The Sun.
London, England, 1863-08-21 00:00:00

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

SUNDAY TRADING.—CAUTION TO LICENSED VIC-
TUALLERS.—Mrs. Caroline !Herrington, of the White
Horse, Brook-mews, Grosvenor-square, appeared before
Mr. Knox to answer the complaints of Inspector Draper,
of the C Division, of keeping her house open for the sale
of beer, &c., during the prohibited hours on Sunday.
Henry Dawson, 301 A, said that about 11 o'clock on the
morning of Sunday, Aug. 9, in company of Webb, 112 C,
he watched the defendant's house, and saw five persons
come out. He and his brother officer then entered the
house with three other men and called for a pot of half and
half, and paid 6d. for it, being served by the defendant.
One of the men called for a pot of half and half, and paid
fur it, as also did a man for a glass of ale.
Defendant said she did not remember being there at the

imP, and she thought it must have been her niece.

Dawson said that one of the three men was about to light
his pipe, when the defendant said, "Don't smoke here, sir,
for the police are pretty sharp on to us, and will be here
directly, and will then say that we have been drinking and
smoking all the morning.
Mr. Knox fired the defendant 40s. and costs.

IMPORTANT TO LICENSED VICTUALLERS.—John Mattes,
a tall, dusky-complexio,,ed man, described as an Interpreter,
was charged, before Mr. Knox, with assaulting William
Bennett, potman to Mr. Thomson, licensed victualler, in
the Haymarket.

Mr. Edward Lewis, of Great Marlborough-street, ap.
peared for Mr. Thomson, and said that the defendant had
for about two years been refused to be served by Mr. Thom-
son, owing to his having misconducted himself, and finding
that to be the case he was in the habit of sending other
persons to the house to call for things, and then walking in
and taking up the articles in defiance of Mr. Thomson and
holding them up in an annoying and irritating manner, so
as to give great offence. On the previous night the defen-
dant rushed into the house, and on Mr. Thomson taking a
glass of stout away which had been called for by another
person, so that defendant should not have it, and telling his
potman to put the defendant out, he first having refused to
leave, the defendant assaulted the complainant.
Mr. Knox said that, supposing the defendant had once
mieconducted himself and afterwards went into the house
in a quiet manner, was Mr. Thomson not bound to serve
him ? If the defendant went into the house peaceably, was
the landlord to say, " You misconducted yourself on a former
occasion," and then to put him out. He (Mr. Knox) con-
sidered that Mr. Thomson had no right to do so.

Mr. Lewis said that perhars his worship would hear the
case. The defendant was in the habit of making use of bad
language and annoying Mr. Thomson's customers. All
Mr. Thomson wanted was peace and quietness.

Bennett said that he told the defendant to leave, and, on
his refusal, he put his hand upon him, and then the de-
fendant knocked him down. The defendant was then put
out, but returned and made a rush at him and knocked
him down, and while down struck him several times on the
head, hurting him a good deal.
In answer to Mr. Knox the witness said it was about
one o'clock when the defendant came back the second time,
and that he appeared to be sober.
Mr. Knox asked the witness whether defendant had been
guilty of any
disorderly conduct before he interfered, and
the witness said he had Rot seen any.

- -
In reply to Mr. Lewis, the witness said the marks in his
forehead were the results of the blows he received.
Defendant asked him whether he was not standing quietly
when Mr. Thomson told him to leave, and the witness
said defendant had hold of a post.
Mr. Wm. Thomson, of 46, Haymarket, said the defen-
dant came into his house about one that morning, he (Mr.
Thomson) for two years having refused to serve him, owing
to his bad conduct and bad language. He asked the de-
fendant why he came to his house to annoy him, at the
same time taking the glass off the counter which the man
had called for, so that defendant should not have it. lie
then told his doorkeeper to put the defendant out, and he
did so, but he returned in 10 minutes and struck the man
in the face and tore his collar off. Why he roused to serve
the defendant was because he wished to keep his house in
order.

Defendant said the reason Mr. Thomson refusedh to serve
him was because he took his friends to another
cuter into
se.
A constable having proved seeing defendant
complainant and defendant
et hne t house,h e
floor, antdh ae fdt after we
nadr
ad
hs
ts eheei
inngg
sober,
wTaheomnesoune'es
gaenidnithainv,efaergtlai
res.
"ThomsonwHo
Defendant said he was asked by a friend to go into. Mr.
s
stout
(defendant's) clothes were torn. He
take gentlemen to plaintiff's, and they p
his
eultdolndohitsserfvrleehindmi.
On going into the house the man told him to leave, and put
his hand on him; and then they had a struggle, and allt
a(didefefnerdaenhte)rurysedantod
champagne, and as he did not take them there now Mr.
Thomson was annoyed.
Mr. Knox said he believed the defendant had a perfect
right to go into Mr. Thomson's, and as long as be con-
conducted himself peaceably he had as good a right to go in
as anybody else. Mr. Thomson has no right to assume
that defendant is going to annoy hie customers ; but if de-
fendant did,then he should call in the police. He did not think
Mr. Thomson acted legally towards the defendant in the first
instance, and if the matter bad stopped there he should
have discharged the defendant,
as they had no right to lay
hands on the defendant, and Mr. Thomson and his potman
were wrong. For the second assault on the man he should
he
said e
t
fine the
p Itu t btheadnedfs n him
enodantwelentt
htoimthceohmoeutso
thehouse
again he should call for what he wanted, consume it quietly,
and
courtthen
Defendantif anyperson
and
would
oul haved
never
v summons.
er goo he house a

'gain.