The Sun.
London, England, 1853-05-18 00:00:00

last 17 years, and this was the first complaint ever made
against him. He was bound to serve the soldiers at the
barracks while on guard with refreshments, by the
direction of the commanding officer, and if he refused
his conduct would be reported to the Horse Guards.
He had one of the sergeants of the Guards in attend-
ance who would confirm what he had stated.
The Sergeant was then called, and he said ho looked
upon it as a matter of right that they should be served
with refreshments, and he had never known the land-
lord of the suttling-house to refuse supplying them at
any time of the day.
Mr. Beadon inquired if it was not laid down in the
Mutiny Act that the military should not be served dur-
ing Divine service
The Sergeant said he was not aware of it being so.
The Defendant said he was like serving. under two
laws. He had a licence from the Board of Green Cloth,
at Buckingham Palace, and another from the magis-
trates. His house was not like a canteen, for, if it was,
he would be under the control of the Board of Ordnance.
Inspector O'Brien submitted that the defendant's
house was under the same regulations as .the other
licensed victuallers' houses.
Mr. Beadon said the subject was a new one to him,
and ought to be settled for the guidance of parties here-
after. He had looked into the Mutiny Act, but could
not find that any of the suttlincr-houses were mentioned.
He should like to know the differencee between a canteen
and a suttling-house.
The Sergeant, in answer to questions, said he knew
there was a difference between them. A canteen was
not licensed to sell spirits, but suttling-houses were. If
he saw any civilians served in a suttling-house on Sun-
day mornings, or during the prescribed hours, he should
make a report of it to the commanding officer. In a
canteen they cleared the place of civilians, and were re-
sponsible for the conduct of the house, while in a sutt-
ling-house the landlord was responsible, and was bound
to clear the house himself of civilians.

Mr. Beadon was of opinion the statement of the ser-
geant was the correct one, atd under the circumstances
be should not interfere with the defendant as long as he
continued to serve the soldiers at the barrcks, but if he
served civilians, that was another story. However, the
police had a right to visit the house, and if thedefendant
was found serving civilians he would certainly be punished.
He dismissed the summons, but he should like to see the
defendant's license from Buokingham Palace.
The defendant said he never served any civilians dur-
ing the prescribed hours, but only the soldiers quartered
at the barracks. He would forward the license for Ids
worship's inspection.
CHARGE OF WRITING A LIBELLOUS AND THREATENING
LETTER.—Mr. George Jones, a surgeon, of No. 8, High-
row, Notting-hill, was brought before Mr. Beadon, on a
warrant, charged with having unlawfully and maliciously
published a defamatory libel upon Mrs. Elizabeth Tur-
ner and her daughter, Emma Turner, of Church-street,
Kensington.

A summons was issued in the first instance for Thurs-
day last, but on that day a professional gentleman at-
tended and solicited a postponement of the hearing until
a future clay, as his client could not then attend. The
summons was then fixed for Saturday, and after the com-
plainant had waited an hour the defendant's name was
called, but he failed to answer. A warrant was then
granted, and Mrs. Turner said "that on the sth inst.,
she received a letter by post, signed by Jones, in which
it stated that both her and her daughter were bad, and
that he should publish bills giving their true characters."
The defendant now apologised for not attending on
Saturday, and said Mrs. Turner was willing to forego all
proceedings.
Mr. Beadon said he had read the letter,. and from the
nature of its contents he was bound to call upon the
defendant to enter into his own recognisances in the sum
of 251., to keep the peace for three months.
The defendant did so, and, after paying 68, costs, was
liberated.