|
From the Kent and Sussex Courier. 29 August 1873. Price 1d.
THE 'WHO WOULD HAVE THOUGHT IT?' PADDOCK WOOD.
Mr. Cripps said he appeared to oppose the renewal of the license to
George Avards. Mr. Warner, who represented the other side, made what he
termed an ex parté application
(one where the concerned parties do not have to
be present) for the granting of a license to the
above house to a new tenant until the 10th of October, when he should
apply in the ordinary way for a renewal, and at which time the position
of his friend Mr. Cripps would be a good one. This house had been for
some time in the occupation of Avards, but it had now changed hands, and
Messrs. Kelsey had become the proprietors. There was now a new tenant in
the house, of the name of Augustus Austin, a carpenter, and a man in
every way fitted to carry on the house respectably. He had very
satisfactory testimonials in his favour, signed by Dr. Leeds, the
surgeon, of Brenchley, and Mr. Oakley, on behalf of Messrs. Willicombe
and Oakley, of Tunbridge Wells, each of whom gave him an excellent
character. He should also call the police constable to prove that the
present tenant was in every way fit to carry on the business of a
beer-house-keeper. Under the 14th sec. of the 9th Geo. IV., cap. 61,
their worships had the power of granting a license to the new tenant
until the 10th October, when it could be renewed in the ordinary course.
This was an ex parté application. Mr. Cripps dissented from this
proposal. Mr. Warner said it had been held by the Bench that no one had
a right to be heard in opposition under similar circumstances, and he
had been told by Mr. Palmer that Mr. Cripps himself raised the objection
on a previous occasion. Mr. Goldsmid: If the Bench held so, they were
decidedly wrong then. The Chairman: The Bench is bound to hear every
objection. Mr. Warner replied that what he had suggested had been the
coarse adopted by the Bench, but the Chairman remarked that they had
decided to hear Mr. Cripps in reply to the case. Mr. Warner then read
the notice which had been served upon the man Avards and which was by
the Rev. F. Starr, vicar of Brenchley, and other inhabitants, and was to
the effect that the house was kept in a disorderly manner, and by reason
of Avards being constantly and habitually intoxicated, he was not a fit
and proper person to be entrusted with a license to sell excisable
liquors. Mr. Warner submitted that the opposition fell to the ground,
inasmuch as the house had changed hands. The Chairman: But the manner in
which the house has hitherto been conducted will influence us very much,
Mr. Warner. Mr. Warner: You have only to consider the way in which the
house is at present conducted. Mr. Goldsmid: But then this application
comes to us in the name of Avards. Mr. Warner said that was not so. Mr.
Goldsmid replied that it must be either one thing or the other—either an
application for a transfer or a new license. Mr. Warner replied that,
had it been for a new license, he should have had to give certain
notices, which had not been done. He relied on the Act Geo. IV., which
provided a remedy in such cases. Mr Goldsmid would like to know when the
notice was served. Mr Cripps replied that it was served seven days' ago.
Mr Goldsmid asked when the notice of the proposed change was given
because it might appear to the Bench as a colourable transfer. Mr Cripps
said the notice was dated the 19th of August. Mr Goldsmid: When was the
notice of this opposition given? Mr Cripps replied that notice to give up
possession was given to Avards last Thursday night, and the notice of
the opposition was given on the previous Tuesday. Mr Warner said the
contract for the sale of the property was dated the 15th of August, and
from that day the equitable possession changed hands. P. C. Stanford was
then called, and said he had known the plaintiff for a number of years
and his private character was very good. As to his qualification for a
beer house keeper, he could not say anything; he had only been in the
house since Saturday. Mr. Kelsey was called, and said on the 15th of
August he purchased the house in question for £385. He was prepared to
enter into an arrangement, if this temporary license was granted, that
the establishment should be well conducted in future. In fact there was
an agreement with the present tenant that if the place was not well
conducted he was to give up possession at once. Supposing the license
was not granted, he should by the transaction be a loser to the extent
of about £100. In answer to the Bench, Mr Kelsey said he was not aware
that the notice of objection had been served upon Avards until the
preceding day (Monday), but previous to purchasing the house he knew
that it bore a bad name, but as Avards had never been fined he did not
presume that the license would be taken away. Mr Goldsmid remarked that
that lay at the discretion of the magistrates. Mr Cripps said he had an
undoubted right on behalf of the vicar of Brenchley, and he might say on
behalf of almost all the respectable inhabitants of the district to
oppose the granting of a license either to Avards or a new tenant. He
felt it his duty to draw their worships' attention to what he really
felt was an attempt on the part of the Messrs Kelsey to prejudice the
Bench as to what was fair and right so far as regarded the general
public. It was all very well to ask the magistrates to exercise their
discretion under the section of the old Act of Geo. IV., which referred
only to deaths and such circumstances, but Mr. Warner had asked them
under the powers of that section to grant a temporary license, until the
10th of October, to a fresh applicant, and whom they could not then set
aside in any way, because he had been already granted a license. The
proper course would have been for Avards to have attended for a renewal
of the license, but he had stayed away, and now Mr. Kelsey came before
their worships with a new applicant. He believed that the house was not
fully rated, and under those circumstances there would be no harm done
by refusing to grant the license. Mr. Warner said if the license was not
granted them they could not apply again for twelve months. He asked that
the Bench might adjourn the hearing until the 30th September, and then
they could see how the house was conducted in the meantime. Mr. Goldsmid
was understood to dissent from that proposition. Mr. Cripps then
proceeded to observe that Messrs. Kelsey finding opposition was to be
offered to Avard, gave him notice some two or three days' previously and
got a new tenant; but was any brewer at liberty to turn round and say, I
have got rid of the old tenant, here is a new tenant, and you (the
magistrates) are bound to grant a license to him. He (Mr. Cripps)
contended that unless it could be shown that the public would be damnified by the house being closed, their worships had full discretion
to refuse the application. He asked them to take the whole of the
circumstances into consideration, and he felt satisfied that they would
refuse to grant the license. He called P. C. Stanford, who said he had
been stationed at Brenchley for nearly six years, and he had frequently
visited the beer-house in question, which was for the most part
frequented by poachers and thieves, and that Avards had been summoned
before the magistrates, but always managed to bring witnesses to
contradict what the police said, and so the cases against him were
dismissed. Avards was about half his time drunk. The Rev. — Martin,
curate of Brenchley, said he had frequently passed the beer-house, which
had a very bad character, and had heard a great noise going on there. He
had also seen Avards intoxicated. The general character of the house was
very bad. He believed that there were eight licensed premises within a
distance of a mile and a half of this beer-house, and the nearest
licensed house was within two-thirds of a mile of it. It was impossible
to enlarge the premises except by adding to them at each end, and there
was a want of sufficient accommodation. William Orgles,
assistant-overseer, said he had frequently visited the house, and had
heard very bad language and quarrelling going on there. He had often
seen Avards in liquor. The house was anything but well-conducted, and it
was in a very bad situation, near a wood, and he had reason to believe
that men got there on a Sunday morning and took beer from the house into
the wood, where they drank it. Mr. Cripps was about to call further
evidence, when the magistrates intimated that they did not require it. Mr. Warner contended that, inasmuch as the license was granted before
the 1st May, 1869, it was only lawful for the magistrates to refuse it
under certain conditions set forth in the 8th sec. of the 32nd and 33rd
Vic., neither of which the applicant had been guilty of. Mr. Goldsmid
said the section referred to meant where licenses were in force, but Mr.
Warner had failed to prove to them that this license was in force. Mr.
Warner contended that the license was in force at the present time. It
did not matter whether it was to Avards or not. Mr. Goldsmid: But you
have not proved that you are applying for a license. Mr. Warner: I have
made my application under the 9th sec. Geo. IV., cap. 14. Mr. Goldsmid
said that was the day fixed upon by the Act of Parliament for
application to be made by any beer-house-keeper throughout the county for
a renewal of his license if he wished it. It appeared to him, therefore,
that the renewal should be applied for according to the directions of
the Act, and then a transfer asked for. Mr. Warner said he had a right
to make use of any Act of Parliament that was in force and unrepealed,
and the 9th Geo. IV. was in force and unrepealed. Under that Act he had
a right to come before their worships and ask them to grant a new tenant
a temporary license to the 10th October, unless it could be shown that
the Act of Parliament had been contravened in any way. Mr. Goldsmid: But
you do not dispute out discretion? Mr. Warner reminded their worships that they were to be guided by the
Acts of Parliament. The Chairman: Suppose we refuse to do this; you
cannot say that we have done an illegal act? Mr. Warner: I should be very sorry to use such language. The Chairman:
Do you maintain that it is positively obligatory on as to grant this
license? Mr. Warner: Yes, unless you are satisfied that my client has
failed in one of the particular referred to in the 32nd and 33rd Vic. Mr. Goldsmid: If you consider we do anything unlawful, of course you
have your remedy. I need not remind you of that. The Chairman: You would
oust our discretion, at that rate, in every case where a man has a good
character; and Mr Cripps says this man has a good character. Mr. Warner:
If that be so, in your discretion you will grant me the license. Mr. Goldsmid then submitted that what the Bench had to deal with was the new
licensing Act, and not the Act referred to by Mr. Warner. The Chairman,
after some conversation with his brother magistrates, said the Bench
were of opinion that the license should not be transferred. Mr. Warner:
I have not asked for a transfer; I have asked you to grant me one until
the 10th October. The Clerk (T. Walker, Esq.): A temporary license,
which is virtually the same thing. Mr. Warner: I have nothing to do with Avards. I have simply come to ask for a temporary license for this man. The Chairman said they were not inclined to grant the application. |
)
