The Sun.
London, England, 1849-01-22 00:00:00

SOUTRWARK.

Mr. Shepherd and Miss Vincent, the lessees of the
Surrey Theatre, were summoned before Mr. Seeker for
unlawfully selling wine and spirits in the saloon of that
theatre, not being duly licensed according to law. The
court was densely crowded by members of the metropo-
litan theatres and publicans to hear the case. Mr. H. B.
Roberts appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. Hum-
phreys for the defendants.
Mr. Roberts said he appeared on behalf of Mr. Harris,
the landlord of the Equestrian Tavern, Blackfriars-road,
who brought the present case before the public for the
protection of the trade in general. The Acts of Par-
liament under which the present proceedings were insti-
tuted were the 6th and 7th and Bth of George IV.,
which rendered the defendants liable to a penalty of
1001. He then called Benjamin J. Eling, an officer of
Excite, attached to the office in Blackfriars-road. On
the evening of the 26th of December he went to the
Surrey Theatre, and in the saloon there he heard several
persons call for gin and water, which they were served
with by a female named Payne. Witness called for a
glass of sherry, which was supplied by the same person,
who received sixpence for it. The liquor and wine were
served openly at a counter, and there was no secresy in
the sale.
Cross-examined by Mr. Humphreys—Mr. Harris made
a complaint in the first instance to the supervisor of the
district, and by the orders of the latter witness went to
the theatre. Witness reported the circumstances to the
supervisor, who communicated with the Commissioners,
who refused to prosecute, but placed every facility in the
way of Mr. Harris. Knew Mr. Payne. He was licensed
as a wholesale dealer of wine and spirits, but not as a
retailer.
Mr. Humphreys here contended that the summons
must be dismissed, inasmuch as it was taken out contrary

to the 7th and Bth George IV., which Act specified that
all actions and proceedings in a court of law must have
the sanction of the Commissioners of Excise, her Ma-
jesty's Attorney-General, or Solicitor- General. Now,
the board had refused, and, consequently, the summons
was null and void.
Mr. Roberts contended that the summons was quite
regular.
Mr. Humphreys admitted that his clients were not
licensed, but still contended that the magistrate had no
power in the present case.
Mr. SECKER overruled the objection.
Mr. Roberts then called Robert Last, another Excise
officer, who ccrroborated the evidence of Mr. Eling,
and proved being supplied by Mrs. Payne with a glass
of brandy, for which he paid id.
Mr. Roberts said, after such evidence, the magistrate
could not but convict in the case. He was instructed,
however, to ask for the smallest penalty that could• be
inflicted, as the matter was only brought forward to put
a stop to the system. His client had been a great
sufferer, having to pay a heavy rent and a large sum
for his license, and was therefore justified in what he
had done.
Mr. Humphreys, in answer to the charge, said he was
certain the summons could not stand. The saloon had
been let to Mr. Payne, who was licensed as a wholesale
dealer, and who, he contended, was justified in accom-
modating the public at a theatre. If a conviction took
place the public would be deprived of refreshments at
places of amusement, and the consequence would be
that concert-rooms at public-houses would have the
advantage.
Mr. SECKER said the case was clearly made out, and
he must convict the defendants. It was positively stated
in the Act of Parliament that every retailer of wines
and spirits must be provided with a license. His im-
pression was that nothing of the kind had been done,
consequently he should fine the parties 31. Is., which
would enable Mr. Humphreys to appeal if he thought
proper.
Mr. Humphreys said he intended to appeal.