The Sun.
London, England, 1839-10-05 00:00:00

Mr. HALL said, that had the agent opened the de-
fendant's shop in spite of him, and sold the goods in
open defiance to his directions, she might have been
charged with felony, which was not the case ; and it
was more natural to suppose that the female had acted
under his sanction directly or indirectly, which c arly
rendered him liable to the consequences. He should
therefore order him to pay a penalty of .ss. and costs.
Mr. Baily, proprietor of the Arundel Coffee-house,
St. Clement Danes Churchyard, was also summoned for
keeping open during the hours of divine service.
Mr. Mason said that the offence was committed in
the middle of church hours, and the defendant refused
to shut up his house.
The witness Edwards proved that he was served by
a lad with two cups of coffee, with bread and butter, for
which be paid 6d., and there were two other persons in
the room.
The defendant said that what be sold were the neces-
saries of life, and since the passing of the late Bill, as
young men could not be supplied with beer, they came
to his shop to get refreshment, which served them, and
which, if they were to be deprived of, they might be
said to be " shut out from the world—"
Mr. HALL-13y dying of starvation.
The defendant added, that he had several lodgers
who came in at all hours, and it would be very severe
to compel him to pay a penalty for supplying them with
necessaries.

Mr. HALL did not consider there was a case of ne-
cessity as the shop was actually open during Divine
Service, and the witness was not a lodger.
The defendant observed that when the Act was passed
there were no coffee-shops, and it could not apply to his
case.

Mr. HALL was of a different opinion and inflicted
a penalty of .ss. and costs.
Mr. Saml. Brandon, tobacconist in the Strand, also
appeared to answer a similar complaint, to which he
pleaded " not guilty."
Edwards proved that at seven o'clock in the evening
of Sunday he purchased an ounce of tobacco from a
person in the shop, whom he believed to be the de-
fendant.
The beadle stated that he did not enter the shop,
but to the best of his knowledge the article was served
by the defendant, and he knew that Mr. Brandon, jun.,
was very like the defendant.
Mr. Ronald scontended that there was no evidence of
the defendant having followed his worldly calling on
the day in question.
Mr. HALL--Call your witness to show that the to-
bacco was not sold in his shop.
Mr. Ronalds—Why, indeed, Sir, you have already
closed my mouth so effectually respecting agent and
principal, I think there is no necessity.
Mr. HALL—Then the defendant must pay 55., and
costs.

Mr. Wingrove, another tobacconist of Boswell-court,
was also summoned.
Edwards proved that he did not see the defendant,
nor did he know that the shop belonged to him,
and there was no person with him who saw the offence
committed.
Mr. HALL—If that's all you know of the matter,
the case is dismissed.
Mr. Nicholas, who pleaded guilty to a similar offence
committed on the same day, was also fined ss. and costs.
Mr. Wm. White, tobacconist, of the Strand, pleaded
Not Guilty to a like complaint.
Edwards said that he did not know the number of
the defendant's house, and it was half-past seven o'clock
i❑ the evening when he visited it. The beadle was
with him, and he bought a quarter ounce of tobacco
over the counter from a female.
Terry, the beadle, proved that the defendant owned
the shop, and on the Friday previous he had cautioned
him not to keep open on Sundays.
The defendant considered it a great hardship that
people could go to the public-house to smoke and drink
after service was over ; and he thought he would not
come within the meaning of the Act if he kept shut
until a late hour.
Mr. HALL—YOU seem anxious to do what is right as
far as you can, and as Mr. Mason had a very arduous
duty to perform, if he does not press the complaint will
you promise not to repeat the offence ?
The defendant said it was very hard on him, as his
customers had to go only a few yards into the parish of
St. Martin's, where they could be served.
Mr. HALL—I see plainly there is no use in making
a distinction, and you must also pay ss. and costs.
The churchwardens of St. Mary-le-Strand were in
attendance to prefer complaints against some small
shopkeepers, but as they promised not to transgress in
future the cases were withdrawn.
John Evans, jun., a baker of Bedfordbury, was
summoned by Joseph Field another baker of Chandos-
street, for unlawfully delivering to his customers a
piece of beef and potatoes, a piece of pork and pota-
toes, and a baked goose, on Sunday after the time
allowed by law.
Mr. Allan, proprietor of the Cock and Bottle public-
house, Bedfordbury, having got into the witness box,
said be was entirely ignorant of the business he was
summoned to prove.
The informer, who is in the service of Mr. Baines,
a baker, in Chandos•street, asked him at what time he
brought his dinner from the defendant's house on Sunday
lest ? Witness said at two minutes before halt:past one
o'clock, and he was positive as to the hour, as he was
told he could not get it if he delayed longer than the
half hour.
Another journeyman, in the service of Mr. Baines,
proved that he saw bakings leave the defendant's after
the half hour.
Mr. HALL—What clock did you look at ? •
Witness—Before I left my master's house it had
gone the half hour.
In answer to the defendant, witness said he saw the
goose and pork leave before Mr. Allen took his dish
away.
A third servant of Mr. Baines swore that seeing five
or six persons standing at the defendant's door, he went
up, thinking they had lost a dish, and it was then ex-
actly the half hour.
Mr. HALL—Your first was no service to you, and
I cannot convict upon such frivolous evidence as the
other witnesses have given, the complaint is therefore
dismissed.