The Sun.
London, England, 1822-12-17 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Dec. 16.

THE SING V. THOMAS COLLINS, ESQ., AND SAMUEL MILLS,
ESQ., MAGISTRATES FOR THE FINSBURY DIVISION OF
THE COUNTY OF MIDDLESEX, INDICTED WITH SIR
NACIIANIELCONANT, DECEASED. •
At half-past nine o'clock-this case was called On for trial. Mr.
SCARLETT, MCCOMMON-SERGEANT, and Mr. R. C. SCAR-
LETT, appeared for the prosecution; Mr. SOLICITOR-GE-
NERAL and Mr. STtnr.iiiia for Mr. Collins, and Mr. GUR-
NEY and Mr. CHITTY for Mr. Mills.
Nine Special jurors answered to their names, and entered the
box. Mr. SCARLETT, for the prosecution, prayed a tales, and
three common jurors were accordingly called to complete the
number.
The Jury being sworn,
Mr. R. C. SCARLETT stated the substance of the indict-
ment. The first count charged that the defendant and Sir Na-
thaniel Conant conspired unjustly to deprive one James Meek,
a publican, of his license, and subsequently to withhold it,
from a corrupt intention to favour the house of Meux, Reid,
and Co., in the sale of their beer. -There was another count,
charging a conspiracy to withhold the license from corrupt mo-
tives of private
_partiality ; a count for withholding the lidense
from the particular design of favouring Meux and Co. ; and a
count for withholding it without reasonable or probable cause,
from corrupt and unworthy motives. The defendants had
pleaded that they were hot guilty.
Mr. SCARLETT, sen. then said, since this indictment had
been preferred, two of the defendants had departed this life;
and therefore the duty of this Jury would be different from
that of the last Jury, which had to decide upon the guilt of all
the defendants. The case which he should submit to them
was one of the greatest importance, as it regarded the pub-
lic as well as the individuals themselves. He felt the deci-
sion of this case as one of the most important which could
possibly come before a Court of Justice; and as he felt
its importance, and • expected from the Jury a due degree
of firmness in the discharge of their du, he should not
shrink from a conkientious discharge of his duty. They
were already apprifzed of the nature of this indictment ;
it charged those Gentlemen, who were Magistrates- for the
County of Middlesex, with having, in the discharge of their
pubic duty, been actuated by improper motives—with having,
through partiality for the business of a particular brewer, or
through some partiality or prejudice inconsistent with their pub-
lic duty, refused to grant a licence for a certain public-house.—
The prosecutor in this case was a humble man—a man, who, by
industry, was acquiring a decent livelihood for himself and a fa-
mily—a man, whose character was above reproach, but who
nevertheless was pointed out by the defendants as an object of
attack ; and the result of their exertions was the complete ruin
of the unfortunate prosecutor. The defendants were highly re-
spectable gentlemen, Magistrates for the county of Middlesex,
and men of great influence. When he said this, he knew that
he had fearful advantages to contend against; but be the result
of this cause what it might, of this he was quite satisfied,
that no man now in Court will hear the evidence and say that
there was not improper conduct somewhere. The Learned
Counsel then stated the case, as proved by the witnesses whom
he afterwards called. After making this statement, which he
should prove, he conjured the Jury to ask themselves, 11-'hy was
this done ? Why is the man ruined ? If in the evidence they
cannot find any assignable cause for the utter ruin of this pro-
secutor, they must infer that the defendants were actuated by
improper motives, and return a verdict of Guilty. Although
a Magistrate could not be required to state his reason for re-
fusing a licence, yet if there should appear any suspicious cir-
cumstances connected with their refusal, he thought that if they
did not explain away those suspicious circumstances, it would
not be an unfair or unreasonable inference that they were ac-
tuated by malice. He hoped the Jury would calmly take this
case into consideration, that they would examine minute-
ly into all the -evidence which he should offer, and if it
should appear to them that his client was a man against whom
there was no reproach, a man upon whose character there was
not the slightest imputation, that his house was properly con-
ducted, and that, notwithstanding all this he was utterly ruined
by the conduct of the defendants, he trusted that a British
Jury, proverbially impartial, would fearlessly and impartially
discharge their duty, by pronouncing a verdict of Guilty, and
thus taking the first step to put down the practice which he was
afraid too generally prevailed.
The following witnesses were then called :
James Meek—ln the month of November, 1814, I purchased
the Green Man Public-house, in St. John-street, Clerkenwell.
I took possession on the 3d ; in that and the following year I
laid out 700/. in improvements on the premises ; I gave 390/.
for the lease, and 164/. for the fixtures. It was an old established
house for the last 200 years. I placed the parlour where the
tap-room had been, and the tap-room where the parlour had
been. I used to draw two butts of beer a month, when I first
went there ; at that time I dealt for my beer with Messrs. Cal-
vert and Co.;afterwards I dealt with Messrs. Meux and Co. in
Liquor Pond-street, in March, 1815.; I continued to deal with
them till September, 1815; my license was renewed in 1815,
without any difficulty. My consumption of beer increased to be-
tween three and four butts of beer a month, while I dealt with
Meux, Reid and Co. ; after that I dealt with Messrs. Barclay
and Co. and during that time my sale increased to ten butts a
month. In the course of the year 1815, I engaged a man,
named Rawlings, to draw beer in my bar. He served from
May, 1815. to June, 1816 ; I knew Mr. Lucas, the Managing
Clerk of Messrs. Meux, Reid, and Company ; my house is in
the Finsbury Division; on the 3d of September, 1816, I at-
tended the Magistrates, to ask for my license. A beadle brought
out a list of th persons whose licenses were suspended until the
18th ; my name was amongst them ; 1 saw none of the Magis-
trates at that time ; Mr. Cotterell and Mr. Sellon came to my
house on the 19th, and made a minute examination of it. I
asked if there had been any corny laint as to my manner of con-
ducting my house ? They said they had never heard any ; Mr.
Cotterell asked, if I had taken any premium for my beer trade ?
I said no. They viewed the tap-room ; they remarked that
there was plenty of accommodation in the room ; I asked if it
would be necessary for me to petition the Magistrates ? They-
said it was not usual, where there were no complaints. Thomas
Hill was the high constable who attended ; he said it was
proper to have two doors; I told the Magistrates that if it was
improper I would willingly stop one up., I pointed out another
house (the Queen's Head), which had two doors ; I said there
were four within a hundred yards which had two doors. They
then left my house; there was accommodation in the tap-rom
for 40 or 50 persons.—The High Constable retttetted in about
five minutes, and told me I need not stop it up ; I went before
the Magistrates on the 18th of September; I was called in; Mr.
Collins, Mr. Cotterell, Mr. Sellon and the Rev. Doctor Gaskin
were there. One of the Magisrates asked me what Brewery I
dealt with ? I said Messrs. Barclay end Co. I offered to show them
my books, to prove the consumtion of beer and spirits. The
consumption of spirits was not quite 2W. a month. They said
they did not want to see my brewer's or distiller's books. I was
ordered to wittlidraw, and was called in again in abont ten mi-
nutes. Soon after I returned, Sir Nathaniel Conant came in.
the spoke to Mr. Collins, who was Chairman, and I was or-
dered to withdraw. I had been out about ten minutes, when
Hill came out, and 'told me my license was taken away. I
waited till all the cases were gone through, and then went into
their room. They told me there was another day, on the 21st,
when I might have a fresh hearing. Between the 18th and
the 21st, I obtained a certificate, signed by the churchwarden:4
and all the inhabitants of the street in which 1 lived. On
the 20th of September, I saw Sir Nathaniel Conant at the
Freemason's Tavern. He said he recollected nothing at
all about any opposition to my license, for he did not know
my name, nor the name of the street in which I lived.
I saw him the next day at the Sessions House. I saw
Mr. Richards there, the Clerk to the Magistrates, and I de-
livered to him my certificate. In about ten minutes after, I
was ushered into a room, where I found Mr. Sellon, Mr. Cot-
terell, and Sir Nathaniel Contint, and other Magistrates ; and
they appointed the 18th as the final settling day. From that time
till the September following I 'resided in that house, without
following my busiress. In September, 1817, I appled again,
and put in my petition, signed by all the inhabitants in the
street. I was called in before the same Magistrates. Mr. Hen-
derson, who went with me, said, if I could not get a license,
he should suppose that the same reason operated in 1817 that
had operated in 1816. He said the reason was, he believed, a
complaint that had been made to a Committee of the House of
Commons for stopping my license. All the Magistrates rose
round the table, and positively denied that they had ever made
any complaint. And they never gave any reason at all for tak-
ing away my license. The Magistrates asked, who Mr. Hen-
derson was ? I said he was my Solicitor. Mr. Henderson then
left the room. I was then called in again, and Mr. Robins,
the churchwarden, went with me. He had been one of the
visiting constables in the year before. When lie came in, Mr.
Collins asked him what he had to say ? if he had any thin
disrespectful to say of me they would hear him. He said
he could answer more for the propriety of my conduct
than any other individual. That the house opposite mc,
the Swan, was an 'irregular Inuse. I did not get my li-
cense then ; I applied again in 1818 to the same Magistrates.
I had then a joint petition from the parish of St. John and St.
Giles, and signed •by the Rector. I also applied personally
every year, but neva. obtained it. I applied in September 1819.
The same Magistrates were present, with the Rev. Dr. Owen,
and another Magistrate. I had a similar petition, and made a
personal application also. Sir Nathaniel Conant said, that the
license could not be granted, as the petition was false. He did
not say in what way it was false. I said I was not aware of
there being any thing false in it, as I was sure' every thing; in
it was true. I most solemnly swear that every word in that
petition was strictly true. In the year 1816, on the 18th. of
September, I saw Mr. Lucas at the Sessions-house. In 11317,