The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1870-09-24 00:00:00

THE LYE.

SELLING ALE WITHOUT A LICENCE. At the Petty
Sessions, at Stourbridge, yesterday, Samuel Collins, of
the Lye, was summoned by Superintendent Freeman for
selliug ale on the 16th lust, not being duly licensed.—
Mr. Elcock defended.—Police.constable Red said that on
the 17th inst he visited the defendant's house, In com•
pally with Police-constables Walton and Poole. In
Li‘e house was sitting Pdlijah Kendrick with a pint cup of
ale. Made a search of the prowls -s In the bar was a
four.mill beer machine, two pulls being in use; four
pint jugs, six pint cups, seven ale glasses, and four quart
jigs, one quart pewter measure, one glass bottle contain-
log whisky. In the cellar lie found one half-hogshead
barrel connected with the machine, with about 10 gillons
ef ale in it, 011 e 18-galion cask attached to the piping,
one quart jug containiug harm, one empty 36.galem
e nib, two 18-gatloe casks empty, one half gailon cask on
the work, use 36-gallon cask ou the work, and two half•
hogshead barrels full of ale, nod about one gallon of
harm in a pail, and about 18 gallons of beer iu a work
iug tub. in No. 2 cellar found a number of empty jars
and casks, one barrel full of ale, and another three-parts
nearly full. In the club room found a gambling rail-
way Dais, half a pocket of hope, a qmintity of pipes, a
malt crusher, line empty pint jug, and ono empty gallon
one bushel measure, and seven empty malt bags. la
mother room found empty jars; in the brewhouse a
quiutoy of bream; utensiis and malt bags; in the shop
two empty malt bags,—Poliee-constuble Walton gale
similar evidence ; as also did Police.coustable Poole.—
For the defence, Mr Elcock said he must admit that the
elaborate list furnished by the officers was correct, and
so also was their stat inent as to finding a mall in the
house named Kendrick ; but he wished to point out that
under the Wise and Beerhouse Act, 1863, it was sot ne•
oessary to prove the sale or payment. The section ef
tae Act was quite clear to his uwa wind. It had not
been clearly proved that beer was consumed on the pre•
iaises mu thie case, and he contended that the Magistrates
Ii iii no power to convict He should call • little girl for
a a tine., who would tell them that the man, Kendrick,
eisa,, IC the defendant's house end paid 7s 6.1 fort load
of coal, and Mrs. I',aline asked the man if he would have
'pail of ale, and she gave it him.—Sarali Green said
he worked for the defendent, and was at his house on
the 16th inst. Saw the officers come into the house.
Was in the kitchen, aunt saw Kendrick there, who came
pay for a load of coal. Cannot any the exact amount
paid, but Mrs. Collins gave Kendrick 6d out in change.
When the coal was paid for Mrs. Collins gave defendant
a cup of ale. Did not see any money paid for ale.—
. 'rese-examined by Rea Have seea wen drinking in the
'deist many times, but not on Sundays —Defendant was
farther charged with selling ale at the Lye on the 151 h
natant, the premises not being duly licensed. Police.
caustable Rea said he saw a boy gn into the dcfendant'e
house on the above date, and come out. Asked him
what he had got. The boy (Round) said a pint of two.
jenny, and that ha paid twopence for it; but be mime.
diately denied paying for it. Afterwards saw a boy
named Billinghain come oat. Tasted them, and both of
the jags contained malt liquor. Afterwards saw a we.
moan earned Mary Ann Hill, and she had a quart of malt
Lquor. This being the case, Mr. Eleock said the same
remarks in thia case weic applicable as in the first case
Tiler.. was no evidence the ale was sold or consumed.--
M•jor Fletcher remarked that it was not necessary to
prove the sale.—Mr. Eleock said : No, it was flint; but it
al appear to him rather singular that the children were
not here to give evidence. They might have been sub.
p.ened.—The Bench then retired to consider their var.
eict. On their return Superintendent Freeman was
called, and proved that defendant had formerly been fined
£2 for belling beer without a licence, and £2O for selling
spirits. The Bench said they considered the first case
clearly proved and lined line £lO and costs—tll Os 6.1;
id default three menthe. For the second offence no
eerier was made.