RICHARD GODDARD
Death certificate
No. 270
When and where died : twenty fifth January 1887 1 Smith's buildings, Greenham USD

Name and surname: Richard Goddard Sex: Male Age; 57

Occupation: Superannuated Police Constable Cause of death: Heart disease Chronic bronchitis certified by ? Palmer fot R C P Signature
Description and residence of Informant: The mark of Sabina Goddard widow of the deceased present at death 1 Smith's Buildings, Greenham Third February 1887
Signature of the Registrar: W. Draper, Registrar

Will Index- National Probate Calendar: 1887 18 October — Goddard, Richard


The will of Richard Goddard formerly of the "New Market" Inn, Newbury but late of Greenham, both in the County of Berkshire — Licensed Victualler who died 25th January 1887 at Greenham was proved at Oxford by Sabrina Keen (wife of Moses Keen) (formerly Goddard, Widow) of Greenham, the relict, the sole executrix.
Effects £276 3s 6d

Author: J Goddard
©

RICHARD GODDARD
Born 1828 Baptised 31d May 1828 at Aldermaston, son of Richard and Ann

1941 census was aged 14 and living with an auntfn Brimpton.

1851 census was aged 22 living in Walworth, Surrey and employed as a policeman

1854 1 May Married Sabine Brewer at Sutton by Croydon

1861 aged 32 living in Croydon. Policeman.

1871 aged 42 living in Newbury. Publican — now assisting his father Richard in running the New Inn, Cattle Market.

1874 in charge of New Inn. Fell foul of cousin George Goddard, the Police Sergeant of Newbury.

1875 Father Richard died.

1881 Publican in Newbury

Died 25 January1887.  No children from marriage with Sabine, who was sole executor. She married Moses Keen Sept Q 1887.


Richard, Sabine and Moses Keen all buried in the Cemetery.

Author: J Goddard
©

GEORGE GODDARD

RICHARD GODDARD, Junior



Newbury Weekly News 27August 1874

BOROUGH POLICE COURT FRIDAY

Before the Mayor, J.H.Mason, and C.S. Slocock, Esqs.

A PUBLICAN ENTERTAINING HIS FRIENDS

Richard Goddard, landlord of the New Market Inn, was summonsed for allowing intoxicating liquor to be consumed on his premises on the night of Saturday. August 1st, at 11.45pm.
Mr. Lucas appearing for the prosecution and stated that the delay in bringing the matter forward was owing to a change in the Act, which had received the Royal sanction only on the day previous,and it was thought better to hold over the information until the new Act had been received.

Supt. Goddard said that on Saturday evening August 1st, he was standing in Cheap-street, and heard three men come up from the railway and rap at the "Pigeons," but as they got no answer he went and found them railway employees in charge of a train of empties, and entitled to refreshment. He then took them to the "Weaver's Arms" and getting no response went with them to the New Market Inn, where he saw a light. Knocked several times and no one came. A window was opened upstairs. He knocked again, and defendant came to the door and asked who was there. Witness replied "Police," and he asked again the same question and received the same answer. Knocked again and defendant came to the door, which he opened. Told him, that the three railway men were working up a train, and wanted refreshments. Walked into the smoking room, which was in darkness. One of the railway men had a lantern, and he could see that there were three men. Told by defendant he had a party, and asked why he had put the gas out. He replied that he had not put it out; but he thereupon lit the gas. Defendant said the men were lodgers. Witness said, "But Mr. Rowles is not a lodger. Defendant replied, "But this is Mr. Rowles' brother." Did not know him or the other man. There were four glasses, all contained liquor. Found beer I one glass, and by the smell judged the other to be whiskey. The others were apparently spirits. There were several empty glasses and cups on the table. The train which these men came by arrived at the station at 11.45.

Mr King, who appeared for the defendant, said that there was no strict proof of the liquor being consumed, and submitted that his client should be acquitted, as he was only entertaining at his own expense and old friend and his brother, under exceedingly natural circumstances, and this the 30th section of the new Act provided for, and which by a coincidence had come into operation only on the previous day. He would call witnesses to show what were the facts.

Mr. Rowles, dyer, of Cheap-street, said — I have a brother living in Banbury, and engaged quarters for him and his horse and trap at defendant's house. My brother arrived on the Saturday night in question between ten and half-past, having driven the distance, about 50 miles. He drove up to my house and the ostler took his horse. After supper we went across to Goddard's just before the closing time, We had whiskey and water, but this was brought in before 11, I did not pay for it, nor did I see it paid for. After some rapping the landlord got up and went to the door. A young man who was a lodger turned out the light, and defendant, when he came back said how foolish it was.
Cross-examined- When my brother has come to Newbury he has gone across to see the defendant, and they were no doubt friendly. My brother stayed till Thursday; he was my guest, but he put his horse in Mr. Goddard's stable. My brother gave orders for three pennyworths of whiskey, for myself, for brother and the landlord, and it was supplied before 11 o'clock. My brother told the ostler he could have a quart of beer and drink it there or take it home. Don't know who the lodger was who put the gas out. My brother had supper at my house, but slept according to arrangement at the defendant's because it was not convenient to sleep at my house that night.
By Mr. King- I have no very distinct recollection who what was said when the whiskey was ordered. Richard Goddard, the defendant, said "I am the landlord of the New Market house. In conjunction with my my father I have been in the trade 15 years. I have been in the police force, and never had anything of this kind against me before. Mr. Rowles and his brother came in just before 11. Asked what they were going to have, and they replied a drop of cold whiskey and in addition I took in a glass for myself. Never got paid for it, nor did I expect it when. I entertain old friends. Didn't go to the door the first time as people often knock to get in. While at the door the light was put out, and the lodger said he did it and would not have done so only he had had a glass too many. Mr. Rowles and his brother were my friends. Had no thought of taking money from them. The strange lodger was about a directory, but he had nothing to drink after 11.

The Mayor, after deliberation with his brother Magistrates, said that this was a proper case to be brought before the Bench, but as Mr. Rowles was a bone fide lodger and there was a friendly feeling between the parties, the case would be dismissed. The court, which was crowded, cheered the result. Mr. Slocock remarked that there was no occasion for any demonstration, as it was a case which decidedly ought to have been investigated. The man who put the

light out quite threw suspicion upon the matter. Mr. King — I quite agree that this did make it suspicious, and was very stupid. Mr. Lucas applied for the usual solicitor's fee to be allowed. The Mayor remarked that it was a proper case in which the people should be advised and the Superintendent would moreover have neglected his duty had he not brought it forward. The application would be granted.

Newbury Weekly News 27 August 1874

Author: NWN
© Newbury Weekly News