The Northern Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1856-05-15 00:00:00

IMPORTANT TO VINTNERS

Yesterday, a case of considerable importance came on
for hearing before Messrs. Mansfield and Crosthwaite, at
the Police-court, the final decision of which will be looked
to with deep interest by th 6 trade to which it specially
refers. ' It was a charge brought by the excise authorities
against George Francis Mathewson, the owner of the
Argyle Rooms, No. 3, Lime-street, for selling wine, on
the 29th December last, without a license. Mr. Brook
appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. Snowball for the
defendant. It was proved by some revenue officers that
the defendant had made entry of certain premises in Lime-
street, and that on the 29th of December he was not
licensed to sell foreign wines, and an officer named Mid-
dleton proved, that on the day in question (with two
other officers) he went to the defendant's premises and
asked his representatives to sell him a pint of wine, for
the purpose of trying if he were properly authorised to
sell wine without a license, as he claimed to do, in conse-
quence of alleging that he was a " Free Vintner of the
City of London." The officer was supplied with wine,
and paid 2s. 6d. for it, and it was upon this that the case
now came before the court.

Mr. George Lumas, the clerk to the Vintner's Company
of London, was produced by Mr. Brook, in order to show
that the defendant was not a member of that corporation.
He said there was a person named !George Mathewson
(the defendant) on the books of the Vintners' Company as
a freeman—the name was not George Francis. He pro-
duced the book of the freemen, and said the defendant's
name was entered there on the sth of March, 1823. The
defendant was disfranchised in April, 1851, and his name
written across in the book. He produced the court book
of the company, and said there was an entry in it of the
disfranchisement of the defendant.
Mr. Brook : Has he ever since applied to the court of
the company to be reinstated ? Witness : Not to my
knowledge.

Mr. Biook : He is not a freeman now ? Witness : No,
for he has been disfranchised under the bye-laws.
Mr. Brook : What was he disfranchised for ? Witness :
For lending his name to other people for the sale of wine.
For the defence, Mr. Snowball said that the case
involved a question of law and not oue of fact. Once the
defendant became a freeman of the body in London, he
contended that the corporation had no power whatever to
disfranchise him.

Mr. Mansfield : Can a freeman of Liverpool be disfran-
chised? Mr. Snowball : Not at all, sir.
Mr. Brook : I am a freeman of Liverpool, and have
been so for upwards of forty years, and I have known it
to be done often for bribery.
Mr. Snowball : Yes ; for bribery, because that would
be illegal ; but a corporation by a bye-law cannot do an
act that in itself is against law. He argued that the cor-
poration had not the power to make bye-laws, and quoted
the act of Henry 11. which incorporated the body of free
vintners in London; and he, therefore, contended that
bye-laws could not be made to bar a right. Ho also
referred to the act 19th Henry VII., and concluded by
stating that once the defendant became a free vintner of
London that body had no power ever after to deprive him
of his franchise.
Mr. Brook contended that the defendant should at the
time of his disfranchisement have applied fbr the remedy
that then was open to him, namely a mandamus, to com-
pel the corporation to show cause why he was struck off
the list. He came in now to ask this court to do what, the
Court of Queen's Bench should have been asked to do five
years ago.
Mr. Snowball replied, and

Mr. Mansfield said the case was one of great impor-
tance, and could not of course be decided in that court.
lie thought the best way was to convict, and then let the
defendant appeal to the sessions, and so let the case go to
the Queen's Bench for its decision.
It was then agreed to fine the defendant .t'l2 10s. in
order to give him an opportunity of appealing, for the
purpose of trying the question.

THE CRIMEAN

MILITARY EliQUI°

The proceedings of the board were resumed y.jangv`i7edoti:::
A letter from Sir John Algsleill, who had been
attend, was read. In this communication, S!1. John'
M`Neill stated, that ill health would prevent bial.'",iret
plying with the request, but he added, that even ii that ie
obstacle had not presented itself, he should not ba
; the
departed from the course he had hitherto taken, 'll re,
abseneacis of any authoritative information, as to the been
. e object of the enquiry. After the letter
el oh
read, the judge advocate intimated that Colonel Tao 0,
was still too unable to attend. Sir Richard Aire," repo'
diated the idea of having acted disrespectful
Colonel Tullocb, though an erroneous iinpress ever
got abroad that he had done so. The gallant 'csee'
then called a number of witnesses, and closed his -cast
by expressing the opinion that the anitnadversieo, beett
upon him by the Crimean Corainissioners,llo.sent
completely. removed in the course of the Pr'
enquiry.
-------r----