The Sun.
London, England, 1844-10-17 00:00:00

Mr. Movies, in seconding the motion, said it would
not be denied that Mr. Preece had acted wrongly in
continuing the performances in his house without a
, license after the caution he had received, but still he
• did not think this:ought to influence the Court in their
decision. They should only look to the public in-
terest ; and when they saw so many respectable
persons sign the application for the license, he thought
they were bound to grant it. There was, he believed,
a very great improvement in the moral condition of
the labouring classes, and also a strong movement in
favour of temperance among them; and it was their
duty to provide the poorer classes with recreation and
amusement, to enable them to occupy their minds
innocently-, in lieu of going to public-houses, and in-
juring their health and character by drinking to excess.
Mr. PucanE opposed the grant of the license for
music and dancing, on the ground that, if it were
legally sanctioned in such a neighbourhood, it would
be productive of great mischief. It had been said
that there was nothing more improper done at this
house than at the Opera. He (Mr. Puckle) did not
know much about the Opera, but this he must say,
that if a little public-house in St. George's-fields was
permitted to imitate the Opera, he did not think it
likely to advance the cause of morality. Mr. Puckle
then remarked upon the fact of the applicant having
continued his performances for the last twelve months
in defiance oY the magistrates, and he said he thought
this was an additional reason why the license should
be refused. If he discontinued those performances at
once, and his house was conducted in a proper
manner, and next year he applied for a music license
only, it was probable that he (Mr. Puckle) should
not oppose the application.
After a few words from Mr. Best and the Chair-
man, the question was put, when the Court, by a
majority of two, refused the license.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
(YESTERDAY.)
GUILDHALL.
John Henderson and Charles Mortimer were placed
before Mr. Alderman Kelly, charged with having
tried to utter a forged cheque for 401. at the banking-
house of Stone, Martins, and Stone, 68, Lombard-
street.

Messrs. Bush and Mullens, solicitors to the Bank
Protection Society, appeared to prosecute ; and Mr.
Woolf, from the office of Flower and Co., Hatton-
garden, attended for the prisoners.
Mr. Mullens having briefly opened the case, pro-
ceeded to call witnesses.
George Murden examined—Was employed at
The Sun newspaper-office. Knew the prisoner Mor-
timer, who was employed by Mr. Ridgway, book-
seller, Piccadilly. He (Mortimer) was obliged to be
at The Sun office every evening, and thus witness
knew him. Witness was requested by the prisoner,
Yesterday evening, to present a cheque for 401. at
the bank of Stone, Martins, and Stone, in Lombard-
street, and get six 51. notes and ten sove-
reigns in change. If any doubts were raised he
was to show the accompanying letter. The cheque
he said had been received from his brother-in-law,
John Henderson, but as he (Mortimer) could not get
into the City in time, he asked witness to get it cashed
for him. After presenting the cheque, two con-
stables were sent back to The Sun office with him,
and he found Mortimer there. Witness said,
" Charlie, how about this cheque ?" and he replied,
addressing the constable, that his brother-in-law gave
it to him, and then they all walked over to No. 3,
Burleigh-street, where the prisoner lived. Henderson
came down, and one of the constables said there was
a bother about the cheque. Henderson said there
must be some mistake then ; he had received the
cheque of a gentleman last Saturday, for payment of
some bets on the "Derby." They then got into a cab,
and were driven to the station-house.
By Mr. Woolf—He had known Mortimer for
four or five years, and always believed him an honest
young man. Mortimer did everything connected
with this transaction openly, and had told witness
from the first that he had received the cheque from
his brother-in-law.

Mr. William Sangier, from the bank of Stone,
Martins, and Co., said, that Mr. C. Stokes, whose name
was affixed to the cheque, was a customer of theirs,
but the signature did not at all resemble his, and
the imposture was therefore at once detected.
Mr. Charles W. Stokes said that he did, some time
ago, reside at the Morley Hotel, Charing-cross, where
the prisoner Henderson was a waiter. He had cheques
similar to the one produced in his pocket-book, which
were often left upon his dressing-table.
By Mr. Woolf—The other servants of the esta-
blishment had equal access with the prisoner to hia
room.

Mr. Woolf contended that there was no tittle of
evidence against the prisoner Mortimer, who had
from the first acted in such a way as Qlearly showed
that he could have no guilty knowledge of this trans-
action. His employer, Mr. Ridgway, was in court,
and would state to the magistrates in what estimation
the prisoner was held.
Mr. Ridgway said that he had attended closely to
the case, and so satisfied was he of the young man's
innocence, that he would still retain him in his em-
ployment. Lie was frequently entrusted by him

been made last year, and was refused, but he trusted
that on the present occasion it would be more suc-
cessful.
Mr. Knight was then called to prove the signatures
to the petition. He said that he was himself formerly
a member of the Board of Guardians, and that during
the time he had known Mr. Preece the house had
always been very respectably conducted.
Cross-examined—Witness had been to the per-
formances at the applicant's house three times. The
words " Grand Harmonic Hall" were written over
the door. He was not aware that the condition upon
which Mr. Preece received his spirit license on the
last occasion was, that he should take down a stage
that was erected, and discontinue the perform-
ances in his house. He 'believed that money was
taken at the doors. There was a stage at present
in the room, and persons danced and sang upon it.
Threepence was the sum charged fbr admission, and
the performers were dressed in the same way as they
were at the theatres.
Re-examined—He never saw any indecent con-
duct, and the style of dancing was not a hit more in-
decent than might be seen at the Opera.—(A laugh.)
Mr. Yates, an inspector of the metropolitan police,
deposed that the house in question had been conducted
in a very proper and respectable manner since Mr.
Preece kept it. He had witnessed the performances,
and never saw anything improper.
Cross-examined—There was dancing and music
going on when he went to the house. The dancing
was upon a stage, which, upon examination, he found
to be a sort of large table, about four feet high.
There were some young women performing dressed
in boys' clothes, and boys dressed as girls. There
was no band, and the only music was a pianoforte.
Witness went to the house by order of the Commis-
sioners of Police, in consequence of some complaints
that had bee❑ formerly made, but there had been no
complaints within the last twelve months. Witness
was present when Mr. Preece applied for his spirit
license, and he heard Mr. Puckie, one of the magis-
trates, recommend that the stage and the performances
should be done away with.
Mr. SCRIVEN—And after this, the stage vests taken
away, and the "table," as you call it, was put in its
place ? Witness—Yes.
Cross-examination continued—Did not think the
performers dressed themselves under the table.—
(Laughter.) The ladies dressed on one side, and the
gentlemen on the other. He had never seen any im-
proper characters present at the pertOrmances. Wit-
ness was aware that Mr. Preece only had a spirit
license, but it was not the duty of the police to inter-
fere with the performances in the house unless they
had orders to do so.
Mr. CORNEA, at the conclusion of the evidence, ad-
dressed the Court in support of the application, and
said that there was no intention to deny that there
had been music and dancing carried on in the house,
but he submitted that this ought not in any way to
affect the application, and that as it was proved the
house had been conducted in a creditable and re-
spectable manner, the license prayed for ought to be
granted.
Mr. SCRIVEN then addressed the Court in opposi-
tion to the application, and said that the bench had
refused the license last year, and the only new fact
now brought forward was, that since that period the
applicant had, in defiance of the magistrates, persisted
in carrying on the performances. It did not appear
that the applicant wanted any license, for he had been
doing all that the license would have empowered him
to do, and the only object of the present proceeding
appeared to be to get a bill of indemnity from the
magistrates for having infringed the law. The
Learned Counsel then proceeded at some length to
comment upon the facts that had been adduced in
support of the application, and concluded by express-
ing his opinion that the magistrates would not, under
such circumstances, think of granting a license to the
applicant.
Colonel CHALLONER, said, he thought the fact of the
license having been refused last year ought not to
weigh at all with the Court, but they should merely
be guided by the merits of the case as it appeared be
fore them. He was extremely favourable to the
granting of licenses of this description, because he
felt convinced that amusements of this description
tended to increase morality among the lower orders,
and induced habits of sobriety. Ile thought they
were bound to pay attention to a ,petition signed by
286 respectable inhabitants of the neighbourhood, who
might very reasonably he supposed to be better ac-
quainted with its wants than they were; and when
they recollected that the petition was also signed by
a great number of guardians of the poor, and that an
officer of police had borne testimony to the fact of the
house being conducted in a respectable manner, he
considered they were bound to grant the licnese, and
he begged to propose, therefore, that it should be
granted.