The National Register.
London, England, 1822-03-03 00:00:00

ANOTHER DEFEAT OF TILE BRI DG E-ST It EET ASSOCIA

TION.—THE KING U. DOLBY.
Iu consequence of this case being fixed for this day,
the Court was crowded to excess, at an early hour, bin
only Iwo Spec:al Jurymen were in attendance, viz.
Win. Fisher, l q. and Win. Kitnher, Esq. ; the panuel
being, called over, several persons, whose names d.d not
appear on the pond, stood up, and stated they had
Li.-en mummified. The Chief Justice requested they
would wait.
Mr. Scarlett said, he could very well see the contriv-
ance, lil3t a number of persons had been summoned to
supply the places of those who did not appear; he
should, however, contend, that tie Act w telt gave such
power to au officer, viz. 35 Henry V 111. cap. 6, only
applied to criminal cases, that of Philip and Mary, en-
forced the Sallie law.
Mt. Evans suppoiteil the same line of argument.
The Coroner was then preparing to call over the
Haines of the Jurors he bad su tttttt ed, to supply any
deficiency that should arise in the non-attendauce of the
Jurors, when 11 r. Scarlett objected. the practice, he
said, of selecting Jurors by de tale. circunietantibus, was
always dime instanter, and not that they should be or-
dered to attend, as in that case. The lo 111 l itog of a Jury
was quite in the power o. an Officer, as he "night take
care to strike at the Crown Office such a Jury as he
knew would not attend, and order those to attend in
Court whoa' lie might contrive to select without con-
troul. lit support of his objeetiou Mr. Scarlet' cued
Hawkins's Pleas, and various authorities, together with

the two Acts before referred to.
Mr. Evans also cited caws frum many of the books,
all of whicii supported Mr. Scarlett's objectiou ; he also
referred to the -itlt and b:h of Pinlip dud Mary, which
supported the saute principle.
file Chief Justice said, it was true that there were a.
riuus writers upon the subject, hut that they had follow
ed each other; but the first of them had not ti.ken the
clearest tiew of the suhjeet—at least that was his upj.
mune
Auer a few words from Mr. Gurney and Mr.Tyndal,
on behalf of tie prosecution, the Chief Justice con-
sidered the olijectitoi could nut be sustained. Ile then
.read flow an old umuuscrie Or IMO; as follows :"•""

" Coroner, l desire you will cause a sufficient
•number of able persons to attend, to supply any defi-
ciency that may arise in the pannels.'
The Coroner (Mr. Strlitg) was proceeding, when
Mr. Scarlett submitted, that there was only one Co-
roner in attendance—there ought to have been two.—
(A laugh.)—The Learned Gentleman produced several
authorities to that effect. Mr. Gurney was not prepay-
, ed to answer, and the Chief Justice held it to be good.
Murray (the Attorney) went tip to Mr. Gude, the 13e-
puty Coroner, and having had some conversation with
him, an apilieution was made ffir the case to stand over
a short time, until the arrival of J 1 r. Litwin, the other
Coroner. The Court would not, however, agree to this,
and the trial was postponed.
Alter the (It eision of the Lord Chief Justice, Mr.
Scailett cliered to :11r. Curney to wave all objections
and proceed to trial, provided he would sutler the tabs-
men to be taken, as in ordinary cases, hoot the panel of
jurors appointed to try the tidier caries .111.1 e pillft.'l",
stead of calling the persons returned by the coroner ; but
this offer was rtjecnd !
The Chief Justice ordered the Special Jurors that
were list in attendance to be fined 51. each.
WEDNESDAY, FED.
litibre a Special .1 ary.)

THE KING V. Slit N. CONANT, COLLINS, AND MILLS.
This was an indictment against Sir N. Omani, Mr.
Collins, and :Mr. Mills, dove of the Justices of the
county of Middlesex, lin- iitilawfully conspiring to refuse
to grant a licence to /MIL'S Meek, a publican.
Tile first count, after stating that James Meek, the
prosecutor, kept a public-house, and had a licence granted
to him on a lormer occasion, alleged, that the defendants
conspired together, and refused to renew the said licence
at the sessions in 1816, and also prevented such licence
from beiug at any titne after granred, for and on the
account of the said James Meek having ceased to buy
and purchase beer front Mt ssrs. Menx and Cu. brewers.
Another count alleged, thit the said justices, not rPgard-
ing their duty, did, maliciously, and without reasonable
cause, refuse the said Meek his licence, hoot gross par-
tiality to persons carrying on the trade of brewers. I'he
last count did not charge theta with conspiracy, and
either of the defendanta might have been found guilty
upon it according to the circumstancts. On the con-
spiracy count less than two could not have been found
guilty.
Mr. Scarlet' detailed the features of this case.—Mr.
Meek purchased a publiclionse iii St. Joint-street, in
181.1, and expended a large sum upon improvements.—
It had bier licensed as a puttlie-home many years;
he enlarged the tap.room, and increased the draught
from tive to ten butts. !le dealt with Meux and Co. for
beer, but left them for Barclay aud Poi:ins. On the 3,1
of September, 1816, he attended the Justices, and ap-
plied for a renewal of his licence. Ile was told hit Case,
with others, was to be considered nit the 18th. On
that day he went into the Justices' room, and saw Mr.
Seller and Mr. Cuticrell. One magistrate asked hum
which brewer lie dealt with. Ile told him Barclay and
Perkins. Alter he left the room the high constable told
hint his licence was refused. He renewed his application
in the years 1817, 1818, and 1819, and still his licence
was withheld, without assigning any cause. Sir N.
Conant, when requested to give a reason, refused, saying,
it would be improper to declare the reason magistrates
had for r. fusing, licences. Other publicans in the same
neighbourhood had their licences suspended, but had
them renewed again. One of the name of Dell, who
had left Metsx and Co. had his licence renewed by the
inHueuee, as it was alkged,, of Mr. %Vivant, one of the
Howe of Meux, Reid, and Co. This favour was retleiyed
iu consequence of Dell's consent to take beer again of
Nleox and Co.
Mr. Scarlet' called witnesses to his case.
Mr. Mullah, clerk to Meux, Reid, and CO. stated that
he was tuid by his employers that Meek would fall a
sacrifice, and Barclay and Perkins be taught out to in-
terfere in their trade.
The Solicitor General, for the defendants, contended
that the magistrates had dune no inure than their duty,
and he called the following witnesses :
Mr. Wigram said he was a partner in the house of
Reid and Co. He went to the sessions' house in the
year 1817, to speak to Sir N. Conant, in behalf of a nun
who had lived with him three years and a hall as coach-
man. lie understood the WWI applied fur a licence or
a public house. 'lna witness stated what he knew of
the man's character. He had seen Sir N. Conant not
wore than live times prevassaly. Ile did out allude at
that tittle to the case of Meek. He knew nuthiog about
Dell.
Cross-examined by Mr. Searlett.—He said he went
iu consequence of the stion's licence b.ing suspended.—
He knew none of the other magistrates except Mr.
Collins, who was known to his partner, Mr Reid
Ile did not recollect that \leek had ceased to deal with
116 house, lie had never tunnel a restnotion to make
an example of Meek, as a lesson to teach Barclay and
Co. never to itstcrteie with his trade ; had never said be
formed that resolution. Ilad no recollection of Iltall.sit,
his SePV:1811, having reported to him that Meek refused ti
return to the house. lie could not answer particularly
whether his business laid most in the !limitary division.
It was most !triage's die east and west of the town.
Mr. Richards, Clerk of the Peace for the County of
Middlesex, stated, that Clark, a constable, told the
mtgistrates that Meek's was one of those houses so fitted
up that there were two entrances, and that the trade
was carried on by Meek and anudter Certain resolu-
tions were agreed upon by the magistrates in sessions to
restrain the licences of such houses.
Cross examined by Mr. Deurnan.—He said the reso-
lotions which drew the attention of the magistrates to
Luis subject were printed, the witness produced the
copy. Mr. Chafe made a charge about Mr. Meek's
Matte, and, in the course of inquiry, it came out lie
aid not state the tap-room was capable of containing b 0
people. Mr. Hill was there. It was stated that the
trade had been carried on by two persons. The witness
produced the pint Vk ith the names of the 18 home's

al=

refused licences; he had no book with the transcript of
the statement respecting these houses. It was not a
matter of Inquiry among the magistrates, that if one li-
cence was to he discontinued, which it would be proper
to suspend. On the 3d of September, Mr. Seller and
Mr. Cotterell were requested to go and look at the pre-
mises. lie was present on the 18th, in the year NIG,
during the whole of the meeting. lie heard Mr. Seller
and Mr. Couirell make their report respecting the stile
of the house. They stated, that his tap-room was large
and commodious. lie did not recollect that he said the
man who managed the tap-room had been discharged-
He did not recollect they said the machine for drawing
the beer was removed into the liquor shop. They stated
that Mr. Meek was ready to make any alteration in the
premises the magistrates required. He did not know
they said he was the most respectable publican in the
parish, but they said something to that effect. After this
discussion, and before Ike skew of hands, Mr. Meek was
called in. He was not asked about the man who had
the care of the tap-room. lie was not required to make
any alterationi in the premises. Witness did not know
whether lie uttered to produce his brewer's and distiller's
books. oikred to prove his trade in spirits was less
titan in beer. Sir N. Conant left the room after the
discussion.
The petition of Mr. Meek, of the Green Man, St.
John's-lane, hr the renewal of his licence' was read.—
The petitioner stated the circumstances under which he
bad tarried on his business. lie stated that his licence
hail been withheld without assigning any cause. lie
attlibuted this to some misunderstanding, and expressed
a hope that an invest:oMo might take place. Ile prayed
at the satin.' time to have his licence ri.newed.
Several housekeepers, and the Minister of the parish,
certified Mr. Meek to he a person who had always con-
ducted his house properly.
Mr. Ilullah was then called back, and being again
questioned by Mr. Sea Hen, he said Mr. Wigrant told
him that Barclay's people would repent interfering with
their trade.
Re-examined by the Solicitor-General.—He said he
did not leave W 'grim and Co. under a charge of defi-
ciency in his accounts. He did nut Inhere Mr. Wigram
dismissed him. He did as sonic great men do—he re-
signed. There was a deficiency in his accounts of 36!.,
but he had a balance to receive when he left them. Mr.
Wigram insinuated something he did nut like, and he
gave tip his book to Mr. Lucas.
Mr. ‘Vigrani called agaiii, said, he could not recollect
that he dismissed Mr. Ilultalt, but lie remembered say-
ing he should not collect for them any more.
The Solicitor General addressed the Jury on the evi-
dence of Mr. Hullah. It was for them to decide between
the statements of Mr. Hullah and Mr. Wigrant, recol-
lecting that the first was a discarded servant.
Mr. Scarlet, in reply, expressed sonic surprise that
Mr. Lucas had not been called to contradict Hullah.
Lucas had a conversation with Hullah, and he could
have proved what that conversation was. The principal
charge against the magistrates was, that they conspired
ss ith certain brewers to deprive Mr. Meek of his licence.
It turned out that a brewer might go down to a magis-
trate' and recommend him to grant a licence.
'['lira Lord Chief Justice summed up the evidence, and
told the Jury, that nothing but proof of corrupt motive
on the part of the magistrates ought to induce them to
find the defendants guilty.
At eleven o'clock the Jury returned, when they deli-
vered a verdict of Guilty upon the last count against the
defendams.—The trial lasted eleven hours.

FRIDAY, MARCH 1.
STEED V. WHITCHURCH AND OTHERS.

This was an action brought by the assignees of a
bankrupt, named Rood, against the defendants, who
are large brewers at Salisbury, to recover property to a
large amount which they he had received from the bank-
rupt, with a knowledge of his insolvency, and whilst
he was in contemplation of bankruptcy. It appeared
that Rood, who lived in Iligh-street, Portsmouth, spe-
culated extensively in public houses. lie was proprietor
of a number of houses, and the defendant having sup.
Rood
beer, took mortgages upon nearly all the property
Rood became a bankrupt in 1820, ane the assignees
baring reason to believe an undue preference had
given to defendants, and that they knew Rood was ad-
vancing rapidly to bankruptcy when they took his mort-
gages, brought the present actum.
A number of letters which passed between Rood and
the defendants were put in and read in support of the
case. It appeared from this correspondence, which
biassed Jong before the bankruptcy, that Rood was not
punctual in his payments, and frequently in a state of
emliarraisinetit. It also appeared that the assignees
could nut collect property enough to work the Commis-
sion, the al fairs of the bankrupt having been so despe.
rate.

After the cause had proceeded some kngth, the par-
ties agreed to settle the question. Tue plaintiff:: were
allowed a cer.nct for 20,0001. damages, and the d .fend-
ants were not to give up the mortgages.—file Jury ac-
cordingly gave a verdict for 20,0001.