From the Deal, Walmer, and Sandwich Mercury, 11 September, 1869. 1d.

ANNUAL LICENSING DAY

NEW APPLICATIONS

Mr. J. N. Mourilyan appeared to support the application for a new certificate for a new house at the North-end, proposed to be called the "Lifeboat," and said he appeared on behalf both of the proprietors of the house, Messrs Thompson and Son, and the tenant, Mr. James Robert Nicholas. Mr. E Drew opposed the application.

 The due service of the notice having been proved by a young man named Hill, Mr. Mourilyan proceeded to address the Bench on his clients' behalf. He was aware that in making an application for a new spirit license, it was very difficult to make out a case of public necessity, which was the main ground on which all such applications were granted, and which in ordinary cases would be one of the reasons for granting a beer license. It would be somewhat difficult, he admitted, to make out any want of accommodation of beer houses at the North-end, but as this was the first year of the new Act had come into operation, he thought their worships would take a somewhat enlarged view in granting beer-house licenses. They must take into consideration that there might be instances where persons had expended a large amount of money in preparing a house before this Act came into operation - and of course they were aware that under the old system any person could do so and then go to the Excise and obtain a license as a matter of course. In this very case the house was built and constructed for the purpose of a beer-house before the new Act came into operation, and was altogether unfit for any other purpose. There would therefore be a great destruction of property if the license were not granted. The character of his client, Nicholas, was unimpeachable, and he held in his hand a memorial signed by several of his (Nicholas's) neighbours, testifying to his good character.

Mr. Drew said perhaps Mr. Mourilyan would prove that Nicholas was in occupation of the house.

Mr. Mourilyan said it was not necessary to do so; but Mr. Drew contended that it was, and that it must be proved that Nicholas was the real resident occupier. The new Act, he said, was drawn up into two schedules, one of which showed the clauses of the old Act that were repealed, and the other the Act as it now was. According to section 1 of the old Act, which was not repealed, "no license to sell beer or cider under the said recited Acts or this Act shall be granted to any person who shall not be the real resident holder or occupier of the dwelling-house in which he shall apply to be licensed; nor shall any license be granted in respect of any dwelling-house which shall not, with the premises occupied therewith, be rated in one sum to the rate for the relief of the poor of the parish." The house in question was not rated, and was still in a very unfinished state. The applicant was not the real resident occupier, but a sham one, as he had never ate a meal in the house and had only slept there the previous night.

Mr. Mourilyan said he was quite prepared to admit that the house was unfinished; but if the application were not now made it could not be done till next year, which would be a great hardship for his client.

Mr. Drew said it would be a much greater hardship upon his client Mr. Hatton, who had recently purchased the "North Star," as also to the other public-houses, for the owners of which also appeared.

The court was then cleared, and on the re-admission of the public the Mayor said the Bench considered the objection taken by Mr. Drew a valid one, and indeed fatal. They did not think it would be legal to grant the license as the house had not yet been assessed to the relief of the poor, and it would therefore be refused.

Mr. E. F. Redsull applied for a spirit license for the "New Plough," Middle Deal, and informed the Bench of several instances in which he had been applied to in cases on emergency for spirits. He also stated that this was the only house in the neighbourhood, and several of the ratepayers and residents of Middle Deal had wished him to apply for permission to sell spirits.

After a short consultation, the Mayor informed Mr. Redsull that the Bench were disposed to grant the application, but they would first like to satisfy themselves that the house possessed the proper accommodation, and the application would therefore be adjourned till next Thursday, and in the meantime some of the Magistrates would drop in and examine the premises.

From the Deal, Walmer, and Sandwich Mercury, 1st April 1871.

CHARLES PHILIP BOWBYES, landlord of the 'Lifeboat' at the North-End, was charged by Inspector PARKER with keeping his house open after 11 o'clock at night. P.C. PAIN said he had seen several persons there when he entered the house at 10 minutes past 12 o'clock - men and women singing and a man playing a banjo. BOWBYES pleaded the usual excuse, that he could not get them out of the house. This being the first offence, the Magistrates fined BOWBYES 10/-.

From the Deal, Walmer, and Sandwich Mercury, 4 April, 1871. 1d.

BOROUGH PETTY SESSIONS

At these sessions of Thursday (before the Mayor, E. Brown, and J. Iggulden, Esqrs.), Charles P. Bowbyes, beer house keeper, was summoned for having his house (the "Lifeboat", at Northend), open at ten minutes past twelve on the night of the 24th ult. Defendant owned that the house was open as described, but excused himself by saying that some people from the theatre went in about half-past ten and would not leave when he told them to. There were also three smacksmen, and they likewise refused to go. He asked then twenty times to leave, and used his best endeavours to induce them to go but they would not, and he had no one on the premises that he could send for the police. He left his door open, however, on purpose that the police might see it, and as soon as P.C. Pain entered he told him there were people in, and wished him to clear the house. P.C. Pain, in answer to the Magistrates said that in addition to the persons mentioned by the defendant a banjo player was present, and the whole of the company were singing. In consideration of this being his first offence, the Magistrates mitigated the fine of 10s., including the costs. The Clerk informed the defendant that persons remaining in any public house after hours were liable to a penalty of 40s., so that he need have no trouble to clear his house in future, as he could easily lay an information against them.