From the Kent and Sussex Courier, 2 October, 1874.

Mr. Thomas Beslee applied for a certificate authorising him to sell beer, to be consumed off the premises, at No. 1, Mount Pleasant Terence.

Mr. Cheale, solicitor, supported the application, and the service and advertising of the notices having been proved by Mr. J. Gower, the applicant was called, and stated that he resided on the premises, and had slept there for the last 3 weeks, and it was his intention to live there with his family.

Mr. Cripps, solicitor, who opposed, cross-examined Mr. Beslee, who said that he had not slept on the premises with a view simply view to get the licence. He rented the premises under Mr. Mason, brewer, of Maidstone, and was to pay a rent of £20. He should carry on business there on his own account, and the £20 was not reckoned in his salary. It was his own business, whether he had slept very uncomfortably.

Mr. Cripps, in opposing the application, explain that under the lease signed by the ground landlord, the premises were not to be used for purposes such as that now proposed, and both the ground landlord and the lessee opposed the application, which is characterized as an attempt on the part of Mr. Mason, the sub-tenant, to get a licence which he failed to do at the Annual Licensing Meeting, owing to his not being the occupier of the premises in the sense required by the Act of Parliament.

Mr. W. H. Davis, who lets the premises to Mr. Mason, was examined, and he stated that the portion occupied by Mr. Beslee under Mr. Mason, was a large room on the ground floor with a small office at one end, and the other rooms for let as a store rooms for oils and colours.

Mr. Wigg inquired whether there were fire-places in the rooms.

Mr. Davis replied that there was no fire-place on the ground floor, only a small gas stove.

Mr. Wigg said that being so, the Public Health Act would not allow the place to be used as a sleeping apartment.

Mr. Simpson:- Is there a water closet in the apartment?

Mr. Davis. Not on the ground floor, or where the applicant could get at it.

Mr. Cheale said Mr. Beslee would very soon have possession of the upper stories of the building, and would reside there with his family.

Mr. Cripps contended that the magistrates could not rely on a mere assurance that the whole of the premises will be occupied, but they must be convinced that there was at the present time a real bona fide occupation. If a licence to sell beer was granted he might go on for 12 months, although there was no real occupation. He cited a case in which it had been held by the judges that a person who occupied a railway arch during the day and locked up the premises at night did not occupy the premises as required by law, seeing that the police ought to have access to the premises at any hour.

Mr. Simpsons asked whether that decision was under the old or new Act.

Mr. Cripps said it was under the old act, but it applied to cases like the present.

Mr. Cheale contended that there would be a real bona fide occupation. The Bench, however disallowed the application and Mr. Cheale immediately that the decision had been given asked for a case.

The Magistrates' Clerk said that since Mr. Cripps had applied for a case, it had occurred to him whether a case under the new Licensing Act could be argued in the Court of Queen's Bench. He thought they would have to proceed in another way.