PRESTEIGN ADJOURNED BREWERY SESSIONS.
CHARGE OF PERMITTING DRUNKENNESS DISMISSED.
The adjourned Licensing Sessions for the Division of Presteign was held at the Shirehall, Presteign on Tuesday, the magistrates present being Colonel James (in the chair), and Mr. Richard Rogers.
James Price, landlord of the Mason's Arms, Presteign, was charged with permitting drunkenness on his premises on the 14th February last.
Defendant pleaded not guilty.
Mr. E. P. Careless, solicitor, Llandrindod appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. W. B. Levick solicitor, Leominster, for the defence.
Mr. Careless, in opening the case, pointed out that the charge was made under the 13th Section of the Licensing Act, 1902.
P.C. Lloyd, stationed at. Presteign said that on the 14th February last he visited the Mason's Arms Inn about 9.50 p.m., and upon entering the kitchen saw there five men besides the landlord. Amongst these was a man named Brown, who was sitting behind a table, and was drunk. The landlord had a jug in his hand as if he were going for more beer. On the table were a quart and two pint jugs. Beer was in one of these, and was between a man named Pitchford and Brown. Witness told Brown he was drunk, and afterwards asked the landlord what he was doing there, and the landlord stated that he had not noticed him, as he had not been there two minutes. A short time after he left he saw Pitchford and Brown go out by the back, Pitchford assisting Brown.
Cross-examined: During the time witness had been in Presteign he had not heard of any complaints against Mr. Price, nor had he seen anything improper in the conduct of the house. He did not see Brown supplied with any drink or drink anything. He did not know what was the nature of the objection against Mr. Price at the Brewster Sessions. He knew this was an ante-1869 beerhouse, but did not know that the police were desirous of not having the license renewed. The nearest house to this was the Barleymow, and was occupied by an ex-policeman, but he could not say whether that house would be benefited if the license of the Mason's Arms was refused.
Mr. Levick was pursuing the question, when Mr. Careless objected.
P.S. Jones stated that he saw the man drunk in High Street on the night in question about nine o'clock.
Cross-examined: He did not want this license refused, but wanted to have the house properly conducted.
Re-examined: He had not the slightest grudge against Mr. Price.
Mr. Levick argued there was no case and pointed out that the defendant, Mr. Price, had been the licensee of the house since 1867, and was the owner of his own property. For the whole of this time —35 years—Mr. Price had carried on his business in a respectable manner.
The Bench having decided to hear evidence for the defence.
Mr. James Price, the defendant, said he was owner and licensee of the Mason's Arms, which he had occupied since 1866. On the evening in question he saw Brown in his house, but did not see him enter. He could not have been there more than six or eight minutes. He was not supplied with any liquor. There were ten or eleven persons in the house. P.C. Lloyd told Brown he had been there long enough. No one in the house said that Brown was drunk.
Cross-examined: He did not consider Brown was drunk and didn't tell him to go. He could not say why Pitchford went with Brown.
Re-examined: The back door could be seen from the street.
David Pitchford and Henry Pugh both gave evidence for the defence, stating that Brown was not drunk but had had a little drink. Brown walked with a peculiar gait even when sober. He was not served with any drink nor had any. Pitchford stated that Brown could walk without assistance.
The Chairman stated that the Bench had decided to dismiss the case.
The Chairman also stated that they had decided to renew the licenses. Certain alterations would be required to the satisfaction of the Bench, and of these alterations due notice would be given.
Leominster News - 5th February 1904
The license of the Masons' Arms Inn was transferred to Mr Shirley Price.
Leominster News - 9th February 1906
After a long hearing the license of the Masons' Arms Inn, held by Mr S Price, was refused.
Wellington Journal - 23rd June 1906
PRESTEIGN LICENSES REDUCED.
The principal meeting of the Compensation Authority for the county of Radnor was held at the Shirehall, Presteign, on Tuesday. Mr. J. Corrie Carter presided, and there were also present.—Messrs. T. E. Duggan, J. A. Beebe., A. Simpson, and J. T. Jackson, and Dr. W. Bowen-Davies.
The business was to consider the question of the renewal of the license of the Masons Arms Inn, Presteign, which had been referred by the Presteign Justices to the Compensation Authority, and which the Authority had decided should be proceeded with at this meeting.
Mr. Green then applied for the renewal of the license of the Masons' Arms.
After Major Walsh (the Chief Constable) had given evidence, the Magistrates also decided to refuse the renewal of the license of these premises.
Leominster News - 26th October 1906
RADNORSHIRE COMPENSATION AUTHORITY
The above Authority held a meeting at the Shirehall on Thursday last to consider the case of the Masons' Arms Inn. The license was refused, and referred to the committee to adjust the compensation to be paid. The Masons' Arms claimed £150, namely £135 for the owner and £15 for the license. The Committee offered £125, and this was accepted.