Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1859-11-05 00:00:00

KIRKDALE SESSIONS,

These sessions were resumed yesterday morning to hear
an appeal against the homugh_magistrates, for retosal to grant
a license under, the Alehouse Act of George IV. The appel-
lfiit was 'Thomas Ford, and the respondents were S'amuel
Holme, Esq., J. IF. Turner, Esq., and the other magistrates

who acted with them at the late Liverpool licensing sessions.
Mr. Aspinall, instructed by Messrs. Neal and Martin; appeared
for the appellant; and Mr. Simon, instructed by 3Lssrs.
Wybergh and Garnet, Clerks to the Magistrates, for the
respondents.
The magistrates on the bench were the Right lion. Lord
Stanlef(chairman), Messrs. Hall, Harden, and Theakstone.
Mr. Aspinall stated, that the house for which a license had
-been ref-t,ed was situated at the 'corner of Salop-street,
Walton ) el; that the appellant had laid out about .C2,300in fit-
. ting it up with every convenience to make it a good hotel. It
,was adn:itted by the respondents that the house was suit-
able, and that Mr. Ford was ineligible person to keep it.
Mr. Simon contended that the appellant had not made a
corree!, application, inasmuch as in the notice Of 'application to
the magistrates he had described himself as a beerhouse-
keeper, occupying a house in Salop-street, on account of wliich
the appeal was now made, whereas he resided with his sister-
in-law, who kept the King's Arms Inn, St. John's-lane ; and
according to his (appellant's) evidence he paid the
person a commission who kept the hOuse for him in Salop-
street, and who was actually the tenant of the place.
Mr. Aspinall took objection to his friend pleadiner a special
dOmurrer in the case. Thef,appellant had given evidence that
he was a beerhouse-keeper; arfdße was so if he was anything.
Was his evidence not to be believed !
Mr. Simon held that his objections were not a special de-
murrer, as it was not an objection on the face of the document,
but an objection in substance.
The Court decided that the notice was sufficient.
Mr. Simon said there was no-use for another public-house in
tkii place. When application was made to the magistrates for
:wlicense, they refused, but gave it to another smaller house in
the same street. He considered that this Court. shOuld: not
'overturn their decision, who, he would venture to submit,
from residence in the vicinity, were much better, able to judge

of the requirements of tbe place thin this Court could possibly
be. He would remind his. Lordship, that, there were already.
1,526 public-houses in' Liverpool ; the magistrates consequently
felt themselves Mild to act with extreme-caution in ;;ranting
licenses. The magistrates then retired to consider the case.
-On their return, the Chairman said that the Bench Was
equally divided in opinion, and therefore no decision could be
come to. .

Mr. Simon said that the appeal would therefore fall to the
ground.
'.dead that

Mr. Aspina
adjournment.
A ,rath,r: tedious discussion ensued, on the point, whether
the court had the power to adjourn the case.
Lord S•tanley remarked that as it required a majority to
decide it would also require a majority to adjourn. It was
finally agreed that, according to precedent, when the bench
was equally divided in opinion, the decision of the inferior
court was maintained.
The bench refused to allow the respondents any costs.
This•terminated the business of the sessions.

not, ani

. ,
The following' eas,e,cg appeal was heard at the same sessions
on Thursday, but omitted in our impretision of yesterday from '
want of room. „ . . .. t i '..

THE LATE REEUSAT. TO GRANT A T.ICF,E TO TUE ALFIANY.P-
APPEAL AGAINST THE BOROUGU MAO TRATES. •
The magistrates before whom the appeal was made were 7he,
Right 11-n. Lord Stanley (chairman), William Hall, Thomas
Haigh, W. It. Sandbach, J. T. Turner Greene, Itob.;::
stone, Ralph Fletcher, and Henry RoYds, Esqrs.
The appellant was GuAavus Von Oehlhaffen; a:: i • •-
spondents Samuel Hohne, Esq., J.‘ H. Turner, Esq„...
other Magistrates-who acted with them at the last Live. d
annual licensing session. Mr. Aspinall, instructed by
Bremner, appeared for the appellant Mr. 'Bolton, instructed
by Mr. Wybergh, clerk to the borough magistrates, for'the
respondents .
The appeal was against a decision of refusal to grant a
license under the Alehouse Art; 9 George IV.
Aspinall said this was au appeal against the borough
stagistra'tesf6r their refusal to grant a license or, he ought
rather to sap, in this case, it was strictly,--'-not merely tech-*
substantially, an application to have now a
license granted, for out of a large beach of magistrates,•he be-
lieved fifeea, the qnesdiOn come so neat to an equality that
the refuSal was made by only one ( \tr. Wybergh corrected the
learned gentleman by saying that the refusal was carried by

two). Therefore, the 3,7 calnalaardlywitha doe iSiOA against them,
but to make a fresh application, wh:ch perhaps they would hear
upon. its' merits. The appellant was a young gentleman, a
Gerinan, who some time ago e.tme to this country as a teacher
of languages. lie was a person of considerable position, and
of unexceptionable character. During the time he was teach-
ing he became well acquainted with gentlemen connected with
Liverpool, and amongst others with Mr. Naylor. The appel-
lant had a brother who had been 'engaged in different parts of
the world as a cook and the keeper of restaurants. Mr.
Naylor built a pile or buildings called "The Albany," and he
thought it des'rable there should be connected with it a cafe.
and restaurant ; and accordingly the building was laid out
with that view, and a license sought for by the appellant, to

whom Mr. Naylor had leased the building for three years, with
the understandlngthat a further lease for a like term would be
granted. The application for the license was made at the annual
licensing session, which applicat on was refused. He (Mr. Aspi-
, nail) must submit, on the part of the appellant that he stood upon
a very different footing to an applicant in an ordinary case for
a publican's license. Ile was a gentlemen who sought tp carry
on a trade which only became subject to those laws affecting
licenses as it, were. by .accident ; he was seeking to carry on a
trade which could not be conveniently carried on without he
had the power to sell spirituous liquors; so that a license be-
came rather an, incident to his trade than a basis or it. Mr.
Ochlhaffen was not a rich man, but by his good repute had
acquired an acquaintance with some of the principal tradesmen
of the town, some of whom were willing; upon the probabili-
ties of the chance of his obtaining
,a license, to give him all
%necessary credit to enable him to fit up his premises ;
and he (Mr. Aspinall) understood it would now be attempted
• ,to say that because he had not actually repaid some of these
- gentlemen he was not a fit person to have a license ; but unless
"r: his friend on the other side was prepared to say that no person
:unless he was a man of wealth should have a license, he did
l'',nat know how he would put this objection. Before sitting
• down he should, perhaps, further state that the house would
be closed at the time the business places in the building closed
on each day, and that it would not be opened on the Sunday.
Mr. Bolton said before the court could entertain jurisdiction
on this case, it must be shown that the appellant had been
regular in making his application before the licensing magis-
trates. The application was so utterly informal---so wanting
in the compliances of the act with reference to the notice
papers,' that the magistrates had no other option but to refuse it,
Mr. Aspinall contended that it must be taken for granted
.Ifthat the. magistrates were satisfied with the usual prelimina-
-iiies having been complied with.
.O =' Mr. Bolton said he trusted he should be allowed to show
-I:tila.t,.by reason of the irregularities existing before the licens-
g,lng magistrates, they (the borough magistrates) had not the
f power to grant the license.
f, Mr. Ochlhaffen then deposed to the facts as stated by Mr.
Aspinall ; said he had obtained credit on a large scale, on the
faith of being able to carry on the business, which he believed
would have proved a successful one ; and stated that the pre-
mises were admirably suited for the purposes for which they
10 were intended.
I In cross-examination, the appellant said he had expended
, between £3OO and £4OO upon the premises, but his liabilities
.10 were not to that amount, as he had a part of the money in pos-
a,, se!sion. lie had not heard anything whatever about the pre-
mises being sold for the heneflt of his creditors. He had
opened the premises from the middle of May to the beginning
- 'of September as a beerhouse, buring which time he had a
• ' pretty good •enstolii;' butthilnsei was contingent upon him being
enabled to sell' araetti. w
wt
he kept the house, he kept it
under the title 'Oa The
Mr. John "Siddall,. agent to Mr. Naylor,s
xtateid that the build-
ing called' The Albany" had east about
00,000, and that
the premises were in every way suited far• a restaurant, and
they had been let for that purpese.
Mr. George Chuck, joiner and cabinet-maker, and Mr. 'John
Bothwell COOper, ironmonger, two of the appellant's creditors
deposed to the suitability of the premises and the respectability'
of the applicant. •
Mr. J. it, Jeffery, one of the borough magistrates who pre_
sided at the time the refusal of the license wan made, deposed
that there was not any objection taken to the grant of the
license on the ground of the usual notices not having been
served. ,If his memory served him rightly, the question of
notice was not gone into at all.
,Nr, Bolton then pointed out that the requirements set forth
in the Act 9 Geo. IV., s. 5, c. ;10, relative to the notices, had
not been complied with; and that this was fatal to a license
being granted.. He wished to have the opinion pf the bench
upon this point first.
Mr. Aspinall said his friend had no right to go into
that point at ail, and this would be in accordance with the
practice pursued at the Salford Sessions. Undoubtedly the
refusal was not upon that ground, for Mr. Jeffery said the
matter was not mentioned at all. What was obviously intended
by the legislature was, that the justiees'should be satisfied that
the,
-*
. Proper notices .had been given, and then hear the applica
twee
n
; and what he apprehended the bench would say was, that
the magistrate, below having heard the application, dismissed
it on its merits;
and they could not now came, when an ap-
peal was made, and say, " Oh, we ought not to have heardthe
ease at all."
Mr. Bolton said the plan pursued of proving the notices after