The Sun.
London, England, 1839-09-09 00:00:00

BOW- STREET,

MORE CONVICTIONS UNDER THE MF.TkO/OLITAN POLICE
Acr. —Mr. William Carpenter Evans, the owner of the
Grand Hotel, Covent-garden, attended before Mr. Hall,
the new Chief Magistrate at this office, to answer to a
complaint laid by the police, which charged him with keep-
ing open his house far the sale of spirits on Sunday, the Ist
September, before the hour of one o'clock at noon, con-
trary to the provisions of the new Metropolis Police Act.
Mr. Mosely, a solicitor, appeared on behalf of the de-
fendant.

Mullins, an inspector of police, stated that on Sunday
morning last, at one o'clock, he went into the house of the
defendant, and on entering the supp(r room, he found
about fifty persons there, smoking, eating, and drinking.
This being the whole of the case in support of the in-
formation, Mr. Mosely objected that the case was not
within the terms of the Act, which, he submitted, in pro-
viding that no licensed victualler should open bis house
before one o'clock on Sunday, meant that a new opening
should take place. There was no doubt that there had
been a continuous opening of the house from Saturday
night.

Mr. HALL said that a decision 'had already been given on
this point, in which he entirely concurred. The objection
could not for one moment be supported.
Mr. Mosely then contended that, although the Magis-
trate might deem the case to be within the precise terms of
the statute, he could not say that it came within its spirit
and meaning. The house which the defendant occupied
was one devoted to the reception and entertainment of
persons of the highest respectability. It was an hotel, and
it would be very hard if.the magistrates were to decide that
persons on their way home from the theatres, or other
places of amusement, were to be precluded from calling in
and getting their supper. That was the purpose to
which the coffee-room in which the offence was alleged to
have been committed was devoted, and it was frequented
by Members of Parliament, even Noblemen, occasionally,
and persons of the greatest respectability. A distinction,
he submitted, must be drawn between houses of the de-
scription of that kept by the defendant and the common
gin-shops, whose vices the Legislature no doubt intended
to control.
Mr Hann inquired whether the defendant's house was
respectably conducted and frequented?
Inspector Mullins answered in the affirmative.
Mr. HALL asked whether any noise or inconvenience to
the neighbourhood was caused by the guests coming into
the streets in a state of intoxication ? The Inspector said
that occasionally some slight disturbance took place, but
this was not of frequent occurrence, and upon the present
occasion he knew of no noise having been caused.
Mr. HALL said he was glad to hear that the house was
well managed, as such a fact must of course in some degree
affect the amount of the penalty he should inflict. He
thought, however, that the circumstance of the respectabi-
lity of the house could not affect the case, for, as he under-
stood the law, every house of this description, from the
highest to the lowest, came within the statute. All were
alike licensed as victualling houses, and even if this were
not so, the very general term§ of the Act would include
them. The provision was that no licensed victualler " or
other person," should open his house, and therefore the
case was clearly provided for.
Mr. Mosely inquired what course Mr. Evans must pursue
in the event of one of his lodgers coming borne and requir_
ing to be admitted? His house was conducted as an hotel,
and it would be absurd to suppose that he could control
those gentlemen who had sleeping apartments in it, as to
the hour at which they should return home.
Mr. HALL must decline answering a question involving a
point which was not before him to decide.
Mr. Mosely pointed out that all hotel-keepers might, if
the law were strictly construed against them, be rendered
liable to penalties in the event of their admitting their
gwueeusltds a t alate
be
asamenable hour,
teen di t thes ter
inC
sl aar
se ntdboen ,
ei nw
eßsto ngdi s
shop.n treet
It would be hard to convict in the present case, too, be-
cause it might be that those persons who were in the house
were travellers.
Mr. HALL said that if that were proved to him, the case
would of course be deemed to be within the exception of
the Act.
Mr. Mosely admitted that he could
_ give no proof in
support of his supposition, but he Inquired what Mr.
Evans should do if any gentleman came to his house and
asked for a bed after twelve o'clock °if Saturday night;
must he refuse him and turn him away ? It might be that
the person was locked out from his own house, and must
he walk the streets?
Mr. HALL repeated that he would not decide upon
any suppositious case. In this instance, as it was
the first which bad come before him, he should pro-
ceed leniently, and he hoped that his doing so would be
a caution to the defendant, and that be would take care
that his house should be better conducted in future. The
defendant could not now plead ignorance in excuse, and
knowing that the Magistrates had the power to proceed,
he trusted that he would not disregard the warning which
had been held out to him. He should inflict the miti-
gated penalty of 405., and ss. 6d. costs. The fine was
houses.er
Nr
immediately paid.
Several other licensed victuallers
CAUTION TO OM B George Anderson,
the driver of one of Blore's Paddington onthibusses, was
were fined during the
day for allowing gambling
i s in their
summoned for furious driving.
The defendant pleaded guilty.
Mr. HALL cautioned him that he had the power to send
him to the House of Correction, without fining him, under
the New Act, if he thought proper. He hoped that the
repetition of such an offence of which the defendant had
hem guilty would not compel him to take such a step, but
he a'sured him that he should have no hesitation in pro-
ceeding with severity in the event of his warning being
disregarded by him or his fellows. Having learned the
circumstances. of the case from the constable by whom it
was witnessed, and through whose instrumentality the
complaint was laid, the worthy Magistrate fined the de-

" There exist in France," says La Gazette de
France, "1,663 bridges, having. 7,825 arches; 6,649,530
dwelling-houses ; 82.945 wind or water-mills; 4,425
forges and furnaces, 38,000 manufactories, and 98,188
public edifices.