The Sun.
London, England, 1868-10-07 00:00:00

THAMES.

IMPORTANT DECISION.—This morning Mr. Ben-
son gave his decision, after a month's adjourn-
ment of the following case, and which will no doubt
be read with much interest by lics2nsed victuallers
and beersellers.

John Anderson, the landlord of the Duke's Heal
beerhouse, in Duke-street, St. George-in-the-East,
was charged with having his house open fur the
sale of b 2er and ale before the hour of one o'clock
in the afternoon on Sunday, the 30th of August
last.

Mr. Stoddart, silicitor, of Arbour-street, East
Stepney, defended Mr. Anderson. The information
against the defendant was laid by Inspector Gee,
of the K division.

Police-sergeant Smith, No. 47 K, stated that at
20 minutes past 10 o'clock on the morning of Sun-
day, the 30th August, he was watching the defen-
dant's house, in company with a police-constable
and saw four men and two women come out of the
beerhouse. They walked a short distance, and then
one of the men turned back and gave something to
the defendant, who was at his own door. He did
not know what it was. A minute and a half after-
wards he went into the defendant's house. There
were no persons there except Mr. Anderson and
his family, nor any indications whatever
of people being supplied with beer or ale. There
were no slops on the counter--a wooden one. The
counter was dry. lie searched the bed-room, cellar,
and yard and could find no one there.
in cross-examination by Mr. Stoddart the witness
said that he was sure the four men and two women
came out of the defendant's house. They did not
come out of the house of Mr. Wallace next door.
lie saw no signs of drinking in the defendant's
house.

Mr. Stoddart said the people did not come out
of his client's house on the Sunday morning in
question, but from the premises of Mr. Wallace, a
stove and range maker, upon whom several cus-
tomers and friends called to give orders and upon
visits. The police-sergeant had made a mistake.
The defendant denied having his house open at all
for the sale of beer on the Sunday in question until
one o'clock in the afternoon. But even supposing
the six persons did come out of the defendant's
house, it was not such an opening as was contem-
plated by the Act of Parliament. A minute and
a half afterwards—and he quoted the police officer's
own words—he went into the house and found no
visitors or any signs of a customer, or of any drink
having been previously supplied that morning to
any one. If the people did come out of the Duke's
Head, they might have been there for religious ex-
ercises. (A. laugh.)
Mr. Benson—Not very likely in a beer-house.
Mr. Stoddart—Or for many other purposes. I
acquittal of my client.
confidently rely upon the
People cannot be convicted on mere suspicion in
this country. _ _

Inspector Gee said the defendant had been con-
victed of Sunday trading during the prohibited
hours three times, and the fines levied were 20s. for
and 6N. for the third
tohffeenficres.t, 40s. for the second,
Mr. Stoddart that statement was made to pre-
judice the defendant.

Mr. Benson said it would not, and could not,
prejudice the defendant as regards the law of
the case, but in the event of a conviction he should
ask about the general character of the defendant's
house, and whether there bad been any former con-
viction. lie had carefully considered this question
in the course of the last month, and had carefully
read the Act of Parliament bearing on the case.
lie was of opinion the four men and two women
did come out of the • defendant's house at twenty
minutes past ten, and that the sergeant was correct
in his evidence. That was all the case against
the defendant. He agreed with the interpretation

of the law as laid down by Mr. Stoddart. The police
had not proved any Sunday trading during
the prohibited hours against the defendant, or that
any person had been supplied with beer. The mere
fact of six persons leaving the house was no proof
that the law had been violated, or that a drop of
beer had been supplied to any one. The " open-
ing" of the house was not such an opening as was
contemplated by the Act of Parliament, and the
summons must be dismissed.