|
From the Sussex Advertiser, Tuesday 19 September, 1865.
Priory Tavern, "Mount Misery."
Mr. Palmer appeared to support an application for a spirit licence
to the above house, which was situated in Priory Street. The
applicant, he said, had kept the beer house in the town for 8 years,
and was, he believed, a very respectable man, nor ever had any
complaints against him. He now kept the beer shop for which applied
for a license, which had been lately built for an inn by Mr.
Batchelor, of Belle Ewe Green, Frant, who was a small brewer, at a
cost of about £800 or £900. The house contains five bedrooms,
parlour, bar parlour, kitchen and scullery and a large seller, and
stabling for four horses, and a very good outhouse or lock-up
coach-house for two carriages. As there worships were, no doubt,
aware, in the neighbourhood a great many houses had been built,
numbering about 200 or 300 houses in the new town, and in that place
there was only one licensed house, adjacent to the "Priory Tavern."
Mr. Rogers said he appeared to support the application for a licence
for the "Royal Mail," the applicant being Thomas Young, and opposed
the granting of a licence to the "Priory Tavern."
Mr. Palmer could not see what his friends opposition would be,
except that his client's house with better than his, (Mr. Palmer's),
which he could not see, for it was totally unfit for a public house.
He believed there was no stabling fit for putting horses in, and
that the applicant has only been in the house for some two or three
months, and was therefore not a proper person. He produced a
testimonial signed by several respectable gentleman of the
neighbourhood.
The applicant was then placed in the box, and was examined by Mr.
Rogers, but nothing material was elicited, and after Mr. Batchelor
was examined to prove the value of the building. Mr. Rogers address
the bench on behalf of his applicant, whose house, he said, was one
of the semi detached houses, and which was originally intended for a
public house when the proper time arrived. The landlord of the
property had stated to him, that if the license was granted he
would make it a credit to the neighbourhood, and would have done so
before, if the applicant for the "Priory Tavern" had not remained in
the house so long that they should have had an opportunity of doing
it. The situation of the "Priory Tavern" was at the corner of the
road, with little or no ground attached to it, and what was called a
stable and coach house looked something like a building put up for
the admission of some very diminutive ponies.
Mr. Rogers was proceeding to state what his applicant was going to
do, supposing he got a licence, when Alderman Solomon reminded him
that the bench considered he had no locus standi in his application,
but if he had got to say anything, why licence should not be granted
to the other house, he might.
Mr. Rogers contended that they were was not sufficient accommodation
for a public house at the "Priory Tavern," and was addressing the
bench when Mr. Alderman Solomon thought it would be much better for
Mr. Rogers not to proceed in any unnecessary speech this hot
weather, as it was their intention not to grant either applications. |
