Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1857-09-02 00:00:00

APPLICATIONS FOR NEW LICENSES.

Yesterday w.ts the second day of the licsnsieg sessions,
and the interest of the trade, as well as that of the appli-
cants in the prcceelings of the day, was evinces by the
numbere in attendance. Ow;ng to the Dock Committee's
excursion, the attendance of magistrates was not so numer-
ous as on Monday. The following were on the bench yei
terday :—Xiessrs. James Aikin, cha'rman ; G. Holt, R. E.
Harvey, T. D. Anderson, Alde•man Turner, E Heath, J.
R Jeffery, Richard Shell, T. Bolton, C. Chaloner, J.
Stewart, R. Bann, T. RAth'oone, and A Dixon.

THE EVIDENCE IN rIIVATid. —PAS CJIIIIT AND TIM BAR.

Mr. Aspinell said : Before the magistrates proceed to
the consideration of the list, I have an application to
make, er 1-ibi!'olustilie, in the matter of an application
before the cart yesterday, and decided by the magis-
trates. In the course of the proceedings yesterday, I
had occasion to make some obse:erations upon a practice
said to 'prevail, and which I said did prevail—the prac-
tice of the magistrates, when retired to their private
roo e calling and receiving evilence. And Mr. Bolton,
speaking from the bench, and in the hearing and on the
part df the la nch, assured me that the allegation was not
true. I was then assured from the bench that that was
true which I 'knew not to be true and that a practice
was mot adopted which I was assured then and know
now has been and is adopted. My allegation now is that
the assurance which I had yesterday from Mr Bolton.
,nfamed by Mr. Hahn a, was not true. I.speek it with
.07ery respect ; but I say that I am now in a posifon to
Mate that that which I was yesterday assured did not take
place did actually take .yiace. In the case of a person
-named Cis ke, whose application was Tonsithred here,
yesterday, I am in a position to show, and I defy any
person P 3 crntradiet me, that after the magistrates
retired to their private room, a witness-an inspector of
police —was called in and pee evidence in
the ctso. I say nothing of the propriety of this
mode f dealing. I leave the -public to Judge of &at.
The Fim:emn assartece from the Bench that the practice
west, )t adopted, which I now say I can prove, had ac-
tuellyjustlesforebeen adopted by the Bench. The .public,
I say, willjudgeof that. I say that the assurance was
solemnly Rivp-z-to me from the 'Bench that that -wee not
dons, which I now say I can prove has been done If the
applicant lia.d been bea d there would not be anything
t complain of ; and my application now is that the
case be ref,-keard, and that the inspector who then gave
erridence"branow called, and his evidence be giron in open
court.

Mr. Boltan : I Nv7sh to say a few words in consequence
.cf the perssnal reference to Tube f. It is perfectly true
that when Mr. Clarke's name was mentioned in the pri-
vate- room, a statement was made that he hal been before
in possession of a license, and that it had been forfeited
because of the way in which he had conducted it. We,
in conrepence ofthat, sent for Mr. Clarke to come into
-the magistrate'? roes and explain. After a time our
messenger returned, and said Mr. Clirke mu't have left
the clurt. Then, sir, and not until then, evidence was
asked for and taken as to the statement of the withdrawal
of the license It was then made to appear by the
inspector that the applicant had had a license for a house
in Fellool-lane, and that it was so irregularly conducted as
to civr,se that license to be withdrawn.

Mr Aspinall: Wel, I have now the assurance of Mr
Bol,on that that which I was assured from the bench
was not true is true. And this is another proof of the
inc.mvehieac3 of the practice I condemn —the hearing of
evitionce in a private room. It was very well known that
Mr. Clarke was rep,eseritea by counsel and attorney, and
it was perfectly easy to send for them. I don'c know
what is the public opinion of a case in which evidence
-was heard, although it was stated that it would not be
~heard, and had not heen heard. It is for the public to
express its opinion; bat on the part 'of the applicant and
on the part of justice. I 11,1 now that the evidence yes-
terday heard in the private room be now called in open
court, in order that wo shall have an opportunity of cross-
examination.

Mr. Aik7n: I can, for myself, say that when I heard
the qussti.)n a- ked yesterday whether or not evidence was
allowtd to be given in the private room, I doubted very
much the propriety of its being- asked ; but I had no
doubt at all that, as a matter of propriety, it ought not to
-be answered. I hope the gentleman referred to is inca-
pable of saying or doing anything which is not perfectly
right, an I this only convinces me of the impropriety of
answering the question pat. But I question very much
whether any gmtleman has a right to make any such
enquiry; and I must protest, as a member of this bench
against any gentleman here being catechised. It is an
irregularity which I must express a hope may not again
occur.

Mr. Aspinall: Whatever the opinion of an individual
magistrate may say
Mr. Aikin : 1 beg your pardon, Mr. Aspinall. When I.
as chairman here, say anything from which any member ( f
the bench does not dimly., I must be understood as speak-
ing the opinion of the bench.
Mr. Aspinall said he felt bound, in his own behalf, to
say that ho spoke with the unanimous consent of his pro-
fessional brethren near him, and again asked that the
evider ce be re-heard.

Mr. Aikin said they would deride on their return into
caurt.with the other applications.

MR AP PLICATION S. - TAUX HALL WARD.

The applications were then proceeded with, and Vauxhal
Ward was first taken.

Mr. Bremner appeared for H W. Werneck: Mr. Wer-
.xteck was, he said, a German, who came to Liverpool
seven or eight years ago, and set up a lodging-houle in
Marybone, in which many of his countrymen who came
here to emigrate took up their residence. Mr. Werneck
bei g a foreigner, was brought into collision with the
authorities here, and his license was withdrawn. He
appealed, and that appeal was very properly given against
him. But he was sure, however the man may have been
brought into conflict with the magistrates, they would not
suffer that to prejudice his case He was a perfectly
honest man, and hal never been suljeeel to any fine in
conducting his business.
Mr. J. H. Tamer said he was present when the case
,so.` the applicant was brought before vtr. ATinall Tobin
-during his mayoralty, ani a gr.ls....er violation of all the
provisions of the law hid never taken p!a Cc. The Semetary
for the Home Department had sent down special instruc-
tions in consequence of it ; and if Mr. Snowball persevered,
he would certainly call for the whole proceedings to be
read.

Mr Snowball madesome further apologetic_ observations,
and, the court proceeded.
Mr. Hughes addressed the court on his own part, and
handed in hi 3 papers.—Mr. Leatherbarrow said ho was
twenty-seven years a ratepayer of the town, and had for-
merly been in a better way. For some years things had
,gono bad'y with him, and he hoped they would help him
to recover. His house was the largest in the strret and
the most suited for a licensed house, and he hoped the
bench woul4 c)nfar a benefit on him and his family and
vaunt one.
Mr. Mulvill said he had been in possession of a license,
of which he had been robbed, and he hoped now to get
another.

ST. PAUL'S WARD.

Mr, Xing appeared on h's own behalf. and Mr. Mans-
field and Mr. Bremner opposed, the applica ion
of Mr. Mottram, who was now a wholesale dea'er, and
wanted a retail licea;.c, not to keep a public, house, but to
accommodate his customers. Mr. Bremner said there
were fice.hones within such a distance of Mr. Mottranes
you might throm a biscuit into any of them from his
door.

FOLCITA NGE WARD,

Mr. James Glovar was the only app'ieant in this ward.

CASTLE•gri:EET WARD.

Mr. Snowb4ll supported the application of Mr. GeoTga
Mitchel, and snowed the suitability of his premises for a
licensed business. He read a rcemorial, and stated that
formerly three or fur licensed houses were in the place
now oempied by the buildings of which Mr. Mitchel's
premises were past.
Mc .Greorge Holt : Are not these Mr. Thompson's
buildings,?

Mr. ijretherton : .oh, ye', sir; and I oppose the appli-
ca•i*n

M. Snowball did not see why Mr. Thompson should
not have such places. in fact they were a public benefit.
It seemed to be settled that Mr. Thompson should
be objected t) becauea he built houses fie thought
he ought to be much more enc ursged as a public
benefactor.

Mr Brethertor., on b•-lialf of several persons in the
neighbourhood, opposed the applicatim. He said it was
singular that Mr. Thompson never built any premises fir
which he did not want a epirit license. lie cc rended
that the premises were unsuited and unnecessary.
Mr. appeared for Mr. John Wilson, in whole
favour he read a memorial signe I by Mr. Lace, his land-
lord, and all the gentlemen having offices in the court.