Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1857-09-03 00:00:00

THE ANNUAL LICENSING SESSIONS,

These sessions were resumed yesterday (the third day)
at eleven o'clock. Mr James Aikin, as on the former c'ay,
presided. The other magistrates present were—Alderman
Turner, Messrs. Sands, Chaloner, Parker, lirath, Bolton,
and subsequently, W, Brown, M.P., J. S. Mansfield, and
O. EC Lawrence

The basiness of the applicatiors 'a as entered upon im-
mediat-ly on the sitting of the court.

WEST DERBY WARD.

Mr Blackhurst supported the application of Mr. G. R.
Jackson, Brunswick-street, where a great many houses had
been built daring the past year.
Mr. Luton handed in his own papers.
Mr. Deux), Chatstworth-street, was supported by Mr
Snowball, and urged the peculiar adaptation of the house
and of the conductor.

Mr. Bremner supported the application, but Mr. Aikin
considered he was not entitled to be heard in addition to
his own advocate.

Mr. Bretherton opposed the application on behalf of
several clerg,men and other inhabitants. There were
sixteen licensed houses, and twenty-two beerhouses io
the vie:nity.
Mr. Deacon was examined, and stated that he had
passed through Lancaster Castle the present year. He
betted a little, and his passing through Lancaster was in
consequence of the betting. He had signed bills for
Mr. Palmer four or five years ago, and, after his execu-
tion, the holders came down on him, and hence his
visit to Lancaster. He had been charged, while keeping
a beerhouse, for a disturbince having occurred opposite
his house; bat that was the fauh of the policeman, and
he was not fined. His house was not used as a betting
house.

THE Wilt AND THE BINCH.-REPORT OF THE VISITING
JUSTICES.

Mr. Aspinall, in bringing before the court the applica-
tion of Mr. John Pennington, Duckworth-street, asked
that the report ( f the visiting justices respecting this case
should be read in open court.
Mr. Wybergh placed the report before the Bench.
After some conver.aticn, Mr. Aikin said, unfortunately
the two justices apponted to visit the houses fur which
licenses were applied for in this ward were not present.
The justices were Mr. George Holt and Mr. F. Haywood,
and, as they were not present, he could not produce the
report. Ha did not say what course would be taken
were they in court, but being absent he could not tell Mr.
Aspinall what they said.
Mr. Aspinall could not object to the non-production of
the report in the absence c f those who made it. It was
. quite clear, however, that a report which was not sub-
stantiated, and could not be in their absence, ought not to
be relied on, on one side or the other, either in public or
private. And he had a right, therefore, to ask, on the part
of his client, that the case should be decided on the evidence
'heard in open court, and none other.
Mr. Aikin said be had taken an opportunity when this
petition was raked before, to say that the magistrates
listened always most attentively to all that was said in
that court, both for and against any particular applica-
tion, and that they gave due weight to it ; but that what-
ever was done in the private room was a matter on which
no question ought to have been asked, and no question
answered.
Mr. Aspinall felt quite prepared to say that whatever
was properly and regularly done in the private room ought
not to be discusoed in open court, but no evidence should
be heard in private. That practice was irregular—it was
monstrous to take a statement made by a gentleman not
present. He challenged the magistrates to take the
opinion of any competent lawyer upon the question—
whether that of their clerk or of the stipendiary magis-
trate-- and to ask whether it was competent for them to
receive any evidence or any statement not made in open
court. They could not ask the opinions given in private—
they could know nothing of them, and thus in that affair
he was asked to address them upon evidence he knew
nothing of. In fact, to address them upon half a case.
Mr. Aikin had stated over and over again that there
was a physical impossibility to have collected the opinions
of the magistrates present, on Monday, for instance. It
was a custom to retire, and one which he could not admit
had produced the results stated. For there was practical
proof that the reports of the visiting justices did not
always avail, as he knew many instances in which appli-
cations reported against had been successful. If he were
asked how the reports were given or how weighed, he
declined to answer ; but they did not go into that private
room to have any farther evidence, but to consider that ,
already before them, and hear each others opinions.
Mr. Aspinall thought that was beggirg the question
raised by himself ; but, as he coul,d not go further, he would
now proceed to move in what he could not bat consider
the farce—the application :of his client, Mr. John
Pennington.
Mr. Bolton rose, and said he held such language
addressed to the bench to be exceedingly discreditable.
It was most unbecoming in any barrister, and he mast
himself feel that it was not gentlemanly. .
Mr. Aspinall would have felt the' observation more
coming from any other quarter.
Mr J. H. Turner should say that lie felt the language of
Mr. Aspinall was extremely unbecoming and disrespectful
to the bench. He ought to retract the term.
Mr. Aspinall could not retract an opinion which he held
very strongly.
Mr. Aikin : Am I to understand that Mr. Aspinall
characterises the proceedings of this court as a farce?
Mr. Aspinall could not but say that, to call upon an
advocateao address any court upon the part of his client,
-and then to retire and receive and decide upon evidence of
which the advocate knows nothing, and the party can
know nothing, was a farce.
Mr. Aikin must say again that the magistrates did not
receive other evidence as evidence : but they heard the
opinions of the magistrates who visited the houses, and
consulted together, communicating one with another. He
thought, therefore, that proper respect to the court, and,
indeed, to himself, was not shown by Mr. Aspinall in using
such language, and that his own judgment would tell him
that it ought to be withdrawn.
Mr. Aspinall understood the bench to tell him that,
after hearing the evidence in that court, they were going
to take other evidence ; evidence of parties not in court,
and to allow that to influence their decision. He did
not wish to address himself to his client's case upon
evidence of• which he could know only half, or to be
considered as calling that proceedings founded upon
evidence taken behind his back, as anything but what he
had termed it.

Mr. Aikin reminded him that the magistrates only heard
the opinions of the magistrates who visited amongst each
other.

Mr. Aspinall considered tint evidence as most grievous
and exceKlingly improper evidence.
Mr. Aikin : In the first place, I have'nt told yon we
receive it as evidence,

Mr. Aspioall: I complain that I don't know, nor does
ay client know how it is used.

Mr. Aikin: Whatever your opinion may be on this
question, I hope you are of opinion that you ought not to
use such a term, ani must express my hope that you will
not address the bench, or term any of the proceedings here
a farce.

Mr. A.spin all insisted that it was a farce. Let them
take the opinion of any legal gentleman upon the question,
and if it was against him he would apologise with the
utmost humility.
Mr. Aikin : Will you withdraw the term ?
Mr. Aspinall : I shall apply the term hypothetically.
You tell me that you read or listen to reports, not produced
in this court, and of which I know nothing, and then I am
called upon to address the court on behalf of my client.
I say that is a farce.

lir. Turner did not think any bench in the country
could be more considerate to professional gentlemen ;
but they did expect the courtesy which was due to gentle-
men engaged in an arduous duty.
Mr. Aspinall contended it was literally ridiculous to
call upon any professional man to urge bis client's case in
the of a declaration that he would be met by evidence of
which he knew nothing.
Mr. Aikin said if it was any satisfaction to any gentle-
man to know the course they took, he might say that he
himself took such memorandums of the arguments ad-
vanced in each ease, as enabled him to refer to them on

retiring to the private room, and that they were always
considered ; and whether that mode of proceeding could
be characterised as a farce, he a ould allow all concerned
to decide.

After some further conversation, and the professional
gentlemen urging Mr. Aspinall to withdraw the term at
which offence was taken,
Mr. Aikin said he would enter irto no compromise.
The act had been read by the bench, they had inter-
pretated it in a particular way for a series of years, and
they declined to adopt another interp etation. As to the
term need, he had no power to ti ake Mr. Aspinall with-
draw it, and he must allow him to prcceed.
Mr. Aspinall, in what he had said, had spoken perfectly
conscientiously, a-,d therefore he could not withdraw the
term used. At the same time, he was ready to say he
did not mean any personal offence to the bench. He
believed the bench acted in the way they believed to be
right, and that they were not influenced by any unfair r
personal consideration. Mr. Aspinall then proceeded
with his client's application.

Hugh Hughes was supported by Mr. Bretherton. He
was formerly the owner of a house in Sir Thomas a
imildingg, which was coademed and taken down, and
for two years had had a beer-house.
Mr. Bretherton supported the claim of Mrs. Anne
Lowe, Lord-street, Edge-hill. The house had a car-yard