Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1859-09-30 00:00:00

•
received a letter from Mr. fielshaw,-stating that he had LIVERPOOL POLICE COURT.—YESTERDAT
carried out the instructions of the committee.
Mr. BAYNES asked if any coatraet had been entered
into with the parties who are now doing the work, and
on receiving a negative reply, he moved that tenders be
advertised for to complete the building.
On the amendment being put; it was lost ; and the
proteedines of the committee were confirmed

gave"notice- of a motion for the next meet-
ing, to the following effect. That he Shoula bring
before the board the subject of a letter which
appeared in a Liverpool paper of the 29th instant, and
signed " Edward Heath, relieving officer."
This concluded the businesi.

[Before Mr. MANSFIELD.]

T'A'E LIME-STREET HABITUEES.—A number of young
denizens of Lime-street, and the adjoining localities, were
lined in 40s. and costs, for creating a disturbance.
AN ALAanINo SMAsn.—J. Finn was charged with. breaking a
square of glass in Searle'S public-house, Raymond-street,.
corner of Vauxhall-road, value 518. It appeared that the
prisoner came to the house about ten minutes gust twelve on
Wednesday morning ; knocked at the door, and asked for a
pint of ale. It was not served to hint, and he began kicking
at the doors and nearly knocked the pannels in: The barman,_
opened the door and desired the prisoner to go away, but he
refused ; and the former locked the door and went to bed.. He
had no sooner got into bed than he heard a great smash ; and
on going into the bar, he found that a large pane of glass-- •
eight-feet square--- and valved at ZlB, had been broken. He
did not see the prisoner do it, but he was sure it was done by him.
Mr. Bluck, Who- appeared ftir the prisoner said that, as the
value of the,glasslwas ZlB-, his Worship had no jurisdiction;
and even if he had, there was no evidence to show that it waS
the prisoner who broke the glass. The- prisoner was dis-
charged.
___ •

r „
STEALING SPIRITS BY A , WAREHOUSEMAN.-- WM: Phillips,
a warehouseman, in the employ of Mr. Hulton, 'wine and
spirit merchant, Redeross-street, was charged with stealing
a quantity of spirits, the .property of his employer.
Detective-officer Scaife stated 'that from information re-
ceived he and two other detective-officers watched the prisoner
come out of the office of Mr. Iltiltog ; they followed him,
and told him that he was accused of robbing his employer of
quantity of spirits. He replied that he had none about him,
When Scaife told him they were about to search his house, he
admitted having a small quantity of rum, but &aid, that he had
it from the bonded stores. Detective-officer Rigby said he had.
searched the prisoner's house, and found a bottle of rum, and
three bottles of brandy. The spirits were brought to the
Central Police-office, and the prisoner was taken into the same
room where the spirits were placed. He asked for a drink of
water, and, while Rigby was procuring it, he smashed
the bottles. 'When asked why he had ' done so, he
said, " I thought I'd prevent a lot of you fellows from gettiq

drutik and so I broke the bottles." Mr. Hutton said the
pri-
soner had been in his employment as warehouseman for nine
years. He had no authority to carry Anything away from the
place. Mr Mansfield committed the prisoner for trial. He was,
on application by Mr. Cobb, admitted to bail in two sureties of
£25 ealh.
ROBBERY OF A TILL BY A SSOPMAN.•--Robert Fraser, shop-
mnn to Mr. Aletson, tallow chandler; Great George's-place, wo s
charged with robbing thetill of his employer. Detective-officer
Patrick stated that; from information he had received, he marked
a number of shillings, and sent in two persons to purchase goods.
They paid in the marked money, but on the till beiag searched
several of the shillings were missed. Patrick apprehended
him, and on searching him found 19s. Gd., of which six shillings
were marked. The prisoner was sentenced to three months.
imprisonment, . .

CHARGE OF Elierzzi.EmeNT.---William Dickin,on, collector
and traveller to-Mr. Aleteton, prosecutor, in the former cast
_ .

was charged with embezzling 'nearly £3O, the property of his.
employer. Various accounts. which were not entered in the
books, were proved to have been paid, and Dickinson Was
'committed for trial.

(Before MOSSTS. HOUGHTON, GRANT, HOLIIE, BOLTON, and

ANDERSON.).

RENEWED APPLICATION FORA- THEATRICAL LICENSE FOP.
"THE NIGHTINGALE" MUSIC SALOON.---MT. Clarke Aspinallr
solicitor, instructed by Mr. Jacob Walter, licensing agent,
appeared before the court to renew an application for the
granting of a license for the-performance of stage-plays, to Mr.
Daniel Lowry, proprietor of " the Nightingale" Music
Saloon, Bevington Bush. Mr. Aspinall said that this
was "the third time of asking" for a license for the per-

for manse of stage. plays at -.this establishment. Having
referred to the circumstances under which the previous
applications had been adjourned, he said it was necessary that
he should commence de Novo. He then proceeded to state that
he made the application under the provisions of the 6th and
7th Victoria, chap 58, and he remarked that opposition to the
granting of a license of this kind was not usual. Mr. Loci"
had conducted the establishment tothe satisfaction of the resl---
dents in the neighbourhood, and, he might also add, to the
satisfaction of the police, who were net so easy to please. The
learned gentleman, in the course" of a very lengthy speech,
contended that, under the terms of the act of parliament, the
had no power to refuse the license providing
that he showed; on the part of the applicant, that the latter
intended to comply with the required conditions. One
of the magistrates had stated, on . a former occasion,
that the premises were not large enough, and that, on
that ground, they were justified in witholding the license ; bu
he was prepared with evidence to prove that, in that respect'
there could be •no objection to the granting of the license.
Referring to the individual feeling of the different members °I
the bench., as to the moral character of theatres, he reminded
them that, under the terms of the act' of parliament, they'
could not allow feeling to interfere with their duty, and that,
other requirements satisfactory, they had no alternative bat-
to grant-fhe license. He. Might mention that the Queen sr3s
in the habit of frequenting theatres, and it was not likely that
she would do so if they were the wicked places which sell
parties asserted: - Then, again, it had been urge
that the neighbourhood was not respectable; but he did not,.
think there was any force in the argument, for he did no
'believe that there was a greater sink of iniquity in any part °
Liverpool than Williamson-square, in which the Theatre
bey
for
alas situated. Mr. Lowry, therefore, was not responr.L-
the character of the neighbourhood. Tie was in hiinsell
respectable, from the, manner in which .he conducted la?
establishment, and could in no manner be held accountable
for the ,character of the neighbourhabd. He would reinin
the bench that thei did not sit in that court to legit
but only to adjudicate on any case coming before _....
under an existing law. And he would say, further, that ecv,
should they be under• the impression that they would be oz
ferring a benefit dn" her Majesty's subjects by. refusing to,
license, they would not be justified in doing so in violation (~
the law of the land. There was another reason why the benTil
ought to grant the license; and that was, that, whereas at-
present Mr, Lowry was not under the supervision of the
he would be so in the event of the license being
granted. As he had already said to the bench, he came there
for the third time to ask for the license, and he really did not
think that the bench would refuse it.--Mr. Alderman 1101°,..e.
wished to correct one observation which had been made by
Aspinall. When the application first came before the bene.:,
there were not a sufficient number of magistrates preseill';
and consequently it was not possible to grant the licen,;e.
---Mr. Daniel Lowry was ,then called, and examined by 31-1:.
Aspinall. He said he hgd pccupied the preMises for more Ow;
two years. The building would hOld 1,400 people standing, n°-:
700 could comfortably sit dawn there. He produced a mein,
rial in fa'-our of granting the license, signed by the inhabitan'.
of the districtrand stated that they were all genuine signatuqsyt
they included the name of the master of the North Corporatl°,,,
Schools.;-.-Mr,. Alderman Holme inquired whose hand-writ
head of the memorial was in ?--Mr. Aspinall did not tlin.„
that was a proper question, and' if the magistrate wanted;'.
answerito it, he had better ask the question himself.--
Holmq said he asked the question because it apPea'"4
to him to have been .written by some official cmPl°:....
in that: building, and, if so, it was highly improPcr.,ai
Mr. Aspinall observed -that there was no desire to. °Mete-.
that fact. The memorial was written by Mr. Jacob W°`.,, tT9
--Mr. Wybergh, magistrates' clerk, said it was-necessar.
explain that Mr. Walters-was-a' licensing agent, and he VOO

iad drawn up the doeum,
r--Inspectors Reed, Handeoe
and deiScraed to the ex

- E
•-lir. SuP

s of Opinivn tliat the place w
next ex

3y M. As;

ei,et,be

In his jiii