The Express.
London, England, 1868-10-08 00:00:00

THAMES.

1. Andersen, the landlord of the Duke's Head beer-
house, in Deice-street, Rt. George's-in-the-East, was
charged with haring los Louse open for the ado of beer
and ale before the hour of 1 o'clock in the afternoon on
Sunday, the 30th of August last. At the time the charge
was lint laid the magistrate remanded the awe for con-
sideration.
Mr. Stoddart defended Mr. Anden.on. The information
against the defendant wee laid by Inspector Dee, of the II
thrision.

Police-sergeant Smith, No. 47 H, stated that at twenty
:minutes, past ten o'clock on the morning of Sunday, the
30th of August, he was watching the defendant's house in
company with another constable, and UM four men and
two women come out of the beerhouse. They walked for
a short distance, and one of the men then turned back
and gave something to the defendant, who was at Ids own
door. lie did not know what it wee. A minute and a
half afterwards he went into the defendant's bowie.
There were no persons there except Mr. Anderson and his
family, nor any indications whatever of people having
been supplied with beer or ale. There were ire slops on
the counter—a wooden one. The counter was dry. He
starched the bedroom, cellar, and yard, and could lind no
one there. In cross-examination by Mr. Stoddart the
witness said that he was sure the four men and two
women came out of the defendant's house. They did not
come out of the house of Mr. Wallace, next door. He saw
no signs of driuking in the defendant's house.
Mr. Stoddart said the people did not come out of his
client's Louse on the Sunday morning in question, but
from the premises of hfr. 'Wallace, a store and range
maker, upri whom several customers and frieuds called to
give orders and upon visits. The polureesergeaut bad
made u mistake. The defendant denied having his bourse
open at all for the sale of beer ou the Sunday in question
until one o'clock in the afternoon. But even supposing
the six persons did come out of the defendant's hoarse, it
was not such an eq ening as was contemplated by the act
of parliament. A minute and a half afterwards, and he
quott-d the police-officer's own words, he weut into the
house and found no visitors or any signs of a customer,
or of any drink having been previously supplied that
morning to any one. If the people did come out of the
Duke's Ileud, they might have been there fur religious
exercise. (A lau(;b.)
111 r. Benson—sot very likely in a beer-house.
Idr. Stoddart—Or fur many other purposes. I con-
fidently rely upon the acquittal of my client. People
cannot be convicted on mere suspicion in this country.
Inspector Gee said the defendant had been convicted of
Sunday trading during the prohibited hours three times,
and the fines levied were 20s for the first, 404. for the
second, and 60s. for the third offence.

Mr. Stoddart said that statementtalas made to prejudice
the defendant.

Mr. Benson said it would not, and could not prejudice
the defendant as regarded the law of the case; but, in the
event of a conviction, he should ask the general character of
the defendant's house, and whether there had been a former
conviction. He had carefully considered this question in the
course of the last mouth, and had carefully read the act
of parliament bearing on the case. He was of opinion the
four men and two women did COM out of the defendant's
house at 20 minutes past 10, and that the sergeant was cor-
rect in his evidence. That was all the case agstinst the
defendant. He agreed with the interpretation of the law
as laid down by Mr. Stoddart. The police had not proved
any Sunday trading during the prohibited hours against
the defendant, or that any person had been supplied with
beer. The mere fact of six persons leaving the house was
no proof that the law bad been violated, or that a drop of
beer had been supplied to any one. The "opening "of
the house was not such au opening was contemplated
by. the act of parliament, and the as
must be dis-
missed.