|
Maidstone Telegraph, Saturday 11 September 1869.
Applications for Spirit Licenses. The "Flower of Kent."
Mr. Knott applied for a licence for the above house, situated in Burham,
within a few rods of Mr. Colgates house. ("First
and Last")
Mr. McCarthy Stephenson applied for Mr. Knott, and said that he should
also opposed Mr. Colgate, as his client Mr. Knott, was applying for a
licence, situated in the same vicinity, but having more accommodation
the than Mr. Colgate.
Mr. Prall also opposed on behalf of the "Corn Exchange."
Mr. Norton then opened the case on behalf of Mr. Colegate, and contended
that there was plenty of room for another licensed house in the
neighbourhood in consequence of the number of houses built since the
licence was granted to the last house, and also the increase of the
population and the extension of the lime, brick, and other works in the
neighbourhood. After describing the situation of the house Mr. Knott
proceeded by stating that the beer house for which applied for a licence
was a property of his client, and who had expended £150 in converted it
into a house fit for a spirit licence. There were only two other
licensed houses in the neighbourhood the "Fleur-de-Lis" and the "Royal
Exchange" and they were some distance removed from the house for which
he now sought a certificate.
Mr. Colgate was then called and spoke to his house being his own
property.
Chairman:- How many rooms have you in your house?
Applicant:- One cellar (laughter).
Chairman:- You don't call the cellar a room.
Applicant:- I have 5 rooms on the ground floor, inclusive of kitchen,
washhouse, and parlour (laughter). There is a good deal of traffic in
the neighbourhood. About 200 people pass my house everyday if they don't
go another way (the laughter here was irresistible, and in which the
bench was compelled to lose its gravity.)
In cross-examination by Mr. Prall, applicant admitted that there had
only been four houses built since his application last year. One had
been built by Mr. Sheepwash and two by Mr. Carman; the fourth was an
addition to his own house (laughter). He had a memorial signed by the
inhabitants; not by the employers of the works at Burham. Did not expect
they wanted him to get a licence, as they did not want to see any
opposition. He let a part of his house off.
Applicant was then cross-examined by Mr. McCarthy Stephenson, in the
course of which he said that Mr. Knott, the other applicant for a
licence lived about 100 yards from him. He did not know that Mr. Knott's
house was larger and more adapted for a licence then his own. He had
some ground in the rear of his house. Mr. Knott certainly had more. Did
not know Mr. Knott had a coach-house, or kind of stable.
Mr. Prall then stated his objections for granting the license both
against the "First and Last," and against Mr. Knott, the landlord of the
"Flower of Kent, which were to the effect that there were two other
houses in the immediate neighbourhood the "Royal Exchange," and the
"Fleur-de-Lis." With respect to the "Flower of Kent" there was a
specific objection, in as much as Mr. Knott had not stated his
profession in his notice of application, as enjoined by the Act of
Parliament, nor had he signed his name to the notice.
Mr. Stephenson would have contended the point as to profession, as the
substance of the notice gave it by describing the applicant as retailer
of beer. With respect to Mr. Knott neglecting to sign his name he could
not struggle against.
The bench refuse and licence to Mr. Colgate, and the notice of Mr. Knott
being informal his application was void.
|
