The Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1860-11-05 00:00:00

KIRKDALE SESSIONS.

At these sessions, held in the Court-house of Kirkdale,
on Saturday, before the Chairman, the Right Hon.
Lord Stanley, and a full bench of magistrates, the fol-
lowing appeal cases were heard :
DENTON' V. THE JUSTICES OF LIVERPOOL..—The
service of the proper notices on the churchwardens and
others having been proved, Mr. Mansfield, who appeared
for the respondents, opened the case. He said the
appellant in that case was Mr. Thomas Denton, who
appealed .against the decision of the magistrates of the
borough oeLiverpool, who, at the last licensing session,
refused his license. The appellant had previously occu-
pied a house in Chapel-street, or rather it was a cellar,
for which he held a license. He was obliged to give up
that house, and, at the last annual licensing day for the
borough he applied for a license for some other premises,
situated in Smithdown-lane. The magistrate, he (the
learned counsel) believed, went through the usual course
adopted by them on that occasion—two of their numbd
visited the premises, and the result of their inspection
and the report which they presented, was that the full
bench determined to refuse the license. The court be-
lieved, on the report of their two brother justices, that
the premises were absolutely unfit for the purpose of
being occupied as a publichouse. In addition to this
fact, there was this circumstance, that in that particular
locality
,(Smithdown Lane), there was a considerable
number of publichouses and beershops, and more than
sufficient to meet the requirements of the place and its
inhabitants. The only question, therefore, which he
(Mr. Mansfield) would submit for the consideration of
their Worships, in dealing with that appeal, would be
to try whether the magistrates, in refusing the license,
exercised, as they undoubtedly had a right to
exercise, that sound and discretionary. power, which
would lead them to a proper conclusion in not conceding
to the application of the party seeking for the license.
He might say that the magistrates- were not led to re-
fuse the license
.by reason of anything being brought
against the character of the appellant; it was simply
from the fact that the premises were not found suitable
for the purpose to which it was intended to have them
applied, and alsolt was thought that the neighbourhood
was provided wit an adequate number of houses of en-
tertainment. The learned counsel then called the fol-
lowing evidence :—Thomas M. Anderton, assistant clerk
to the borough magistrates, who stated that he was
present at the last licensing sessions of Liverpool, when
•Mr. Denton was refused his license on the ground
already mentioned. lie produced the notice of appeal.
In cross-examination by Mr. Aspinall (who conducted
the case for the appellant) the witness said he had
known the appellant for many years ; he knew .him
when he conducted a business in Chapel-street, which
he had to resign in consequence of the premises being
required by the landlords, the Messrs. Garnett, Bibby,
and Company. At the time that the license was
refused the chairman of the magistrates remarked
that they would give Mr. Denton a license if he
took a house in the outskirts of the town.—
John Kelsy, inspectgr of police for the borough of
Liverpool, knew the premises fo: which the appellant
had applied for a licence. They are situated at the
corner of Oxford-street East and Smithdown-lane. They
contained a large bar, a sitting-room, and kitchen on the
ground floor.—Mr. Aspinall : I wish to ask Mr. Anderton
a question. Did the magistrates give any reason to Mr.
Denton for refusing his license? Mr. Anderton : They
did not.—Kelsy, in reply to the learned counsel for the
appellant, stated that there was no stable attached to the
house, merely a small yard. There were three rooms on
the ground floor. There were seven other public-
houses in that neighbourhood; the nearest adjoining
Denton's hOuse was 30 yards, and the most remote 250
yards distance.—Lord Stanley : Are there any gin-
palaces in that neighbourhood ? Witness: Oh, yes, my
lord. (Laughter.) By Mr. Aspinall : The name of the
house about thirty yards distant from Mr. Denton's
house is the Salisbury Hotel. The neighbourhood
is inhabited by respectable persons.—Mr. Aspinall
then addressed the court for the appellant. He said
this ease was as good an instance as could possibly be
adduced of the injustice frequently done by magistrates
to parties seeking for licenses. Though saying this
much, he did not wish to cast any reflection on the
magistrates ; but still he could not help remarking that
it seemed rather strange that the magistrates should
come to a certain decision without giving the party
applying for the license any reason for refusing his
application. It had been stated that the premises were
not at all eligible for a public-house; but he contended
that Mr. Denton, who had devoted his lifetime to the
business of a publican, and who had invested a large
sum of money in this particular place, was a person more
competent to form a right opinion as to its adaptability
and fitness than any two gentlemen whose knowledge
in such matters must at least be superficial. His client
was a person without any reproach on his character.
After some other remarks proving the fitness of his
client as a person to: be entrusted with a license, the
learned counsel concluded by stating that the borough
magistrates formed their opinion on the ipsi dixerunt
of two of their own body than on any tangible opposi-
tion against Denton or his house. He called James
Fisher Jones, of the fitni of Stephens and Jones, who
bore testimony to the good character of the applicant.
Thomas Denton, the applicant, stated that he had
invested £1,200 in the purchase of the premises, paying
800 in ready money, and leaving a mortgage
for the residue on the property. The learned
counsel on both sides having replied upon the
evidence,; their worships retired to consider the case.
After some time spent in deliberation, they came into
court,. when the noble chairman announced that the
bench were of opinion with the magistrates, and sup-
ported the decision of the court below, by witholdir4,,
the license. The appellant bad to pay the costs.
Susrisinn. v. THE SAME JUSTICES.-Mr. Bolton said
in this case John Sumner was the appellant, and the
respondents were the same as those in the last case. It

was an appeal rather different from the last, inasmuch
as the appellant applied to have his license renewed at
the last general sessions, having enjoyed a license for
some few years previously. On the application, being
made, it was refused by the magistrates of Liverpeol, on
the ground that it April last, in the house of the appel-
lant, which was in Chadwick-street, a robbery of a serious
nature had taken place. It appeared that at that time
a man was robbed while in a state of drunkenness,
and though the appellant was present he did not inter-
fere,. and did not make any effort to bring the thief to
justice, and did not protect the drunken person. The
guilty party, however, was subsequently arrested and
convicted by the recorder, who at the,time ordered the
inspector of police, Kelsey, to make a representation to
,the magistrates, and have the conduct of G. Summer
reported to the justices at the annual licensing day.
This was accordingly done, and the license 'was refused
by the bench. Mr. Anderton and Inspector Kelsey
proved the facts as mentioned by the counsel, after
which a woman, named Mary Wall, was called, and
stated that one night in April last she, and a woman
and a boy, named gceles, and an Irish pig-jobber,
named Lyons, were drinking ; and after some' time
spent in conversation, and imbibing sundry stronc,
glasses of the " Mountain Dew," Eccles very adroitly
put his hand into the breast-pocket of Lyons' overcoat,
from which he extracted a bag or money-purse. She
called the attention of the landlord to the circumstance
at the time, but ho did not pay any attention to it, and
shortly afterwards Eccles decamped. Mr. Aspinall, in
addressing the beach on behalf of his client, contended

that at the time Sumner was about making an explana-
-1 tion of the matter to the licensing magistrates, the
chairman on that occasion (Mr. Sheil) refused to listen
to him, a course which he (Mr. Aspinall) did not think
at all warranted. Ile justified the conduct of his client,
on the ground that he did not see Eccles put his hand
into Lyons' pocket. He called Mr. Mottram, a wine
and spirit merchant, William. Skinner, James Click,
and John Davies, each d►f whom spoke in flattering
tetret- of the genefal good conduct and character of the
appellant.• Summer himself, in examination, said that
he had kept the house in Chadwick-street for several
years without any complaint being made against him by
the police authorities., He had paid £BOO for the pre-
mises, and had a lease of it for twenty-nine years, of"
Which four years were expired. The license was
granted.
DANIEL WILD V. THE SAME JUSTICES.—Mr, Bolton
stated the ground of refusal on which the magistrates.
bad come to the determination of not granting the
license in the present case. The house was previously
in the occupation of the appellant's father, and at the
time that the application was made it was occupied by
the father. However, in consequence of a robbery-
having been committed in the house, and to which the
' attention of the then occupier (old Mr. Wild) was
called, but he refused to take any steps to apprehend the
party committing the offence, the license was refused..
The magistrates knew nothing at all about Daniel Wild..
He was a stranger, and the right occupier of the house
was William Wild. Mr. Anderton proved the fact of
the robbery, and Inspector Kelsy said that at the time
the persons who committed the robbery were up for trial
before the Deputy-Recorder, Mr. Aspinall, who now
appeared for the appellant, directed that the
attention of the magistrates should be drawn to
to the manner in which Wild conducted his house. Mr.
Aspinall addressed the bench for the appellant, and
called Mr. Rawlinson, the landlord of the house, who.
bore testimony to the regular manner in which Mr.
Wild conducted his establishment in Hood-street for a
number of years. The license was granted.
DAVID HENDERSON' V. THE JUSTICES OF LIVERPOOL.
—Mr. Mansfield stated that the appellant in this case
kept a house in Denison-street, and in consequence of a.
daring robbery having been committed in it the magis-
trates refused to grant a renewal of the license at the
last annual licensing day. There were also no less than
nine public houses and a beer shop in the same locality,
which, in the opinion of the bench, were quite sufficient
to meet the requirements of the place.—Mr. Aspinall
said that the robbery had been committed while a person
named Bradshaw was the occupant of the house. He
also called a Mr. Ryan, of the firm of Messrs. Ryan and.
Tronton, who spoke to the character of the appellant, as.
an industrious and business-like person.—Their worships
retired, and on returning to court Lord Stanley said the
bench had come to the determination of not granting the
license.

THE PRACTICE WITH THE ARMSTRONG
GUNS AT THE CAPTURE OF THE
TABU FORTS.

The Armstrongs in the centre were then ordered to
open fire on the Tartar cavalry. The first gun was
fired at twenty minutes to eleven a.m., at a range of
about 1,200 yards; but the elevation was too great, and
the shell passed harmlessly over the enemy. It was the
only failure. The second shell burst in the midst of the
largest group, and half-a-dozen saddles were instantly
empty. The range was soon got by every gem, and for
upwards of ten minutes the battery made magnificent
practice; not a shot failed, not a shell that did not burst.
in the exact spot to which it was directed. Bight and.
left, at the cavalry in front, into the intrench.ments,
on the flank, at 1,200 yards, at 1,600, at 2,200, were'
the shells pitched with unerring accuracy. The Tar--
tars stood right manfully for ten minutes, when they
found the place too hot for them ; so. after some waver-
ing, the took the desperate resolution of attempting:-
to turn both flanks of the English, and so get into their
rear. A large body of Tartar cavalry rushed up the.
Tien-tsin road, while a smaller force advanced on they
left. The latter were soon disposed of by the three
Armstrongs. The former halted when they RRV, the
the cavalry, stood irresolute for a time, and then re-
treated. Captain Stirlinc, at once
bbrought his battery'
to bear in flank. Just at this moment the guns of the;
first division and the French were heard on the left ;.
and the Armstrongs were ordered to cease firing into the-
intrenchments, when, to the surprise of every one, a.
body of 80 or 90 Tartars rushed from their front to take
the guns in flank. So unexpected was this attack that
Captain Stirling had barely time to fire two rounds of
case, when they were within one hundred yards of the
guns. There were no infantry near, but a guard of 25
of Fane's horse (Sikhs), under the comman of Lieut.
M`Gre,-ror, was attached to the battery. Without a
moment'sb hesitation, and regardless of numbers, Lieut.
M‘Gregor gave the word to charge, and away went
the Sikhs in most gallant style. The Tartars dispersed
in every direction, the whole affair lasting little more
than a minute. The First Division and the French,
who had advanced along the causeway, now commenced
a tremendous fire against the more advanced intrench-
meat. Barry's Armstrongs, and Desborough's and
Govan's English batteries, with three batteries of French.
rifled cannon, were in full play. The Tartars opened a.
sharp and harmless fire from gingals and matchlocks,
but were driven from one intrenchment to the other by
the artillery alone, no infantry having been engaged..
At the end of an hour the enemy had retreated along,
the causeway to Tang-kow, and down to a ferry over
the river. Sinho was in possession of the Allies. Mean-
while Probvn and Fane were dealing with such bodies of
Tartars as kept within reach. Lieutenant Anderson, of
Probyn's Horse, got detached from his regiment, with five
of his own men and two of Fane's. Three or four hun-
dred Tartars surrounded them, when Probyn heard of
their condition. On seeing him advance with one
squadron of his own regiment, and a small party of
Fane'e Horse, the Tartars quiety retreated at a slow
trot. The Sikh horses were much exhausted by their
struggles in the mud, so Probyn ordered his men not to.
charge too soon, and pursued the enemy quietly, saving
his horses until he neared them. At length, when.
within two hundred yards, the Sikhs became impatient
and difficult'to restrain. The chief Rissildar could con-
tain himself no longer. He shouted his war yell at the
top of his voice, the others followed suit, and down they
went full speed after the Tartars. Away they rush 4
helter-skelter, along the causeway, but the little gallo-
ways of the enemy were nearly a match for the splendid
Arabs after their day's fatigue, and, to use the words of
one of the officers engaged, they "killed awfully few,
not more than fifty or sixty." Of these no fewer than
seven fell beneath the sword of Lieutenant Anderson..