The Sun.
London, England, 1848-04-29 00:00:00

Tll

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS.
(Before the ASSISTANT-JUDGE and a full Bench of Ma-
gistrates.)
APPEALS ♦GAINST THE REFUSAL OF THE JUSTICES
BELOW TO GRANT LICENSES.
The Court sat yesterday morning at the usual hour, for
the purpose of hearing the appeals against the decisions of
the magistrates at the Petty Sessions. The bench pre-
sented a very large attendance of the justices of Middle-
sex; in fact, much more numerous than on any previous
occasion for some years back.
sistcock v. THE JUSTICES OF THE HOLBORN DIVISION.
This was an appeal by Mr. Thomas Simcock against
the decision of the justices of the Holborn division, in
petty sessions assembled, they having refused to grant a
wine and spirit license for the house, 351, Strand, corner
of Welling ton street.
Mr Clarkson appeared for the appellant, and Mr. Bal-
lantine for the respondents.
The premises for which the appellant sought a license
is a newspaper office in the Strand. The ground on
which the present application was rested was, that the
London and South-Western Railway Company were
about to construct an extensive terminus on the Surrey
side of Waterloo•bridge, and it was urged that there
would be a great increase in the demand of the public
for hotel and tavern accommodation, and that being so,
the appellant submitted that the situation of this house
was well adapted for this purpose. The neighbourhood
would also be improved under these circumstances, and
consequently would require more accommodation than
what it now possessed.
The opposition was on the part of the Marquis of
Exeter, the landlord in fee of the premises, because his
Lordship had many other tenants in the neighbourhood,
many of whom carry on the business of licensed victual-
lers; and he considered that their interests would be
very much interfered with if a license were granted to
the appellant's house. It was also contended that there
was not the least want of any additional accommodation
either at the present time, nor was there likely to be
after the railway terminus was constructed.
The Court divided, when there appeared for the li-
cense six votes, and against six.
The Assistant Judge gave his casting vote in fa►our of
the license, and the license was at once granted.
GEORGE MASSON V. THE JUSTICES OF THE HOLBORN
DIVISION .

The appellant sought to obtain a license to the Fea-
thers, Great Wild-street, Lincoln's Inn-fields.
Mr. Ballantine appeared for the appellant, and Mr.
Bodkin for the respondent.
Inspector Ford, of the F division of police, was called
to prove the character of the house. lie said it had a
room fitted np like the pit of a theatre, where concerts
took place, which were kept up till morning. Objections
of a serious character were also urged.
Mr. BALLANTINE threw up his brief, and the Court
refused the license.
JURISDICTION OF MAGISTRATES.
Mr. LAURIE, addressing the Court, said that Mr.
Rose, one of the justices of the Holborn division, was in
the habit of attending the special sessions he'd by the
Marylebone justices to license public-houses in their
district. He (Mr. Laurie) was a Marylebone magistrate,
but be never interfered with the justices of other dis-
tricts, nor should he ever do so, and he trusted that Mr.
nose would act otherwise.
Mr. ROSE said that he resided'in the parish of Mary-
lebone, which had a local Act constituting it a liceniing
division. It was to the Holborn division that Mary-
lebone had recourse for all petty sessional business, "and
as he always attended the Holborn petty sessional busi-
ness, he conceived he had a perfect right to attend
the Marylebone special sessions for licensing. The
Act constituting Marylebone a division did not contain
anything to preclude the magistrates of one division
acting in the other; and so long as he remained in the
commission he should insist on his right to attend the
Haryl..bone licensing sessions.
Mr. LAURIE would maintain his opinion that a maxis.
trate of one division ought not to interfere in another.
Mr. ROSE expressed his determination to act as he
had done.

REGULATION OF THE COURT.

The Learned JUDGE said that hitherto it had been the
rule of this Court, when the votes were equal on an ap
peal, that the case should stand adjourned for a second
hearing. His attention was called to this order, and he
tound that the order was bad. In future, therefore, when
the votes were equal, it must be understood that the
licence was refused.

The B-nch at once agreed to the suggestion.
JAMES IRELAND V. THE JUSTICES OF THE DIVISION OF
THE PARISH OF ST. MARTIN-IN-THE-FIELDS.

The house for which this appellant sought a wine
and spirit license was 11, Northumberland-street, Strand.
Mr. Ballantine supported, and Mr. Bodkin appeared
for the Justices.

The grounds on which- the application was rested
appeared to be the want of sufficient accommodation for
clerks, and others of a respectable class, of whom there
were a great number in the immediate vicinity, and who
could nut obtain accommodation suitable to their means
in the hotels of the neighbourhood.
The license was opposed, on the ground that there
was no want of accommodation in that locality.
The Bench divided, when there appeared for the
license 15 ♦otes; against it, 13.

JAMES SAUNDERS V. THE JUSTICES OF THE FINSBURY

DIVISION.

The appellant in this case sought to obtain a license
to premises situated at the corner of Norman's-build-
ings and Wenlock-street, St. Luke's.
It appeared that this house had been previously
licensed, but through some neglect on the part of the
previous proprietor the license was withdrawn. The
present occupier now sought a license, and it was
contended that he ought not to suffer for the neglect of
others.

It was opposed, on the ground that public-house ac-
commodation was not wanting in the neighbourhood.—
License refused.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
WESTMINSTER.

John Vickers, a middle-aged, respectable-looking man,
carrying on business as a dairyman in the Horseferry-
road, Westminster, was finally examined, charged with
violating the person of Eleanor Lo►el, his niece, 20 years
of age, who gave her evidence with apparent timidity and
reluctance.

Evidence having been given, Mr. Parry addressed the
magistrate on behalf of the prisoner, and submitted that
the case was not sufficient to send before a jury.
Mr. BURRELL committed the prisoner for trial at the
Central Criminal Court, and refused to take bail in con-
iequence of the serious nature of the charge.