The Sun.
London, England, 1860-04-20 00:00:00

NAT LA.XGHANI AND BEN CAUNT'S LICENCES.

Tho adjourned Quarter Sessions for the County of Mid-
dlesex was held this morning at the Guildhall, Westminster,
for the purpose of considering the appeals of Nathaniel
Laugh= and Benjamin Caunt against the decisions of the
Licencing Magistrates, refusing the renewal of their licences.
The bench was very fully attended, and amongst the
magistrates were the Assistant Judge, Mr. Bodkin, and
Messrs. Burslem, Pence, Antrobus, Woolsey, Parbury, D.
Fletcher, Harwood, Rankine, Sir R. W. Carden, Baylis,
Uzielli, Griffiths, Hogarth, Healy, Garford, R. Ballantine,
Major Lyon, E. Cox 'Wyatt, and, during the sitting, a
number of other county magistrates.
On the case of Nat Langham's being called on,
Mr. Sleigh said he, with his learned friend, Mr. Le
Breton, appeared for the vestry of St. Martin's, who had
opposed the license before the magistrates in the case of Ben
Caunt, and he thought it right at once to say that the vestry
had no locus staudi in this case, and therefore ho could
merely watch the case. His learned friends, Mr. D. Keane
and Mr. Tindal Atkinson; would represent the respondent
magistrates, and Mr. Edwin James, Q.C.. and Mr. Poland
the appellant.

Mr. D. Keane firm opened the case on the part of the
respondents, and briefly referred to the cause of the refusal
of the license to Langham's house, the Cambrian Stores, it
being on account of the frequent complaints of the inhabi-
tants of the annoyance that was created by the frequent as-
semblage of a vast crowd of persons in front of, and inside
the house, and to such an extent had it gone on, that the
business of the neighbourhood was materially injured and
the peace of the inhabitants disturbed by the nightly
noises of dancing, rough music, and language of the
most disgusting character. The learned counsel called a
number of witnesses to prove the facts he had briefly
referred to.

Mr. E. James then addressed the bench en the part of
the appellant, and said that this was a case which must
be dealt with in a plain and straightforward manner, and
must not be considered in a critical point of view, which
ought not to bo listened to in a court of justice. It was
well known that all persons connected with pugilism looked
forward to a public-house as a harbour of refuge, and they
must all recollect the days when Lord Byron and Mr. Hob-
house went to Tom Cribb's ; when magistrates granted
licences to pugilists it would be consummate hypocrisy to
say they did not know the class of persons who would
frequent the house ; all that the magistrates had to con-
sider was that the applicant conducted his house properly,
and having invested a large amount of capital, the license
ought not to be refused except from personal misconduct,
and not because crowds assembled when a prize fight came
off. They all knew that the late fight had created great
interest throughout the country, and was as much talked
of in the House of Commons as in every person's house
from the highest to the lowest. After some further obser-
vations the learned counsel submitted there was no grounds
for withholding the license.

The Assistant-Judge said he did not purpose to offer any
observations, further than the magistrates ought to decide
upon the evidence, and not from any prejudice arising out
of what they had heard.

The magistrates then divided, when the numbers were—
For the renewal .. .. 15
Against it .. 19
Majority 4
The licence is accordingly lost.

THE COACH AND HORSES.-BEN CAUNT.

The appeal of Mr. Caunt against the refusal of his
license to sell excisoable liquors was next taken:
Mr. D. Keane and Mr. Tindal Atkinson appeared for the
respondent magistrate, and Mr. Sergeant Ballantine and
Mr. Metcalfe appeared for Caunt.
Mr. Keane, in supporting the refusal, said that the ma-
gistrates were governed in the decision to which they had
coma by the most careful consideration. Tha license was
refused on three grounds ; first, that Caunt permitted gam-
bling in his house; next, that he was in the habit of getting
drunk, and, therefore, a very unfit person to conduct a pub •
lie-house; and, thirdly, that it was a house of the same
description—viz., a "fighting house," and, consequently,
a nuisance to the neighbourhood. In addition to these ob-
jections, he had to inform the bench that Caunt
had been fined no less than four times by the
magistrates. Once in 1855 he was fined £3 ;
next, in 1857, when ho was fined 20s. for permitting dis-
orderly persons in his house; then in 18d8, for permitting
drunkenness ; and lastly, in 1859, for again permitting dis-
orderly persons t 4, assemble at his house. He felt he should
be able to prove all that he had stated, and that being so,
he thought the refusal of the magistrates would be affirmed.
He then called

James Cooke, police constable F 161, who said—On the
16th of Dec. I was on duty near the Coach and Horses, and
I heard a cry of police, and a female told me I was wanteclat
Mr. Caunt's. I went to the house, and I was directed to
stand at the door to see that no one left the house. I was
relieved by constable 30 F. He and Sergeant Davis went
in. I know nothing of what took place inside.
The records of the convictions were here tendered as
evidence, but the Court ruled that they were not
admissible.

Constable 17 30, said I went into the house on that occa-
sion. A gentleman named Garrett said, in the presence of
Caunt, that ,ho had bccu robLod and
but the man had gone away and that Caunt knew where
he was. This Caunt denied, and said the money had been
lost fair enough. Garrett said he had lost about £l4.
This was in the bar parlour. Caunt was drunk. He had
a pint pot in his hand, but I don't know what was in it.
Sergeantßallantine —A policeman never does. (Laughter.)
Witness continued—A person named rage was also
there. He said the money had been fairly lost.
Cross-examined by Sergeant Ballantine—Caunt never
said he had been in the club-room. Sergeant Lambert was
present. He heard all that was said.

Policeman 14 C—l was inside the house on the occa-
sion referred to. Caunt said that Garrett and several
others had been playing cards all day, and that the money
was fairly lost. Caunt was drunk. I have been in very
frequently, and I have sometimes seen Caunt drunk. In
December, on the occasion of a prize-fight coming off, I
have seon great numbers of bad characters outside. I have
seen pictures of Heenan and Sayers exhibited in the win •
doors.

Cross .examined —I have seen such pictures as those I
have named in other public house windows. I have been
told sparrinc, has been permitted in the house, but I cannot
swear that it was.

Alderman Salomons—How many times have you been in
Caunt's house ?

Witness —About 18 times.
Alderman Salomons--And how many times oul of those
have you seen Caunt drunk ?
. .

Witness—About 10 or 12 times.
Sergeant Ballantine asked the bench to ask the witness
if he did not swear, when the magistrates below refused the
licences, that it was only six times ?
Witness—l said that six times out of those I had seen
Caunt intoxicated, he was very drunk.
Police-constable 4 F said that on the 16th of December I
went into Caunt's house, at 12 o'clock at night. Garrett
said he had been drugged and " bested" of about £l4.
Caunt said he had lost the money fairly, that he (Garrott)
had been dining there, and had drank 14 bottles of cham-
pagne. Tom Paddock then came in and took the pint pot
from Caunt's hand, which he said contained champagne.
Ile drank some of it, and then handed it to me. I ionised
to drink. Garrett complained that he was ill from the
effects of the champagne, but not drunk. Caunt was very
drunk.

Inspector Webb gave evidence to the effect that card
playing had been allowed• in the house. Caunt, however,
told him that if they had been played with the parties must
have brought them in with them as he had never supplied
them. Caunt has been very frequently cautioned about the
way he had conducted his house. On the occasion of the
fight by Tom Sayers and Bob Brettla it took six police-
constables to keep the street Blear before Caunt's house.

Superintendent Haunant said he had seen a bill in the
window of Caunt's house announcing that "sparring" took
place there every evening, and he had received complaints
of the manner iu which Caunt conducted his house.
Mr. John Graorn, beadle of St. Martin's Parish, said he
had been sent by the churchwardens an Sunday, the 16th
January, to ask Caunt to take the pictures of Sayers and
Heenan out of his window, as a crowd of persons collected
in front of it in consequence of thorn being there during
divine service.

Mr. W. Lock, residing next door to Caunt's house—Said
he was frequently, during the last two years, disturbed by
the noises from Caunt's house. He had frequently been
awoke in the middle of the night by bumps against the walls,
banjo playing, clog dancing, and such like noises. During
the last week he had lest entirely three days business in con-
sequence of the crowds congregated cathode Caunt's house
discussing the fight for the championship. He was corn-
pelled to shut up the shop at seven o'clock in the evening
instead of nine, owing to the crowds in front of Caunt's
house. The nuisance was altogether intolerable.
Mr. Marshall, churchwarden of St, Martin's, said he re-
sided opposite Caunt's house for nearly 14 years in St.
Martin's-lane. His business suffered greatly in conse-
quence of the crowds who frequently collected at Caunt's
house. He had frequently to sand to Vino-street Police
Station to ask for the assistance of the police to enable his
customers to either enter or leave his shop,
This was the ease for the respondent.
Mr. Sergeant Ballantine then proceeded to address tho
jury on behalf of Caunt. He contended that the case for
the refusal of the license had not been made out. The ma-
gistrates by their;deolsion were not simply fining a'man five
or ten pounds for some offense against the licensing laws,
but their decision was, in fact, a yes or no to a question
which involved his utter ruin. It was well-known that
men of the position of Caunt, by the assistance
of friends, and the hard-earned savings of their
own, took public-houses and after having done so
it would be absolute ruin if that license was taken away
from thorn without a fair warning. He had conducted the
house well for about 18 years, during which there had in
fact been but one conviction proved against him. The magi-
strates well knew that a few years ago Caunt had had the
misfortune to loose two of his children by fire,
and that calamity had been increased by the loss of
hid wife. He had, to a certain extent, had recourse to a
method which destroyed recollection for a time ; but he
was not what was imputed an habitual drunkard. He
trusted the bench would reverse the decision of the rnagis •
trates below, and the expense and anxiety of the present
proceedings would act as a final warning to his client.
Mr. Bodkin then put the iluestion to the bench, when
there appeared—
For the renewal 8
Against it 24
Majority against renewal .. —l6
The decision of the magistrates below was affirmed, and
the license was refused.
Mr. Poland, on behalf of Langham, asked if the bench
would allow him to dispose of the house before the license
was taken away ?
14r. Let:ll4in said the present was neither the proper
time or place for such an application.