The Sun.
London, England, 1864-10-06 00:00:00

BOW STREET.

SELLING WINE WITHOUT A LimiNsE.—Blase Rosetti,
a wine merchant, carrying on business at bl, King-street,
Regent-street, appeared to a summons charging him with
selling wine without a license.
Mr Dwelly, the solicitor to the Excise, said Mr Rosetti
formerly took out a license for selling wine, which he
allowed to expire, and, notwithstanding that fact, he con-
tinued to sell without having renewed his license to do so.
An officer of the Excise entered Mr Rosotti's shop soon after
his license had expired, and purchased a bottle of claret, and,
having paid for it, he asked Mr Rosetti if he had a license.
Mr Rosetti said he had had one, but he had not yet renewed
it. The officer advised him at once to take out the license,
which he did, but the present proceedings were instituted
for the recovery of the penalty that had been incurred by
Mr Rosetti, by selling wine between the expiration and the
renewal of his license. The Board had consented to accept
103., instead of the full penalty; but Mr Rosetti, he be-
lieved, objected to this, b:lit ving he was justified in so
doing, . . . . . .

Mr Rosetti said, when the officer told him to take out
his license he said no proceedings would be taken against
him, He accordingly paid for a renewal of the license, yet
he had been summoned to this court for the recovery of a
penalty. He did not think the Excise ought to have taken
any proceedings against him.
Mr Henry—You are summoned for the fins you have
incurred by selling wine during the time you had no license.
The money you have paid is to enable you to sell for the

'uture.

Mr Rosetti—Tbe cfficer toll me if I took out the license
directly, I should not be proceeded against,
Mr Dwelly said the Board of Exchequer had intimated
that if Mr Rosetti would pay lOs all proceedings should be
stayed.

Mr Rosetti—That's all very well; but I d ,n't see that I
ought to pay the 10e at all.
Mr Henry—What is the amount of fine for selling wino
without a license ?
Mr Dwells--£2O.

Mr Henry—l think, Mr Rocetti, you are very fortunate.
If you don't accept the cffer, I shall have to hear the case,
and, if proved, fine you £2O. I think you had better pay
the 10a instead of finding fault.

Mr Rosetti—Well, sir, if you think it is right I will pay
he money.

Mr Henry—lf you ask me, I don't think it is quite right.
I think that if the case is proceeded with I shall have to
fine you £2O. You had better pay the money instead of
finding fault. _ _

Mr D welly said the board had determined not to entree
the full penalty if the fine of 108. was paid. If that was
agreed to by Mr Rosetti, the information upon which the
summons was issued would be withdrawn.

Ultimately Mr Rosetti paid the 108. and retired.

MARLBOROUGII-STREET.

OMNIBUS HORSES.—Edward Miller, a foreman in the
employ of the London General Omnibus Company, ap-
peared before Mr. Tyrwhitt to answer the complaint of the
Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, of
unlawfully causing and procuring to be cruelly ill-treated
and tortured, two horses.
Mr. Beard appeared for the defendant on the part of ths
company.

The horses, when brought to the front of the court for
the inspection of the magistrate, were in a very bad condi-
dition.

The evidence of Rutherford, one of the Society's officers,
as to the condition of the horses, baying been read over,
Rutherford said, in answer to Mr Beard, that he saw the
defendant the following day, and he told him that the
horses had been condemned, and ought not to have been
s3nt out. Ho never had to find fault with the horses under
the defendant's charge before.
Turner, the driver of the horses, was called, and he said
that when the horses were brought to the starting place be
complained to the old man who brought them of their condi-
dition, but as the place was half a mile from the stable he
was obliged to go with the horses, having no opportunity
of changing them. The man, wh) was only on for the day,
said he could not help it.

In reply to Mr Beard, the witness said the horses had
been stopped in their work to be inspected, as to whether
they were fit for work any more or not.
Mr Beard said it was to be regretted the horses were
brought out, but it was from inadvertence and not inten •
tion. The defendant had been forty years in charge of
horses, and never complained of before. He hoped, as the
defendant was no party to their being worked, the complaint
would be dismissed; at the same time he (Mr Beard) would
a imit the horses were unfit for work.

The old man was called, and said it was through his
mistake the horses were brought out.

Mr Tyrw, hitt, in dismissing the complaint, said he was
not at all sorry the defendant had been summoned, as it
had been the means of an explanation being given, He
was determined to put an end to the misery infl cted upon
the poor things if possible,

Mr Beard said the horses had been destroyed.
Rutherford stated that that was the case.
WHERE ARE VAGRANT GTRLS TO BE SENT F—A little
girl, named Mary Meriority, wearing an apology for a dress,
without covering to her head or shoes to her feet, was
charged before Mr Tyrwhitt with begging in Regent-
street.

The case having been proved by Emit Putsch, 339 A,
Mr Tyrwhitt asked the child who sent her out.
The child said she was sent out by her mother, who lived
in Ship-yard, in the Strand.
Mr Tyrwhitt said a good deal had been said by some
persons as to the magistrates at the police-courts not doing
their duty and sending these poor girls to institutions and
reformatories ; but in spite of Mr Sydney Turner's report
to Parliament, there was scarcely a place where they could
be sent to without a sum of money or annuity was paid for
them. Ile should discharge the poor child, there being
more fault attaching to the mother than to her, but at the
same time he would caution her not to go begging again.