Kentish Gazette, 16 April 1850.

CANTERBURY COUNTY COURT.

This court held its usual sitting before C. Harwood, Esq., on Wednesday last. There were 60 cases, of which the following are those which excited most interest.

Beer v. Beer:— This was an action to recover the sum of £2, being the amount of a weekly stipend claimed to be due, from the defendants William and George Beer, said to be joint maltsters and brewers, of Broad-Street to Alfred James Beer, the son of Wm. Beer.

Mr. Sandys appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. DeLasaux for the defendants William and George Beer. There were two other actions of a similar character, but it was agreed that the decision in this case should rule the others.

Mr. Sandys stated the case at great length, from which together with the evidence adduced and the letters read, it appeared that the business originally belonged to Mr. Wm. Beer, who had carried on the business of a brewer for many years in Broad-street, Canterbury, on his own account; his sons George and Alfred, being in his service. In 1842 Mr. Wm. Beer, falling into difficulties, made over the business to his eldest son George, who continued it in his (George’s) name till in 1844 it was verbally agreed between them that the father should again enter into the business and that they should equally share the profits. This arrangement had been acted upon until recently; but it had lately been thought advisable and determined upon to have regular articles of partnership drawn up. My. Sandys had prepared a draft, and submitted it for approval. Of this draft Mr. George Beer disapproved, on the ground of its prohibiting either party purchasing public houses or other property, without each other’s mutual consent, and that both should devote their attention exclusive to the business. George at the same time admitting his father to be entitled to a moiety of the business. It was true the business was carried on in Mr. George Beer name, the bills being made out, the licence paid in his name &c.— his department in the brewery being to attend to the grain and hops, the repairs of the premises, &c.; but they each drew equal amounts from the concern as they required them, as the book that was put in proved. Since 1846 the son Alfred had been paid £2 a week, that being the amount agreed to be given by the father and brother George: sometimes the one paid him, sometimes he helped himself and entered it in the book. The amount sought to he recovered (£2) was due on the 16th of March last, it having been offered by Mr. George Beer as wages from him alone as master, but refused by Alfred, on the ground that he did not consider his brother his sole master, but his father and brother conjointly, and that if he accepted the wages from his brother alone, it would become an acknowledgment of George as sole master, with power to dismiss him. Although a written agreement had not been entered into as to the partnership between the father and son George, it appeared from the letters put in, and the statement sworn to have been made by the latter, that he had admitted that his father was his partner.

Mr. DeLasaux, on the part of the defendant George Beer, stated that he did not intend to call witnesses, as he felt that was not the court at which the real question at issue was to be decided. The question now was whether the defendant's were jointly liable to the debt. Mr. William Beer, having taken the benefits of the insolvency act in 1844, had admitted that he was not entitled to any share of the business, and he (Mr. DeLasaux) contended that nothing had transpired sent to enable Mr. William beer to claim the moiety of the business. His client had tended the amount in question, but it had been refused. The question they was whether Mr. Sandys had made out a case sufficient to show that a contract had taken place between the two defendants.

His Honour:- I suppose there has been no dividend paid under that insolvency?

Mr. William Beer:- None, Your Honour.

His Honour, after remarking that this was doubtless a sort of rehearsal of the evidence to be produced in the Court of Chancery, if the case were proceeded with, said, he was quite satisfied, from the evidence that had been adduced, that the defendants were jointly liable to the debt, and he, therefore, decided in favour of the plaintiff. He, however, strongly recommended the appointment of some disinterested person, before whom all the papers and facts should be laid, in order to arrive at a decision and avoid expense.

Kentish Gazette, 10 September 1850.

On the annual licensing day (Thursday last) our city magistrates suspended the following licenses:-

"Military Tavern," King Street;

"Eight Bells," King Street;

"Duke of York," Riding Gate;

"Kentish Arms," Jewry Lane;

"Eagle," Whitehorse Lane;

"Golden Cross," Northgate;

"Queen's Head," Northgate;

"City of London," Tower Street;

"Duke's Head," Wincheap;

"True Briton," Northgate;

"Royal George," Northgate;

"Queen's Arms," Northgate; and

"Three Grenadiers," Military Road.

150 licences were granted, and 7 parties did not attend. The suspended, granted, and remaining to be granted, will give a total of 135. The conduct of some of the the police, especially inspector Spratt, met with commendation, for his vigilance in causing the houses to be closed during divine service on the Sabbath; while other parties were reprimanded; it being the determination of the magistrates to carry the act of stringently.

Kentish Gazette, 24 September 1850.

At the adjourned petty sessions for licensing public houses on Thursday, those licences which have been suspended excepting for for the "Eight Bells," King Street,

"Queen's Head," and

"Queen's Arms," Northgate, we're granted; as also were a few of the cases of parties who were not in attendance on the regular licensing day.

Kentish Gazette, 29 October 1850.

Dissolved of Partnership.

Notice is hereby given, that the partnership between the undersigned William Beer and George Beer, of Canterbury, brewers and Maltsers, is this day dissolved by mutual consent.

William Beer, George Beer. Witness, Thomas Marshall, Canterbury, 17th October. 1850.

Beers Original Brewery.

William and Alfred James Beer and Co, brewers and Maltsers.

William Beer, in thanking his friends and the public generally for their very liberal support cooffered on him for the last 6 years, begs respectively to inform them that he has, in conjunction with his son, Alfred James Beer, taken the above business, and trusts, by supplying them with a genuine article, and by assiduity and attention, to merit shares of their patronage.