Star.
London, England, 1830-05-27 00:00:00

LICENCE&

The applications for licences to keep public-houses at-
tracted a large assemblage of visitors to the Court. The
public curiosity was avowedly excited by the struggle re-
specting the new Bill now in Parliament, and many were
drawing inferences as to the result, from the conduct of
the City Magistrates on those applications. Those on
the Bench at the time the subject was brought forward
were, besides the Recorder, Aldermen Ansley, Atkins,
and Scholey.
Mr. CHARLES PHILLIPS applied for a licence for the
house No. 36, East Harding-street, in the Ward of
Farringdon-Without. He stated that the owner of the
house was a poor woman, who had suffered considerably
in consequence of the improper conduct of a former
tenant, to whom she had let it, and no business in the
public way had been done there for some time. It had,
however, been a public-house for sixty years, and a re-
spectable man, named Proud, had now taken it in the
expectation that there would be no objection to a renewal
of the licence, especially as he bad carried on business in
the neighbourhood for thirty years.
Mr. Roberts, Deputy of the Ward, appeared in propria
persona to oppose the application. He hoped that the
Court would not deprive the Common Council of the
Ward of the countroul which the latter had been in the
habit of exercising so much for the public benefit. The
Common Council had found it necessary to strike this
house off the list on the last licensing day, upon the ground
that it had been long a very great nuisance.
Mr. PIIILLIPB admitted that the house had not been
conducted in a becoming manner ; but that proved the
loss of the lady who let it rather than anything else. His
client was a most eligible man as a landlord.
The RECORDER said the question was, whether the
house was necessary to the neighbourhood, and whether
it had the recommendation of the Alderman and the Com-
mon Council of the Ward ?

Mr. PHILLIPS said that it was necessary. His client
too had been a tenant of the house from 1803 to 1813
himself, and no complaint had ever been made against
him. In fact, no complaint had ever been made against
the house.

Mr. Roberts declared that many complaints had been
made against it by the neighbours. There was no ob-
jection to the applicant ; but on occasions of this kind,
when a house was shut up for some time, the Alderman
and Common Council before they recommended a re-
newal of the license, looked to the character of it and to
the question of necessity. In this instance he looked to
both. There were within the narrow compass of one
hundred yards, six licensed houses in the same neigh-
bourhood.

Mr. PHILLIPS again urged the claim of the woman
who owned the house, and who would lose a good te-
nant if the Court refused.

The RECORDER : It is a duty we owe to the public
not to allow a greater number of licenses than are neces-
sary in any district. We must not consider the advan-
tage or the convenience of an individual, and when a
house becomes vacant, we are to see whether the neces-
sity for it exists. We must also look to the recommenda-
tion of the Alderman and Conunon Council of the Ward

as indispensable.
Mr. PHILLIPS said that the Court had occasionally
thought proper to disregard the last " indispensible," and
lately to grant licenses against the judgment of the Com-
mon Council.

The Rxconnzs said be was decidedly against the ap-
plication.
Alderman ATKIxs also expressed his objection to the
renewal of a license without the concurrence of the local
authorities.

Alderman ANSLEY and SCHOLET briefly expressed
their opposition also, and the license was refused.
Mr. PA yw E appied to the Court for a license for Mr.
Samways, the owner of a house which was built apon
the site of a public-house in Silver-street, which
had been burned down. The Learned Council stated
that an application had been made before, but there
being no doors, the notices could not be affixed accord-
ing to the terms of the Act. Now, however, that difficulty
was removed, and, according to the 14th section of the
act, the house was entitled.

Some of the licensed victuallers in the neighbourhood
attended to oppose the application. They said that the
thing came unexpectedly upon them, or they should have
opposed by counsel and in proper form.
The RECORDER tusked whether the applicant was the
person who held the house which had been destroyed
by fire ?
Mr. PAYNE replied in the negative ; but he read a
clause in the act, which entitles the person taking the
new house to a license in the event of the neglect of ap-
plication upon the part of the holder of the house which
was destroyed.
The Deputy of the Ward stated to the court that the
Alderman and Common Council of the Ward had acqui-
esced in the application.
The RECORDER—Is there a necessity for the house ?
The Deputy—No doubt of it ; we know the applicant,
too, to be a most respectable man.
The court then granted the license.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, April 26.
SWIM LING.

Thomas Picton, who described himself as a wine mer-
chant, late of Broad-street, City, trading under the firm
of Picton and Co. was opposed by several creditors.
The insolvent, in the course of a long examination,
stated, that his debts amounted to 3,1951. contracted io
less than three years, and he had no property to give up
for the benefit of his creditors. He bad accepted bills
for the accommodation of various persons to the amount
...

of 1,9001. some of whom he did not t know, and he had
never received any per tentage for putting his name to
them. He denied that he kept any books except a small
one which he had made since his imprisonment from re-
collection. In April, 1829, be purchased of Mr. Day,
one of the opposing creditors, seventy dozen of port and
seventy dozen of sherry, and he was to pay half cash,
and give a bill for the remainder ; he did not pay half cash,
very soon afterwards he sold the whole of the wines to
various persons, at prices considerably under what they
were invoiced to him. He purchased 631. worth of lace
from Messrs. Bowden and East, and in a few days after-
wards he sold it to a Jew, named Jacobs, for 461. He
also bought white lead of Messrs. Pileher and Co. for
1501. which he sold immediately afterwards for 641. To
account for some of the p , he stated that he had
7001. worth seized by themErle for an illicit distillery
concern.

------ --
Mr. Jonathan Byrnes, clerk to Bowden and East,
lace-manufacturers, stated, that a Mr. George Coming,
of Basing lane, introduced the insolvent to him as

an importer of foreign wines and an exporter of lac..
He assorted goods to the amount of 631. 19s. and when
they were ready to be sent to him, he wished to giv,,
witness a bill for 541. in part payment ; witness regittreu
a reference, and the insolvent referred him to Mr. Cu.o
sins, who, on inquiry as to the insolvent's responsibility.
said he was as good as the Bank of England, for that he.
himself had given him credit for 6001. which had bet%
paid; witness was several times at the insolvent's comp-
ing-house, in Broad street, and he saw the insolvent',
clerk make entries in a large book ; the bill given for the
lace had never been paid.
The insolvent flatly contradicted Mr. Symes'b eyi
deuce, and further stated, that he had not given Cousini
any wines nor lace, but had given him 2001. out of the
sale of some of the opposing creditor's goods ; after h.,
was arrested by Mr. Day, he gave bail, and bought two
horses, and he went out riding with a servant behind him.
although he had about four years ago been a livery-sm..
vent himself; he sold the horses on going to prison, Ha
had some harness from Messrs. Laurie, which he sold.
Mr. Commissioner HARRIS, in passing judgment, oh.
served, that the opposing creditors' debts had been frau-
dulently contracted, for it was evident the insolvent had nu
intention of paying them at the time. The Learned
Commissioner, after severely animadverting on the Maul-
vent's conduct, sentenced him to Nine Calendar Months'
Imprisonment.