The Sun.
London, England, 1839-11-08 00:00:00

CARLTON V. BEECHER.

This was an action against Captain Beecher, cele-
brated in the sporting world as the famous steeple-chase
rider, for driving over the plaintiff, a journeyman i.rick-
layer, in Bridge-street, Westminster, on the night of
Sunday, the 24th March last.
It appeared from the evidence of the witnesses,
which, as is usual in cases of this kind, was exceedingly
contradictory, that the plaintiff was returning home
with his wife and some other relations, between nine
and ten o'clock on the night in question, and was in the
act of crossing Bridge-street, at the corner of Parliament-
street, when he was thrown over by the defendant's horse,
which the defendant was driving in a gig at a moderate
pace. The great question between the witnesses was,
whether the defendant had turned the corner sharply or
made a sufficient sweep, and on this the diversity of
testimony was striking. The plaintiff was taken to the
shop of Mr.- M'Cann, the surgeon, immediately after
the accident, and it then appeared that the injury he
had received was exceedingly slight ; but he afterwards
complained of a stiffness in the joints of his arm, which
prevented him from using his trowel and employing
himself in his trade.
The Learned BARON left it to the Jury to say whe-
ther the defendant was guilty of any negligence
; and,
if so, to give reasonable damages.
Vcrii + for .Ins plaintiff—D ,rnPgs's 80/.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

MANSION-HOUSE.
A casi 17hich caused some interest amongst public-
house, hotel, and heer.shopkeepers, came on before the

Lord Mayor and Alderman Pirie,
Owen Owen, who was de,crihed as an eating-house,
coffee-shop, beer-shop, and hotel-keeper, in Lower
'Thames-street, was summoned for having opened his
door to persons after ten o'clock on Sunday night.
John Wingrove, policeman No. 185, stated that at
half-past eleven o'clock on Sunday night he saw the de-
fendant let persons into his house. Afterwards a man
and his wife and three children applied for admission,
but were refused, the defendant stating that he could
not let them have anything to drink. Witness went
into the house and saw persons there, and cups and
saucers.
Cross-examined by Mr. Branwell, the barrister, who
appeared for the defendant.—The house was not like
an ordinary beer-shop ;it was a very extensive house,
and supplied passengers by the Hull steamers with
beds, and tea and coffee. He had seen it closed at 10
o'clock on the same night, and all the lights were put
out, and it was a most respectable house, of which he
had never heard any complaint.
James Patterson, policeman, No. 356, stated that he
went into the house on the occasion alluded to, and saw
several men and women and children there. They
were in two parlours, and there was no sign of beer
having been drunk in either. The door had been
opened to the knock of a man and woman, who had
children with them, and they were refused to be served.
There was no difficulty opposed to the entrance of the
police. The house, which was very respectable, ap-
peared to be as much lighted up at the time stated as
at the hours of business.
Wingrove, the policeman, stated that at ten o'clock
all was dark within the house, but the Hull boat having
come in, the passengers went up to the house from her,
and the defendant got up to let them in.
Inspector Brake stated, that having been informed
that the Hull steam-boat had arrived with passengers,
nine of whom had gone into the defendant's house, he
directed the policeman to go in and report to him.
He had advised the defendant not to let parties in after
en o'clock, as the house was a beer-shop.
The LORD MAYOR—Have you had any complaints
hat the house was opened after ten o'clock at night ?

Inspector--Repeatedly.
The LORD MAYOR—What was the nature of the
complaint ? Inspector—Nothing more than keeping
open to the detriment of his brother publicans. Complaints
were made to me by my own officers in the discharge
of their duty, and his house is as much a beer-house as
is any other beer-house.
Mr. Branwell said that there was no pretence for

saying that beer was sold at the time.
The LORD MAYOR—That is nothing to the pur-
pose—lt is not necessary to prove the sale of beer in
order to convict. If that were the case the Act of
Parliament would be a dead letter. The Act says
that the house must not be opened. The fact of
having it open is adequate evidence of the intention
to sell beer. A party the other day was proved to have
given beer out after the hour of closing had arrived, and
his excuse was that he had received no money for it, but
he got the money on Monday morning. Now if such
excuses are permitted the Act is nothing but a dead
letter. I shall put the straightforward construction
upon the Act if I find the door open, whether the sale
be proved or not.
Mr. Branwell said that his client sold coffee or tea at
the hour stated, but not beer.
The LORD MAYOR—Do you mean to say that he can
keep open the house in which he sells beer at a later
hour for the sale of tea or coffee? Mr. Branwell—l
do, most certainly. You may keep open a coffee-shop
eating-house, or oyster-shop, after ten o'clock, provided
you do not sell beer.
The LORD MAYOR Then the Act is good for
nothing.
Maria Yarrow, barwoman to the defendant for nine
years, stated that a great many customers came to the
house from the Hull packets at late hours. On ttiC
night in question several persons came from the packets.
The inmates had all retired to bed at ten o'clock, be-
fore which the door was closed, and at half-past eleven
they got up to let in the passengers, who wanted beer,
but were refused to be served. They complained of fa-
tigue, and were served with coffee. Witness had locked
the beer machine, and not a drop had been drawn after
ten o'clock until after six in the morning.
After some other evidence, in proof that no beer had
been served, the LORD MAYOR dismissed the case, ob-
serving that Mr. Branwell had certainly made out a very
strong case. He cautioned beer-shop keepers, how-
ever, to attend to the Act strictly.