Quote
FAREHAM PETTY SESSIONS.
MONDAY.
—Before Admiral Sir Lucius Curtis, Bart. K.C.B. (chairman), Spencer Smith, Esq., F. Bradshaw, Esq., Captain Mansel, and the Hon. Captain Pakenham.
LICENSING BUSINESS.
—THE “WHITE SWAN,” AT GOSPORT.
—This being the adjourned annual licensing meeting, several renewals were applied for and granted, with but one exceptionable feature of interest. At the licensing meeting at Gosport the justices refused to renew the license of the “White Swan,” on the Beach, at Gosport, to Mr. Newberry, the tenant thereof, and further stated that they refused the license to the house altogether. To-day Mr. Field applied to the magistrates to re-consider their former decision so far as their refusal to grant a license to any person for the same house. Mr. Field argued that it would be a manifest injustice to the owners, for whom he appeared, as they had received no notice that their tenant had misconducted himself by harbouring prostitutes until within a few days before the licensing meeting, when it was too late to take decisive measures on the subject; and that Captain Evelegh, one of the members of the firm, had received a good character with Newberry, and so also had the justices, or they would not have granted him a license at all. Mr. Field remarked that it was ordered some time since by the magistrates that when publicans misconducted themselves representation thereof should be made by the police to the owners to afford them an opportunity of ejecting them, and as this had not been done in the present instance in sufficient time, the owners of the property had been seriously injured, without any fault of their own. Notice of this application had been given to every magistrate present at the Gosport meeting; and, under the circumstances, he (Mr. Field) trusted that the magistrates would grant it, as Captain Evelegh would undertake to procure a good tenant for the approbation of the magistrates. This, he urged, would be the best way to raise the character of the houses in that locality.
—The magistrates retired, and shortly afterwards returned, when Sir Lucius Curtis stated that the magistrates had determined not to re-open the question.
COSHAM FAIR.
—ILLEGALLY SELLING BEER.
—George Middleton, the occupier of a beerhouse at Wymering, was charged with selling beer in an unlicensed place on the 29th of July last, upon the occasion of Cosham Fair.
—Mr. Cousins appeared for the defendant.
—Police-constable Daubney, who is stationed at Wickham, said that on Monday, the 29th of July, he was at Cosham fair. He went to the defendant’s premises, and on some land outside of the house he saw a booth erected. He went into the booth about half-past nine o’clock in the evening, and asked for a pint of beer, for which he paid 2d. There was a passage between the house and the tent, and they did not adjoin.
—In cross-examination witness said he could not say whether the top part of the marquee was fastened on to the house by staples. There was a front entrance to the tent, and this was exactly opposite the entrance to the house. The beer was drawn in the house and brought out. A person could not, he thought, get from the house into the road without going over the land on which the tent was erected.
—Sergeant Byles, stationed at Havant, gave corroborative evidence. He added that people could get between the booth and the house, although the ropes attached to the booth were fastened to the house.
—P.C. Jeffery, of Hilsea, proved going to the defendant’s booth with Mr. Edwards, an excise officer, and that the latter told the defendant, in the constable’s presence, that the booth was not “entered,” and that he must not sell there.
—Mr. John Edwards said he knew the defendant’s beer-house, and produced the official entry of rooms in which the defendant was licensed to retail beer. This only applied to his house and three entered rooms. The defendant’s wife had previously applied to witness for permission to sell in this booth. He said, “Conditionally that you get the premises fresh rated, I’ll make it all right for you, and get a fresh entry made.” There was no such entry, however, made.
—In answer to Mr. Cousins, witness said the defendant’s wife asked him if it were necessary to get a fresh license for selling beer off the premises. He would undertake to swear that he never said he would give them a paper to prevent anyone interfering, upon condition that they would draw Mrs. King’s beer. Mrs. King’s name might have been mentioned. She (defendant’s wife) complained of the beer, and witness might have said, “Well, change it. Why don’t you go to King’s, or somewhere else?” He would swear that he said nothing about sending down her empty casks to Mrs. King’s brewery.
—Mr. Cousins confidently submitted that on the question of law the defendant could not be convicted, on the ground that the information applied to the “selling” of beer, and not to the “consuming.” In this instance the evidence proved that the beer was drawn, or “sold,” in the house, and that it was merely consumed in the booth; and he put it seriously to the bench whether there was not a great difference between the two points. He moreover urged that the land on which the booth was erected was in the occupation of the defendant.
—Mr. Samuel Ventham was then examined for the defence. He said he was agent and manager for Messrs. Simmons and Co., the brewers, of Winchester. The defendant was their tenant, and the rent of the premises occupied by him was 15l. The land on which the tent was erected was included in the license. The rating (12l.) also included the land. The rooms that were entered in the excise returns generally referred only to storing and selling. In applying for the rate in the first instance this land was specially included, and was so explained to the overseers. The magistrates, however, after some consultation, considered that the defendant was not duly licensed, and fined him 1l., including costs.
—John Mundy was charged with committing a similar offence in Cosham-park upon the occasion of the fair being held there. The defendant is a beer-house keeper in Portsmouth, and he had a booth at Cosham fair in which he ostensibly sold meat and other refreshments. Police-constable Daubney went into the booth and asked if he could be served some beer, to which the defendant replied, “Yes, if you keep it out of sight.” He also told others that if a policeman came in they were to throw the beer on to the ground and place the cups on the table. Daubney had a pint of beer, and afterwards a glass, and several others, some of whom were drunk, were likewise supplied.
—The defendant alleged that it was merely a little table beer obtained for his own use, and that it was sold without his knowledge. He was fined 1l. and 9s. 6d. costs.
—Hampshire Telegraph, Wednesday 11 September 1867 source
“He would undertake to swear that he never said he would give them a paper to prevent anyone interfering, upon condition that they would draw Mrs. King’s beer. Mrs. King’s name might have been mentioned.” Heh. “might have been mentioned”. Small-scale corruption.
Question
“Mr. John Edwards said he knew the defendant’s beer-house, and produced the official entry of rooms in which the defendant was licensed to retail beer.”
I really need to figure out if those records still exist.
Todo
Chasing George Middleton through the census should get us a name for this house.