The Press.
London, England, 1854-08-26 00:00:00

THE PRESS.

WHAT IS A " TRAVELLER "?

Sown; definite solution of the question " what is a
traveller ? " or at all events some information as to
the police interpretation of the phrase in its applica-
tion to the new Beer Bill, was sought from Sir It.
Mayne, at Scotland-yard, on Tuesday, by a deputa-
tion of hotelkeepers and licensed victuallers, headed
by Mr. Simpson, of Cremorne-gardens. Mr. Luce, of
Hampton Court, urged the complaint of hardship
now suffered under the act by himself and fellow
deputationists. His customers were principally gentle-
men who came more distinctly under the designation
of travellers than those who had been so defined by
Mr. Long in his decision respecting Jack Straw's
Castle. He had requested some of them to put
down their names in a book, and to state their
opinion of the new act. Mr. Luce then produced a
book containing the signatures of persons from
almost all parts of the world—Cairo, Turin, United
States, Ireland, Scotland, Germany, &c., who, having
visited his house on Sundays since the passing of
the act, protested in various languages against its
inconvenience and oppressive character. He inquired
how the inspector was justified in summoning him
for supplying such parties with refreshment? The
following colloquy ensued
Sir H. MAysz said that it was the duty of the police to
obtain cases for the decision of the magistrates. His duty
was merely executive—to see that the law was obeyed. It
was for the magistrates to decide on the proper interpreta-
tion of the law. With respect to the travellers' book which
Mr. Luce had produced, the probability was that all the
travellers had come last from London. He had not the
slightest disposition to carry out the law in an inconvenient
or oppressive manner, but it was important that the
meaning of the word " traveller" should be decided by the
proper tribunals. He was sorry if trade was incon-
venienced, but he should not be doing his duty did he not
bring the cases before the magistrates.
Mr. LUCE supposed that at all events in districts where
the magistrates bad decided the police would not again
interfere.
The COMMISSIONER said it was not for him to say. If a
number of magistrates decided the same way, it would of
course be a guide to him in carrying out the acts.
Mr. Luck: observed that, from the mode in which the
act had been hurried through Parliament at the close of
the session, one half the public were not aware of its provi-

sions.
Sir R. MAYBE had nothing to do with that matter. His
duty was to see the law executed; but it was no part of
his intention to have it carried out in a harsh or oppressive
manner. He had told the superintendent to caution
Mr. Luce on last Sunday that he was infringing the law,
and he intended to take the opinion of the magistrate. By
that opinion he of course would be guided in future pro•

ceedin-gs.
Mr. T. B. Stursort said that his case differed somewhat
from that of Mr. Luce, but equally showed the unfair
operation of the act. He had endeavoured to conform to
the law as much as possible, but last Sunday had not been
able to please the inspector. He had closed all the bars
and ceased to serve customers before ten o'clock, but
found it impossible to clear the people out for twenty
minutes after. The inspector said he must report, but he
(Mr. Simpson) wanted to know how he was to clear 1,500
people out of his grounds in less than twenty minutes.
He had been told that at Gravesend the act was set at
open defiance, and that at the Star and Garter, Richmond,
business was carried on just as usual. The inspector had
told him he must clear out at ten, as an example to his
neighbours, but it should be recollected that they had
probably to clear out only twelve feet square, while he had
twelve acres. They might have twenty people to remove,
while he had 1,500. The inspector further asked him
why the house could not be cleared on Sunday as well as
on Saturday night; but his answer was, that in one case
the people knew the law, and thought it just; in the
other they did not, and thought the curtailment of their
liberty unreasonable. On Saturday night the bell rang,
and in five minutes every one was out; but on Sunday, on
the same signal, there was almost an imeute in the
grounds, so angry were the public at what they considered
to be an arbitrary and tyrannical restriction. They
yelled, hooted, and tumbled the lamps and glasses about
He had had averages of 7,000, 8,000, and 10,000 people at
Cremorne on Sunday afternoons, and order and decorum
were preserved by one policeman. These crowds were no
drunkards, but respectable members of the community,
who, having saved their money during the week, came out
to enjoy the fresh air on Sundays.
Sir R. MAYNE could himself speak to the good order
which prevailed in Cremorne gardens, but the question
they had now to consider was that there was a certain law,
and that they must conform to it. He should think, how-
ever, that, if the sale of liquors was honestly closed at ten
o'clock, a reasonable time might be allowed by the police
for clearing the grounds. He meant, of course, a bond file
closing; as the law might be evaded by buying a large
quantity just before the time.

THE REV. DR. Cuatmiso was announced to preach
in a sequestered country church, near the seat of Sir
John Heron Maxwell, Bart., of Spring Kell, in Dum-
friesshire, on Sunday evening last. The crowds
that assembled from the surrounding parishes were
so great that the church could not contain one-fourth
of the multitude. The preacher took his place on a
hillside, on the south side of the church, and the
vast auditory, lairds and tenants, filled the deep glen
below. It was a shadow of scenes that have long
passed away, having all the likeness, but none of the
perils, of the days of the covenant.

SATURDAY,

Xabl an Volta.

THE INTERPRETATION OF THE NEW BEER BILL
is giving much perplexity to the parties upon whose
business it operates, and hardly less to the magis-
trates at the police courts. The latter are exposed
to the first necessity of solving queries and incurring
responsibility upon points which Parliament left
avowedly uncertain, or whereon hereafter the higher
tribunals of the country will have to pass a formal
judgment. Among a multitude of other cases in dif-
ferent districts, the proprietor of the well-known
tavern at Hampstead called Jack Straw's Castle, Mr.
Robert Ware, was summoned to Marylebone Police
Court on a police information for having infringed
the new act:—
Inspector Byron, it seems, visited Mr. Ware's house at half-
past three o'clock on Sunday afternoon, and saw four gentlemen
and a lady iu a room on the first floor, seated at different tables ;
they had wine and ale before them. The defendant was present.
In reply to some observations made, two of the gentlemen said
they had ordered and got their wine before half-past two o'clock ;
the fourth gentleman, who had some ale before him, said, " I
dine here every Sunday; I live in towu."
The defendant said that he had served the parties before half.
pest two o'clock, in strict conformity with the act, and after that
hour he requested them to leave the house, but they refused to
do so. The parties assured the inspector that they were
" travellers."
Two of the guests then present, it appeared, had
come to the house in a phaeton, others in a gig, with
a horse much jaded and very dusty. One gentleman
had walked, but came all the way from town, and
gave his address in Northampton square. There
was no suspicion of concealment or evasion, and no
charge of misbehaviour. The mittr door of the house
was closed, and the bar whence liquors were dispensed
shut up when Inspector Byron went in. Two ques-
tions were, therefore, placed before the magistrate:
one, whether customers to whom refreshments were
served before the appointed hour for closing must
suspend operations and depart at the given minute ;
the other, whether the special customers found in
Mr. Ware's dining-room were or were not " travellers."
Upon the former point, Mr. Long said it " had been
ruled over and over again" that while liquors re-
mained on the table it was a continuous service.
Respecting the latter, his decision was in favour of
the tavernkeeper :
He felt that the question was one of the utmost importance
and required the most careful consideration. Now, for his own
part, he was diaposed to think, after all the definitions he had
heard and read on the subject of " travellers," that the persons
alluded to did come under this category. The facts were plain
enough and were not disputed. Two of the parties drove there
in a gig, two others in a brougham, and another gentleman
went from his residence iu Ashby-street, Northampton-squarc.
It was quite clear that none of these parties were resident in the
neighbourhood, and it could not be urged that the supply of wine
or other liquors on the occasion had led to intemperance, or any
immoral or objectionable occurrence. He did not mean to say
that, if a man left his residence in Fleet-street and went to Pic-
cadilly and ordered dinner there, he would be entitled to Le
considered a " traveller" within the meaning of the act. The
line must be drawn somewhere; but he did consider that &person
going to Richmond or Greenwich, or Hampton or Hampstead,
was entitled to be treated as a traveller. In the present case the
edndt of the landlord appeared marked by great propriety, and,
nader all the circumstances, he should dismiss the summons.
AN ACTION FOR CRIB!. CoN. between two parties
moving in highly-respectable circles in Gloucester-
shire came on for trial at Liverpool on Monday. The
plaintiff, Mr. Evans, is a magistrate of the county,
living at Cheltenham ; the defendant, whose name is
Robinson, is a gentleman of wealth, residing in the
same town, aged about 50. The plaintiff married a Miss
Carrington, whose father also resides at Cheltenham.
The plaintiff and his wife were married at the close
of the year 1850, and shortly after their marriage
differences arose between them, and they agreed to
separate. A deed of separation was drawn up, the
plaintiff allowing his wife an annuity of 2501. a year.
She went to reside with her father. The defendant
was an old friend of her father's family, and used to
visit there constantly. The plaintiff's wife, in 1853,
came to London and lodged at 13, Edgware-road,
the defendant taking the lodgings for her, and visiting
her very frequently. This came to the plaintiff's
ears and excited his suspicions. In June last the
plaintiff's wife again came to London, the defendant
accompanying her, and the defendant took lodgings
for her at No. 2, Bryanston-street. The plaintiff,
bearing of this, engaged Field, the detective officer,
to watch his wife's proceedings. She was constantly
visited by the defendant. By the advice of Field, a
hole was bored with a gimlet in the drawing-room
door, through which a woman whom Field had selected
and got placed as cook in the house watched the de-
fendant and the plaintiffs wife. She bored gimletholes
in a door, through which she deposed to having
witnessed proceedings which left no doubt of the
criminality of the parties. Two other women were
also examined who gave testimony as to what they
had seen through the holes in the door. For the de-
fendent no witnesses were called, but his counsel
succeeded by cross-examination in shaking the
testimony of the three women summoned on behalf of
the plaintiff. The jury after a long trial returned a
verdtct for the defendant.
APPLICATION was made under the Passenger Act
against Cornelius Prout Newcombe, of the firm
bu of
Newcombe, Griffiths, and Co., carrying on the si-