|
Kentish Gazette, 2 December 1851.
CANTERBURY POLICE COURT. THURSDAY.
Evading The Excise Laws.
(Before the Mayor, and Alderman Plummer, and Messrs. Mount and Dorman.)
Samuel Algar, proprietor of the "Crown and Anchor" dancing booth,
appeared to answer four informations charging him with having retailed
spirituous liquors during the last Canterbury Fair, he not having a
license, whereby he had incurred the penalty of £50 in each case. The
information referring to the 13th October, was then gone into.
Mr. Sadys appeared for the crown, and Mr. Brandt, counsel, was specially
retained for the defendant, instructed by Messrs. Cox and Son.
Mr. Sandys proceeded at some length to state the case. He observed that
it was pretty generally known that defendant had been in the habit, for
many years, of attending Canterbury Fair, with a dancing booth, selling
spirits, beer, and so forth, with the permission of the magistrates. In
consequence of the demoralisation urging from that booth, the
magistrates, a year or two ago, prohibited its continuance in the cattle
market. Notwithstanding that prohibition and in defiance of the
direction of the magistrates—in defiance of the revenue laws, and in
fact, in defiance of all authority, Mr. Algar choosed to say that he
would bring his booth to Canterbury, and carry on his usual trade. At
the last fair Mr. Algar was of course not permitted to erect it in the
cattle market, but he selected for its erection the bowling green of the
"Eagle Tavern," kept by a licensed victualler in Ivy lane, having his
(defendant name at the entrance, and on each side of the booth.
Therefore there could not be the shadow of a doubt that he was carrying
on business there on his own account. He should prove this, and that
defendant, his wife, and servants, sold spirits there, without any
license to do so. And he should do this, on the evidence not of a common
informer, whose character was of a doubtful nature, but ot one of the
public officers of the city. The informations were laid under the
statute of 6 Geo. 4, c. 81. section 26, which he read to the Court,
prohibiting the sale of spirits or beer by any person not duly licensed,
and setting forth that for every violation of such the party was liable
to a penalty of £50.
He then called Maurice Saunders, who said:— I am removing officer of the
city of Canterbury. On the 13th October I went to the "Eagles" public
house, and saw a booth on the green at the rear.
There was a covered passage from the street entrance to the entrance to
the booth. Over the street entrance was the name of Algar, the same in
the entrance of the booth—at the bottom of the passage. It was about 7
in the evening that I went, with Inspector Spratt. I was a special
constable at the time. Being officers, we were admitted without payment.
Some were also admitted free and others paid—both ladies and gentlemen.
I had 1s. worth of brandy and water at the bar in the booth. Mrs. Algar
mixed it, and the waiter gave it to me. I paid the waiter the shilling
and he handed it to Mrs. Algar.
Mr. Brandt:— We admit that spirits were sold there and that Mr. Algar
had a license so to do.
Mr. Sandys:— Then that proves my case.
Mr. Brands then proceeded to address the Bench on the part of the
defendant.
He said that his client requested him to inform the Bench that it was
out of no hostile feeling towards them that he had been brought down, or
to occupy their time unnecessarily by raising any technical objection.
If he had erred, it was threw ignorance, and if the Magistrate should
consider him guilty, he threw himself entirely upon their merciful
consideration. But he was prepared to show that his client had not
committed any offence - and if he had it was totally through ignorance.
He would first ask their attention to the system of licensing in
general. The Bench were doubtless aware that an excise licence for the
sale of spirits was never granted until the party applying for it had
first obtained of the Magistrates an ale licence. The object of the
Legislation in this procedure was one of public policy. The first
question asked by the Magistrates in granting an ale licence was, what
was the character of the party applying; and secondly, if that were
favourable, whether the premises upon which it was intended to carry it
on, were favourably situated. If satisfied on both these, they generally
granted the licence. There were instances in which the character of the
applicant might be unexceptionable, but the situation very objectionable
- for instance, there might be many licensed houses in the same
neighbourhood. Although the Magistrates had the power of granting
licences, that were bound to look after the public morals, and had the
liberty to refuse licences if they pleased. He mention this, to show
that the system of granting licences was one of mere public policy; and
asked whether, in this incident, it had been infringed. In the absence
of evidence to the contrary they might assume that Mr. Friend's house
(where the booth was erected) was well conducted. The premises attached
to the house were licensed, so that the place in which the booth stood
was licensed. Where then was the harm? The only fault in the eye of his
learned friend was, that these premises will let to Mr. Algar. But had
he infringed any rules of public policy? They heard nothing of there
being any tumultuous assemblage, or of his booth having been badly
conducted. Nay - so far from its being productive of anything of that
kind, the magistrates themselves had in former years actually permitted
the booth to be erected in the fair. Now supposing he had this year
erected his booth out of the jurisdiction of the city magistrates, there
would doubtless have been plenty of people flocking to it, and yet the
situation might have been very objectionable. Instead of that, he had
chosen a place within the jurisdiction of the magistrates, and actually
licensed by them, and proved by that licence to be unobjectionable. But
he should be able to show that Mr. Algar was entirely the agent of Mr.
Friend that some of the spirits consumed was sent from London to Mr.
Friend - that previously to the fair Mr. Friend consulted with Mr. Algar
offering the use of the bowling green for the booth. Mr. Friend thinking
that by having it there many customers will be drawn to his house, and
that Mr. Algar might be able to realize some remuneration out of the
surplus profits. He would also show that Mr. Friend had a bar in the
garden as well as Mr. Algar - that Mr. Friend occasionally served the
spirits behind Mr. Algar's bar; and that the name on the booth did not
mean to signify that Mr. Algar sold spirits their, but that it was his
booth for dancing - that there was Mr. Algar's booth for the dancing,
and there Mr. Friend's bar for refreshments. He submitted that if the
bench coincided with him in his view, they could not convict the
defendant. It was a well-known rule in law that penal statutes were to
be construed liberally; so that if the bench had any doubt, they should
give the defendant the benefit of it. But if the bench should feel
themselves bound to convict, the defendant would have to alter his
course. And how would he do that? Why, by placing Mr. Friend all the
time behind the bar, instead of a portion of the time and putting Mr.
Friend's name outside the booth. That would be the only difference. They
could not prevent Mr. Friend letting his ground for such a purpose,
unless, indeed, they deprived him of his licence. The defendant had
never before been before any magistrates, and he (Mr. B) hoped they
would not by their decision say that such amusement as his client
offered, should be withheld from the people at such a time as their
annual fair.
He called William Friend, who deposed:— I am a licensed victualler, and
keep the "Eagle" public-house, in Ivy-lane. Mr. Algar's booth was
erected on my premises on the last fair, I had about three gallons of
gin from London and some brandy and rum from Canterbury, for the
purposes of the booth. Here are the permits for the brandy and rum. I
wrote to Mr. Algar about the booth being erected on my premises, and he
came down to Canterbury. He asked if I was duly licensed, I replied that
I was. He then enquired my terms; I asked £20. He said he must not carry
on the business at my house the same as he had been in the habit of
doing in the fair. I understood by that he could not sell under my
license. I told him if he would give me £20 of the profits, he should
have the rest of the proceeds for the use of his booth. The spirits sold
were mine. I served in the booth during the fair, but I can't say
whether I did on the 13th or not.
Mr. Sandys objected that the evidence of the witness's serving the
liquor, did not apply to the particular day to which the inquiry
referred.
Mr. Brandt contended that it was one whole transaction, and that if he
gave evidence of the witness serving in the booth during the fair, it
applied equally to the whole enquiry.
The Bench decided otherwise. The inquiry was respecting the 13th Oct.
and the evidence must refer to that day.
Witness.— On the 13th I was in and out of Algar's booth, superintending,
but I cannot say whether I served that day. My daughter was serving
there one whole day. I had a little booth adjoining, and a bar there at
which I served—it was connected with Algar’s by a passage. Algar’s booth
was well conducted. I have since had a settlement with Mr. Algar. I
received £18 as a part of the profits arising from the sale of beer and
spirits in the booth; and considered the defendant was to have the
entrance money, and the surplus profits, for the expense of bringing the
booth to my premises.
Cross-examined by Mr. Sandys.- Mr. Algar was my agent. I don't know that
I could have called him my servant, but he served in the booth for my
profit and benefit. It was a joint speculation between us. I do not
consider myself bound to pay for the gin; it was sent by Mr. Algar.
Mr. Sandys replied, and denied that the defendant erred through
ignorance, as was evidenced in the manner in which the preliminary
arrangements were conducted intended that the agency was a mere piece of
trickery. He submitted that the business was carried on by the defendant
for his own profit, and therefore he (Mr. Sandy's) was entitled to the
judgment of the bench.
The court was then cleared, and after a short period had elapsed the
public were again admitted, when the Mayor inquired if the Excise
authorities intended to press the other three informations, and was
answered in the affirmative.
It was then agreed that a conviction should be entered on all the
informations, Mr. Brandt objecting to plead guilty, as it would preclude
him from appealing.
The Mayor then gave the decision of the bench. They felt compelled to
convict the defendant in each case in the penalty of £50, which they
would mitigate to £12 10s. The lowest penalty allowed; the defendant
thus being ordered to pay £50. His counsel announced his intention of
appealing against the decision.
|
|
From the Kentish Gazette, 8 September 1857.
This was the annual licensing day. There were 129 applications for
renewal of licences all of which were granted.
Six beer-house keepers applied for licenses. They were — Edward
Godden, "Pineapple," St. George’s;
John Ratcliffe, "Laurel-tree," Northgate;
J. Stevens, "Dolphin", St. Radigund’s;
T. Rogers, "Sir Robert Peel," High-street;
W. O. Carter, "True Briton," Northgate;
W. Friend, "Eagle Tavern," Ivy-lane.
Mr. Eaden opposed the granting a licence to the "Laurel Tree,"
Northgate, on behalf of the landlord and tenant of the "Providence,"
and read a memorial — signed by a number of the neighbours, in which
it was stated that there were already five licensed houses within a
hundred yards of the applicant’s house.
A counter memorial was presented by Mr. Ratclitffe - signed by about
150 of the neighbours in support of his application, on the ground
that the defendant had kept his beer house in an orderly manner for
the last five years. This, Mr. Eaden declared, was no ground
whatever for granting the application.
The Court was then cleared. Upon the re-admission of the public it
was announced that the license would be granted to the "Laurel
Tree," as also to the "Sir Robert Peel," to the "Eagle Tavern," and
to the "Pine Apple." The applications of the "True Briton" and of
the "Dolphin" were refused.
|
)