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

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

SUNDAY TRADING—CAUTION TO LICENSED VIC-
TUALLERS.—Mrs. Caroline Merrington, 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, Btc., during the prohibited hours on Sunday,
Aug. 9, in company of Webb, 112 C,
h
defendant's house, and saw five persons eo watchedn inHenryg Dawson,
of
Sunday,the
301 A, said that about 11 o'clock on the
m
come out. He and his brother officer then entered tbe,
house with three other men and called for a pot of half and
half, and paid 6d. for it, being served by tho defendant.
One of the men called for a pot of halt and half, and paid
for it, as also did a man for a glass of ale.
Defendant said she did not remember being there at the
time, 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 fined the defendant 40s. and costs.

IMPORTANT TO LICENSED VICTUALLERS.-John Mattos,
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
misconducted himself and afterwards went into the house
in a quiet manner, was Mr, Thomson not b3und 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 perhaps 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
gu
itilwtyonfesas ainsydd heiso had
yucoot seen y.
conduct before
the

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 ho was not standing quietly
when Mr. Thomson told him to leave, and the witness
said defendant had hold of a post.
Mr, Wee. 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 servo 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. He
then told his doorkeeper to put the defendant out, and he
did so, but ho returned in 10 minutes and struck the man
in the face and tore his collar off. Why he reiused to serve
the defendant was because he wished to keep his house in
order.

rna vnt oet
him
A Defendantwconstable
ee asnaa
hi
oda
h%t.
ehi
netgnrnepka
proved
dAf
rI
ire.nTd
seeingah o
tomd
another
oinenont raheaeafliruntshaeeaddnuettafoeee
enter
s dei
the house, and afterwards seeing complainant
on the floor, the defendant being sober,
wDae
nf
oes noun,eds aBd
n n
gat
on
isaid
ghave i hen, a
f ow: s
t i
glass
f hs. asked b d
stoutom ys a
Thomson
.n
v Be
u friendoi dt
toldon
o g
his
toe ei
r friendnvt
eo hlr
nri
..
Thom
a
On going into the house the man told him to leave, and put
t
his hand on him; and then they had a struggle, and all his
(defendant's) clothes were torn. He
,(defendant) used to
take gentlemen to plaintiff's, and they paid for sherry and
champagne, and as be 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 his customers ; but if de-
fendant did,then he should call in the police. Ho did not think
Mr. Thomson acted legally towards the defendant in the fiat
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
fine the defendant 10s. If the defendant went to the houst,
again he should call for what he wanted, consume it quietly,
and then if any person put hands on him let him come to
the court and he could have a summons.
Defendant said he would never go to the house again.