The Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1860-07-26 00:00:00

THE NEW LICENSE ACr.

Yesterday, at the Police-court, before Messrs. E.
Gladstone and Booth, several applications were male
under the new act, for licences for refreshment houses,
for wine licenses, &c. The process of proceeding in
such cases is as follows :—ln the first place, a requisi-
tion must be made to the officers of inland revenue, and
they are to forward a duplicate of the same to the
magistrates, and the latter are to hold a sessions, and
to hear any complaint that might be made by the police
against the applicants, and then to decide whether such
objections are well founded ; and if sustained, to report
the same back to the officers of inland revenue, and then
they are to grant or refuse the license accordingly. In
the cases that came before the court yesterday, Detec-
tive-officer Scott was the inspector of the applicants'
houses, and made his reports according to his knowledge
of the manner in which they were conducted. There
was nothing publicly interesting in the details, and in
some cases the objections were sustained, and in others
not. The magistrates made their report, and sent back
the list according to their report. Mr. Clark Aspinall,
Mr. Bremner, and Mr. Dodd, were engaged in the cats
that came before the court.

COUNTY COURT.—YEsTERDAY.

(Before J. K. BLAIR, Esq.)

THE ZOOLOGICAL GARDENS COMPANY (LIMITED) V.
CHARLES SEAMAN.—In this case the proprietors of the
Zoological Gardens were the plaintiffs, and the defendant
was Charles Seaman, a tenant of the public-house adjoin-
ing the gardens. Mr. Yates appeared for the plaintiffs,
and the defendant was represented by Mr. Wynne. The
action was brought in consequence of the defendant's
refusal to quit the tenancy of his public-house at one
week's notice. From the opening statement of Mr.
Yates, it appears that the defendant has for a consider-
able length of time been a tenant of the public-house
adjoining the Zoological Gardens. In the latter part of
last year he received notice to quit, and during the time
that this notice was running, the plaintiffs became pro-
prietors of the gardens and the public-house in question.
Upon their taking possession, an arrangement was entered
into by which the defendant agreed to remain in thehouse
as a weekly tenant. Mr. John Gale, the first witness,
said he was the managing director of the Gardens Com-
pany. Tn the early part of the present year the company
became the pi;a-cbaccrs >f kho 1 olofitovl (-.4,,dens, and
took possession or mein, also of the public-house in
which the defendant is a tenant. Sometime after they
had taken possession he (witness) communicated with
the defendant regarding his tenancy. In the month of
May an interview took place, at which the defendant
acknowledged that his tenancy had expired ; he also
stated that as he could not conveniently remove his
things, be would enter into arrangements with the
company. 411 arrangement was then concluded between
witness and the defendant relative to his future occu-
pation, by which the defendant agreed to become a
weekly tenant, at the rent of 12s. per week. When
this agreement was made, in order to prevent any mis-
understanding, witness urged the defendant to go to
Mr. Blackhurst's office, which was near at hand ; this
he did, but not with witness. The defendant did not
pointedly agree or pointedly object to receiving a week's
notice.—Mr. Blackhurst was next called, and he read the
agreement that had been drawn tip in his office according
to which the defendant was to pay I.:is per week, and to
consider himself liable to a week's notice. Mr. Black-
hurst added that this paper which he now produced was
merely the substance of the argument The parties were
to have called again the following morning to receive
copies of the document in a legal form. The defendant
did not say at this time that he would not go out on a
weeks notice. Mr. 'Wynne here put in a legal objection
to the paper produced ; it was not signed with
initials, and was, therefore, no more than a memorandum,
it was not stamped, and could not, therefore, be ten-
dered as evidence. His Honour intimated that he
would "consider the objection. Mr. Love, the resident
director, was then called. He lived next door to the
defendant he accompanied him to the office of Mr.
Blackhurst, soliCitor.' The paper which had been read
was intended as the substance of the legal document
which was to be called for the next day. It was drawn
up by the consent of all parties. On the next morning
Mr. Seaman would not agree to what be had agreed to
the day before ; witness therefore declined to have any
more to do with the matter. The defendant said he did
not agree to sign the paper which had been read by Mr.
Blaakhurst ; it was never read over to him. If he had_
known that it obliged him to he a weekly tenant he
would have very much opposed it. It would take him
at least four weeks to Fa opt the museum and other
additions he had made to the public-house. 4e built
the place himself, and was a tenant of Mr. Atkins!
father. Mr. Wynne, or. behalf of the defendant, said
there must he a clear assent to the terms of the tenancy
proposed. In the present case there was no legal
document prepared ; that was left over until the second
day. It was evident that the defendant had never
assented to the paper drawn up in Mr. Blaekhurst's
office; he scarcely understood its nature, and was cer-
tainly -and3r the impression that it was not the one by
which the terms of his tenancy were to tr,:c. determined.
The defendant's notice, which he had received fr.orn Mr.
Atkin, was not a legal one, inasmuch as his tenancy
commenced on the 25th of December, and this notice
was not received until the Ist of February. He con-
tended that it was most improbable that the defendant
knowing this to be so, should voluntarily tell Mr. Gale
that he was no longer a tenant. The whole circum-
stances of the case was in favour of the supposition that
the defendant did not believe, at the time that paper
was drawn up, that he would he liable to ejection at a
Week's notice. The judge said he considered the ques-
tion to be one of fact as well as of law ; he would decide
the ease on Monday next.

LIVERPOOL POLICE COURT.-YESTERDAY.

(Before Mr. RAFFr.vs.)
CRYING ENTHUSIASTICALLY !

A respectable looking man, named James Bond, the keeper
of a beerbouse at the corner of Berry and Milford streets, was
tharged by poiice7otlicer Carrol, 223, and alto by a bailiff named
James Tomilson, for having assaulted them. Mr. Biikk
defended. The officer said after one o'clock yesterday morning
he heard a noise in the prisoner's shop, and thinking there was
some one drinking there, be knocked, and, on entering, ho saw
the man Tomilson in the shop, who told him that he was in
possession of the place, under a warrant for water rent from
Cornwallis-street. He then went away, but immediately after
he heard cries of " Police," and " Murder," and on going back
he found the cries coming from the inside. He knocked, but
the prisoner refused to let him in, and, as the cries still conti-
nued, he at last broke in the door, when he found the bailiff on
the lloor,'and the prisoner standing over him.
Some alterca-
tion ioprwcd, when the prisoner assaulted both. The bailiff
corroborated the stateinefit. Mr. Birfck crqssTeaniine,i Lan,
but their evidence was not altered. Mr. Block contended that
the bailiff had entered the house at an imPTOP.er rout, and
that the prisoner wanted bim to wait till morning, when he
could procure change for a note to pay the paltr) amount
some 12s. or so, but he would not do so, but "cried enthuai.
astically." The defendant was fined 20s. and costs.
PLUNDER AT A RAILWAY STATION.

Bridget M'eann and Ann Crompton (her daughter) were
charged with having stolen ten pair of patent shoes from the
Park-lane station of the London and North-Western Railway
Company. Mr. Gill (of the firm of Lace, Marshall, and Gill)
appeared tor the prosecution, and Mr. Cobb for the prisoners.
It appeared that some tithe between the 26th of May and the
6th of June a Mr. Derby, a boot and shOe' maker'at Mirth-
ampton, sent a hamper of boots and shoes to Mr. Robinson, of
Paradise-street. When the hamper was taken to Mr. Robin-
son he refused to receive it, as it was behind time, and the
hamper was taken back to the station, where it remained till
the 6th of June, when it was sent back, and then ten pair of
shoez sere misled, value of which wag £a 13s. 6d. The
husband of the prisoner Ceompton was a stoker at the' stutioh'
and it was supposed he broke open the hamper and took the
boots, as he has absconded. The prisonet a were stopped by
Mr. Syred, pawnbroker, offering some of the shoes fat pledge,e
five pair of which were found with the prisoners. The evidence
was not sufficient to reach the young woman, and she was
discharged; and Mr. Cobb then argued that the fact of the.
old woman having offereel,!ai_e_4oetiihkoput,s,for pledge was
leas 110 c c _a -pledge
charged tie Cycl woman
also. W
(Before /iessrs. R. qL.A.DsToriE arid BOOTH.)
TIIE 12ru OT JULY.—ABUSIVE LANGUAGE.
Bridget Moab, of 38, Poplar-street, summoned Nathan Mille
gam, of the same street, for having used abusive sued insultiric
language, calculated to create a breach of the peace. E.
Bluck defended. This affair arose out of the 12th of July, is
it appeared that the defendant was out at the Orange proces-
sion on that day, and on his return he exhibited an orange dig
out of his window, which is next door to the complainant, and
he then used very insulting language about Pope and Porery,
and said he would rip all PaPsts like re,lerriws. This,aa
such like language constituted that complained of. em.rai
witnesses were called on either side, and at the donelusionthe
magistrate said the evidence fully established the chtLrg: on
behalf of the complainant ; and Mr. Gladstone aid it was 'cry
outrageous conduct on behalf of the defendant. If page
walked en the 12th of July to celebrate an historical eves,
that was no reason why they should insult or annoy OW
who differed with them either in politics or religioa. Ttoir
who professed a certain religion, and went out to celelrete
the battle of the Boyne, on the 12th of July, and thin retuled
home to assault, abuse, and vilify the feelings of others we)
differed with them, he feared, had no religion d .11
about them. No one had a right to insult the relgie.
of another, whose teligion was AS good, or perhaps lett,.
than that of We person so Meting. lle spoke in eeyere Leyea
of Persons who were superior in station to the defendenf.bUt
who encouraged itteh naen as the defendant in practice that
were only fit to be carried on in a lunatic asylum. .fter a
severe lecture to the defendant he fined him 10s.
Mrs. Sarah Hyman, wife of a pawnbroker at g; White-
chapel, summoned Poliee-ofee: Robert Brown, ". 100, for
having used abusive and insulting language to lt, • Mr. Cobb
appeared for the complainant. The lady, wIJ had a large
quantity of jewellery about her person, eated that some
evenings since a womar came into her slop and wanted to
pledge an article, and tecause she woutr not give her as much
as she demanded on t the woman attack her. She thenwent
into the street to gn a police-offica to take the woala into
custody, and she.aet the defendott, who not Qnly rehised to
take heir, bet celled her —a d ioreign —, and used other
bad and instaing language to ter. In reply to the charge, the
officer prod,eed Police-officer 126, Me. Harvey, a shopkeeper,
residing text door to Mrs. Hynian, and a girl named Steen
• Sherithu, allot whom swore that the statement of Mrs. Hyrum
was suite unfounded, and all swore that the oftieer never usni
tl leaguer attributed to him, and the macelatr'tf3
oe complaint,

Ives of :he
A Honolulu (Sandwich Island) paper mentious a at
of s'wimniing, lately performed by some
island. A boat with eio„ „„ was ea p sited
in tho „yeen ..vio of the islandg, Maui and
was sitp-rosed they were drowned, but tiev
I\l°Vfneard from c. Lanai several 'days afterwards. hav-
tiventy-bur
ing reached .ae ate., swimming
hours.