|
Maidstone Telegraph, Saturday 11 September 1869.
Beer Houses.
Mr. Richard Stephens applied for a renewal of the beer licence to his
house at East Peckham.
Mr. Rogers, of Tunbridge Wells, applied on behalf of Mr. Stephens, and
Mr. W. S. Norton appeared to oppose on the part of Mr. Masters, of the
"Fountain," and Mrs. Walter of the "Bush Inn."
Mr. Rogers in opening the case said that it was only a question of
renewal, as a client had had the licence since the 1st of May. The house
was built for the express purpose of a beer house. Applicant had laid
out a considerable sum of money for the purpose and to be converted
ultimately into a licensed house. The only question for the bench to
consider was whether the person occupying the house was a good
character, seeing the house had already a licence. He was licensed
before the present Act of Parliament came in force on the 12th of July.
They would therefore be pleased to grant the licence notwithstanding any
opposition from two public houses in the neighbourhood. He will prove
from witnesses that the house had every convenience, and the occupier of
good character. Mr. Rogers then read the clause of the Act showing that
the magistrates could not refuse the licence to the house if it already
possessed one, that the house was convenient, and the applicant of good
character.
A certificate of good character, signed by the rector of the church and
others, was then handed up to the bench.
Thomas Webb was called and said that he knew the house kept by Mr.
Stephens. The house belonged to Mr. Jude, of Wateringbury. He had made
alterations to the house which cost between £200 and £300. The house had
every accommodation for the sale of bear. The house contains four rooms
upstairs and four rooms down. He was a man of great respectability.
Mr. Norton:- I do not intend to question the respectability of the
applicant, or the rateable value of the house. I oppose on the ground
that there are sufficient beer houses in the neighbourhood.
Mr. Webb, cross-examined by Mr. Norton:- There are two licensed Inns in
the neighbourhood. One is about 100 rods from the applicants house. There
are perhaps 15 or 20 licensed houses in the parish. I think 8 are spirit
licences. The population I believe is a little over 2,000.
By Mr. Rogers:- Applicants house is situated at the corner of a three
"went-way." There is a great deal of traffic on the way.
Thomas Jones was called, who proved the eligibility of applicants house
for a beer licence.
Mr. Stephens deposed that Mr. Jude was his landlord. He had the house
about the 20th of last May. He obtained a paper on the 1st of June,
signed by the overseers, and went to the Excise Office, and a licence
for the sale of beer was granted him.
This was the case for the applicant.
Mr. Norton said that he opposed on behalf of Mr. Masters of the
"Fountain Inn," and Mrs. Walter, of the "Bush Inn," and on the part of
the tenant farmers, and presented a memorial in opposition. He did not
dispute the respectability of applicant nor the eligibility or
rateability of his premises. He contended that there was sufficient beer
houses in the neighbourhood. He thought the bench would agree with him
that the passing of the Act by the Legislature they had the distinct
object in view of limiting the number of beer houses which were an
admitted evil, and for that reason placed the jurisdiction in the hands
of the magistrates for their prohibition. He would therefore ask them to
say whether another house in the vicinity of two licensed Inns in
Wateringbury was necessary for the public benefit. The "Fountain" and
"Bush Inn" were in the immediate
neighbourhood of the applicants house
and was sufficient for all the requirements in their locality.
The Bench after a brief consultation decided upon granting a renewal of
the beer licence to applicant.
|
Census