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

ST. PETER'g WARD.

Mr. Aepinall applared for Mr. Camidge, and said he was
a man alrtey carrying on a most respectable trade in the
sole of bpttle I ale and porter, in small quanti,ies, and
Dnke.strcet being a street in which there were many
hoarding hc,asei, and the memorial state,' that st.ch a
house Was necessary.

The magistra•es here roe to rotire, when
Mr. Bremner said thz,t sinca the court separated yester-
day, he had thought very _seriously of the questions to be
considered in dealing with all applications in that court,
siad the more be ,coosidorpi, the more !trongly was he

convinced of the reasonablene's of what he then urged
The act of parliament- he thought was clear. The
ninth section was distinct ; it incleed two features, to
which the magistrates should direct their inquiries ; first,
the fitness of the hou-e, and next the fitness of the
person. And the tw nty-seventh section give the power
of appeal aga;ntt their decision, to any person who
shall be dissatisfied wi h their adjudicetion. Now,
their worships e:e-e aware that an appeal should set forth
the grounds of the decision appealed against, and there
fore, if the magistrates did not state the reasons for their
decision in each case the power of appeal given by the act
was nullified, and the power of appeal was in reality
destroyed. When their worships said they gave a license
to A B. or C. D. and refused it to all the rest they ready
do not give any power of appeal. For when they went to
Ktrkdale and tailed to disc'ose grounds for the decision
appealed against, the court then said they could not
interfere with the discretion of the magistrates. 4. Shew
us they have done wrong," they say, " and we will enquire ;
but it you. came to appeal against their discretion we
cannot bear you." Therefore, said Mr. Bremner,l have
respectfully to ask your worship to give your reasons for
decidirg in each case.
Mr. Aspinali wished to express his cordiel concurrence
in all that his learned friend had said; but he went further,
and maintained that the magistrates had no power to
inquire of anything beyond the question of the fitness of
the house for the purpose of a licence, and the fi.ness of
the party to conduct it. And when they inquired into
and decided upon eny application with regard to.the wants
of the neighbourhood, and said, "We won't grant this
application, because the wants of the neighbourhood don't
require it." They did what, he respectfully contended,
they had no right to do. He pledged himself that, if the
magistrates would give that as a ground fur any decision,
the whole question should be raised ui-on appeal.
The magistrates then retired, and when th,y returned to
court aftt r an absence of am hour and a half,

Mr. Ain said, I regret we should have kept the court
waiting, bat the fsult was not with us, but with the
questions we have had to consider. With regard to the
questions raised by Mr. Breainer, and Mr. Aspinall, that
we should assign our reasons for granting or disallowing
any application, we have come to the conclusion that it
would be inconvenient and undesirable that we should
assign our reasons for any decision we may come to, or
state the facts. We think that it is in many cases, besides
such as the present, undesirable, but moreso in licensing
sessions than at any other time. It may be a question
whether the '9th clause of the licensing act does not
admit of a somewhat larger interpretation than Mr.
Aspinall has given P—whether it does not admit of a
somewhat longer inquily upon our part than the fitne-s
of the house and tl.e fitness of the person. The words
of the clause is that at their meeting., we shall take
into consideration " anything touching the granting,
withdrawing or transferring of any license."—" Anything
touching." We are to enquire, under this section, any-
thing touching the fitness of the hoase or the fitness of
the person ; but it appears to me that we are authorised
to inquire " touching" other things also, before we
give our decision. The question, whether or not we
nave that power, is one well worthy of enquiry, and
I hope that arrangements will be made between
the learned gentleman and the Court, to have
an argument and decision on the case. I think the words
of the clause give the magistrates a discretion in such
cases to inquire beyond the fitness of the house
and person ; but if it shall be decided that we have not
that dissretion, I shall be glad, extremely glad, of it, for
a more unpleasant duty does not attach to the offine of a
magistrate than thin. We may be wrong in our decision,
but se have decided that we shall not disturb the rule
hitherto acted upon in this respect in this court. As to
the speci,l question raised by Mr. Aspinall, I may say
that the only enquiry made in private yesterday was as
to the identity of Mr. Clarke ; and as there appears to
have been some irregularity, we have decided that the
itn!niry may be again gone into in open court, either now
or at a future time before the close of the proceedings.
Mr. Aikin then announced that licences were granted
to William Hughes, Eidon-pl,ce ; George Mitchell, Dale-
street and H. F. CamidgP, Duke street.

The list was then proceeded with.
PITT-STRERT WARD.

Mr. Snowball appeared for Mr. C. Harris, and
showed the necessity of a house in that place, and its
suitability. The rent was £2OO a-yea:. There was no
opposition.
Mr. Blackhurst appeared for Mr. J. S. Wright. Mr.
Bretherton appeared for Mr. J. Orrell, jun., who was
opposed by Mr. Pemberton, and the application fell to
the ground, Inspeczor Chew having stated it was yet un-
finished.