Star.
London, England, 1816-09-18 00:00:00

/4 A IiGINSON V. HOWARD.

This was a gui tam action for a breach of the game
laws. The defendant was a carrier between Orms.:
kirk and Liverpool. The chief witness against hint
was William Wyberley, a surgeon, at Ormskirk.-.=
On the 25th of August, the defendant entered hit
house at eight o'clock in the evening. He bad game
in his pocket. Witness, with a little opposition frOnt
Howard, took out a partridge, and gave it to' bit
father. Howaid then goodnaturedly drew out ano.
titer, and gave it to witness., saying, 66 that will make
you a brace." Another person of the name of Nixon,
who was present, after a little struggle, took twos
more front him. aiward said the birds were given
him, and that he did not kill them himself. Being
cross examined, the witness allowed that Howard
did not offer them for sale—that the struggle in
which they were taken from him was rather jocular
than serious— and that he never demanded payment
for his game, and never received arty, though the
witness allowed that it was delicious.

On ihoi evidence the Learned Judge directed to
find for the plaintiff. Possession here was not Ls-
puted, and possession by every unqualified person
without lawful excuse, was reckoned in the eye of
the law equivalent to an exposure for sale.. e, Thera
was no difference allowed by the statute. It kvasin-
cumbent on the person to bhew he came by game in.
meanly. Otherwise he was liable to the penalty by
the mere circumstance of possesaing it without being
duly qualified. The penalty was Al for every hare,
partridge, ate. Here there were four birds. Verdict,
820 penalty; with costs.
There are at present in the gaol of Lancaster,
among the itkore, two individuals whose debts were
created by a similar proceit as the above. The one
owes for penalty and costs 819, and the other Mai
The former wit fined for having snares in his pocket,
and the latter for detaching a partridge front a entire,
perhaps laid by himself, but according to his account,
by another. The former is a weaver, 'the latter a

firm servant. They have both been confined fa
nearly twenty weeks, and see as yet no prospect of s
release, as their trisdas are not increasing by their
imprisonment.

A Frentli valet, who had been upwards of thirty,
five years in thi, service of Lord MaLnonttne, and in
the course of •at time, by frugality, had realized
the sum of &MO, lately died ; and upon opening.
Iris will, it was found . that he had left the whole of
his property to be divided between his fello.w.sereants,
according to their rank, in his Lordship's family.
A French Paper nientioas, that at the Court of.
Assizes at Lion, iti the Department of l'Aiane, a..
man had been condemned to eight years forced la:.
hour, to he publicly exposed, and to be branded, for.
tidying tioldteil the persons of no less than sit
WOUWII4 The offender was thirly•three years of age,
and was married to a young woman. Of the &Is
women whom he violated, the eldest was seventy- fix&
and the youngest/fry:fie&
Two dolphins were shot in the Ipswich river last
week ; the largest was a female ; the youngest
might have -escaped, but when the dam was woun.
ded it appeared to rash to her assistance, and rising
to the surface of the eater, was shot by a Gentleman,
of the name of ConaoLD.

Monday se'rinight, after the heavy rant, as a per.
sinn was going down Stafford's Hill, at Plymouth, he
became invisible in a moment, to the inexpressible
astoi.tihment of the other passengers. On examining
into • the cause, a large hole was discovered in the
pavement, through which he had fallen by the fadeout
of the arch, into the common sewer. He was so i
liberated from confinement, without injury, bnt in a
Miserable plight.
. A contract has been recently made to supply the
`troops- in the Portsmouth district with meat, tor sir
mouths, at less than Md. pa lb.
f . Coats EXCHANOII, MARIC•LANS, SUM lilo—Hatifig.
' but few buyers of Wheat at market tilii triornipg,
cary little business was done, and prieefitmiorho-
mioallpsis 06 Moods, for old•Whoati tit Os airiplet
of. sew, being• soft and Coarse, are' iitiatettble.-Lltt
i reilli Bcaos, and ether articles, there is no varieties.

~.,,

~

,

• e

,s .~_

Arc N ErNO94•OO immorommoo
SONG.
You ask me, why only in'moments of sadness,
I woo the soft dream which the Moor eau bestow;
Like the smile of affecion, 'cis lot eV in gladness,
But brightest It gleams thro' the darkness of woe.
Unlike the light train, that in summer's gay bowers,
Enliven our pleasures, but fly from our tears,
My path she forsakes when I wander thro' dowers,
And lost in the sunshine her light disappears!
In the night-time of pain, and the winter of sorrow,
When fades every scene that was blooming and lair,
Oh ! then, one bright ray from her soft light I borrow,
It guides thro' the gloont, and forbids me despair.
The.world's busy triflers forgetting or scorning,
She shrinks into silence, or flies from their s Ott;
They hail, like the lark, the bright rays of the morning,
She sings, like the nightingale, only by night !

POLICE OF THE METROPOLIS.

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE COM-
MIT I'EE OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS, ON THE
srm OF THE POLICE OF THE METROPOLIS.
The Hon. Fittialr Gtf.T BINNITio the Chair.
STOCKER, a Licensed Victualler, examined.
Where do you live I—l keep the Peacock, on
Bethnal•greea. •
• Did you ever hold a public-house, the Admiral
Vernon, in Bethnal-green ?—I did, five years.
Who was your landlord Merceron.
What is Mr. Merceron ?—A Magistrate of the
County.
When did your term expire ?—Unfortunately in
moving I lost my particulars, so that I cannot tell
euctly, but somewhere about 1809.
Had you any reason to believe you would be con-
tinued
as the tenant ?—I had, previous to my time
expiring, up to the very day.
Do you know why you were refused ?,It is a very
nice matter to say that I know why I was refused ;
there was no complaint against my house. •
When the licensing day arrived, what happened ?
—The first licensing day after my term was out I
bad my license, but the second licensing day I was
refused it.
What happened ?—I was not called : I went to the
Clerk of the Court, and asked the reason I was not
called ; and he went over to Mr. Merceron, and he
told me that my licence stood over to the adjourn.
anent day; and .1 drew up a petition, stating the cir-
cumstances, and that Mr. Merceron had agreed I.
should continue its my house ; after I had agreed
with the person that had the renewal, or more pro-
perly the collector, under certain terms, who the very
aught before shook hands with me and wished me
success; I was applied to, to give up my home to
another man.
Was there any complaint laid against your house ?
—Not any ; I have been a licensed victualler nearly
sixteen years, and never had a complaint against me.
Was any new house licensed instead of your's ?
Yes ; on the opposite side of the way, about five
doors off.
Was that licensed to the person to whom you were
asked to give up your house ?—Yes.
Under what sign ?—Under the same sign that 1
bad, the Admiral Vernon.
You lost your licence without a complaint being
made against you ; and the person to whom you were
solicited to give up your house, and which you re•
fused, gained it in a new house ?—Yes, a house that
bad not been licensed before.
Did you ever learn from Mr. Merceron, nr any
other of the Magistrates, why your licence was re-
fused ?—The only thing I could learn was, that I
was told by the Clerk of the Court that I held the
estate over in contempt, that I did not give it up at
the expiration of my term ; that I denied.
Your licence was not refused in consequence of
there having been any complaint of any thing in
your house ?—No, it was nor.
You are the proprietor of a new house in Bethnal-
green ?—ln Shored:tch parish.
Whereabout is it situate ?—ln Haggerston, near
Kingdand-road.
For what is it intended ?—I believe originally the
person that first built it had an intention it should be
s. public•house.
And you purchased it with a view of making it a
public-house I—Yes.
Did you apply far a licence on the last licensing
day ?—No • I went over to Mr. Merceron, conceiv-
ing that I should get an answer, whether it was right
or wrong to purchase it when it was first offered me,
whether there was any complaint against that house,
as I understood there had been a licence petitioned
for before ; he told me there had been a petition
against it formerly, because there we:s. not sufficient
houses, -but that now there were sufficient houses. I
was told the next day, that Mr. Merceron saw the
ground landlord, and that Icor& do nothing without I
paid £lOO to the ground landlord to get his interest for the
licence ; so I did not apply the last time.
Who is the ground landlord ?—Mr. Whirling; he
is Surveyor for Mr. Hanbury's brewhouse.
Had you bought the lease I—l had agreed for the
`ease; and then afterwards this selOU was required.
Was it understood, in the original purchase you
made of the house, that you were to pay dllOO to
Mr. Hanbury's Surveyor, for his interest to procure
you a license ?—No, I did not understand that till
afterwards.
After you had agreed to purchase this house in
Haggerston, you were told, that unless you paid
Messrs. Hanbury's Surveyor £eloo you could not
have their interest to gain the licence N—Yes, that is
'Am I was told.
Do you consider yourself liable to pay it Z—lf I
do not pay that, Isbell have an opposition against me.
You keep a public-house now ?—Yes.
Should you wished you followed your own :ncli.
Batton, to deal with the same brewer in this new
house that you expect to get licensed, with whom you
deal now ?—At the moment I purchased this, it was
my intention to do so.
What is your reason for changing your intention ?
...—I was lea to believe it would be no use. my peti-
tioning, for that 1 should not get it, and that this
AMU must be paid before I got the licence.
Who informed you of that ?—From the I
boUght the lease of, that bought it of Mr. Whirling,l
and Mr. Munroe saw Mr. Whirling the day before,
when I applied to know whether I should be likely
to get a license for the house. I. had no communi.
catroin with Mr. Whirling iii the gulchase Dak.

-

c

ling knew nothing of it, star -soon if Mem& Has
bury's people.
16 it generally uoderetood.*that districts that a
person applying for a liceice to a new house must. it
he expects to obtain it, promise to deal with Mr.
Hanbury do not Lwow of any house that has
been licensed in that district, but what has been
opened in Messrs. Hanbury's trade.
Is it generally understood that they most deal
with Messrs. Hanbury, to be successful in their ap-
plications for a licence ?—lt is.
In the first house you held, namely, the Admiral
Vernon, did the churchwardens, constables, and prin..
cipal inhabitants, certify in favour of your good con-
duct at all times ?—The two churchavardou that year,
the constable of that year and the year preceding, and
several of the other Ifficers and very respectable inhabitants
all around there, signed toy petition, when the party
who got the licence against me had got neither
churchwardens nor overseers, nor any of the Officers.
Are you bound to take your beer from any parti-
cular house ?—No, I never did ; except that when a
person, holds a lease of a house under the brewer, he
generally continues there.
Do you hold under a brewer now ?—Yes.
Who is your brewer ?—Mr. Culvert.
The Committee understand you to say, that you
hold your house under Mr. Calvert ?—Yes.
How long hare you been in your house ?—Nearly
six years I have been in this house ; this house origi-
nally belonged to the Peacock brewhouse.
With whom did you deal when you first went into
that house.?—Mr. John Calvert.
Who is the proprietor of the house you meant to
put your son into at Haggerston ?—Mr. Whirling
was the ground landlord.
Did the house belong to any brewer ?—No.
No brewer owned the house at Haggerston to
which you have referred ?—No.
It would sustain therefore the character of what is
called a free house ?—Yes, it would.
And on the ground of its being a free house, from
your partiality to the connection you had with
Messrs. Calvert, you wished they should have supplied
your son with his beer ?—That was my meaning.
What was the reason that you were prevented
from getting a supply from Messrs. Calvert to your
son's house ?—The reason is, that when I bought the
lease I slid not understand any thing about the £100;
and when I was going to petition for the licence, 1
was informed that unless I paid the reloo, I should
not get the licence ; I then laid myself under Messrs.
Hanbury and Co.
You expect to get the licence to that house next
year ?—I have been led to understand that I should.
Who has given you to understand that ?—Mr.
Aveling. the managing clerk at Hanbury's, and Mr.
Whitliug. who acts as surveyor for their house.
Those gentlemen have given you to understand,
that if you will deal with Mr. Hanbury, they will get
you the licence for the house ?-4 do not remember
any thing being said as to my dealing with Mr.
Hanbury.
There was no condition annexed ?—No.
Do you apprehend that, if you had told Mr. Whit-
ling and Mr. Aveling you should not deal with Mr.
Hanbury, they would have given you their interest ?
—No. it is not to be considered that they would.
Do you know Mt. Simpson, a haberdasher in
Shoreditch ?—I do, very well.
He is also a builder, is he not ?—He is.
He has built several houses on the Hackney-road,
has he not?—Yes, a good many houses about there.
How many, do you suppose I—l do not know how
many, but his connections have built a great many.
Do you know any thing of an application of his to
the Magistrates, to licence one of those houses ?—.I
have heard him speak of his applying year after year
for the licence for a house he had built in a conspi-
cuous place.
Was he successful at last ?—Not till be put it into
Mr. Hanbury's trade.
Idas the number of public-houses, in the neigh-
bourhood in which you live. increased or diminished
within your experience ?—On my spot there has a
house been licensed where there was none before, but
there are very few now.; I am not competent to say
whether they are generally increased.
JOSZPH HUXEN examined.
What are you ?—A publican now, a carpenter by
trade.
Did you build many houses in Fish-street, Lim-
bo use ?-1 built about six houses.
Was one of them a public-house ?—One I built for
a public-house, it is now a publichouse.
Known by the sign of Lord Hood ?—Yes.
Did you endeavour to get that house licensed N.'
II did.
For how many years ?—Six years and upwards
without effect, and I strained every nerve I possibly
could.
Did you apply to Mr. Reid, the distiller in Alders.
gate-street, to get it licensed ?—I did.
Did you offer to hiri the spirit trade ?—I offered
him the spirit trade for a certain term of yeats (seven
years) if he could get it licensed ; lie said he was
afraid it was out of his power to do it s he recom-
mended me to call on Meurs. Truman and Hanbury,
which T did, and they put me off many times; but
at last they said, if I would enter into an agreement
to give them a lease of the premises, they had no ob.
jecuon to try what they could do ; and I agreed to
grant them a lease for 21 years, under the agreement
that they were to grant me an under-lease.
Were there any conditions attached to the under-
lease ?—To deal with them.
That was expressed in the condition ?—Yes.
Was it then immediately licensed ?—No, it was
not I the nest year following I applied again to them,
and entered into a 'similar agreement with them, as
the date of the other dig not stand, which I had to
pay the licensing clerk for doing ; I had to pay the
licensing clerk both years ; and this house being on
my hands so long, I did not know what to do, and I
considered it would be of more effect perhaps if. I
went into a home of theirs, and mortgaged the house
to them, which I did for 0250, and I was in the
house 18 months.
Was it then licensed ?•-No, it wu not. Then I
left the house, which was a very indifferent house;
then they directly called in their mortgage money,
and told me they must have it within two months, or
they must sell the house to pay them their money;
accordingly I advised -with a person, who turned out
to be their attorney, Mr. Monson, the licensing
cluks gad 'he petottivs ;talto km It to their gene-

irosily to do at they pleased.; accorfingly t did, so,
they agreed to give me 400 for it, and in two
moths after that it was licensed, and then said if it
was licensed they would give me something more.
When I went to apply, Mr. Avail said, why 700
have soon found out it is licensed new - I said, yes,
I had ; I said, you promised me a something More,
I hope you will be as good as your word now; he
said, that is another consideration ; the fact is, you
sold us the house, and we have sold the house again
to liquor merchants in the City, Messrs. Stables and
Williams. I had a house joining, a little house I
had built, as I had leisure time to do it, and they
wished for this house ; this was not a freehold house,
but a lease I had taken (having bought this lot of
ground, and then thinking there was not sufficient
ground) from a friend of mine, who had bought the
other ground; they would not give me any thing,
unless I would sell them that home alongside of it.
Did you do that ?—I did,
What did you get for the whole ?—Theytgave me
a. 50 for that.
Did Mr. Hanbury's clerk ever call upon you and
solicit your orders for spirits, for Messrs. Stables and
Williams?—Yes, Mr. Hanbury's clerk called, and
left a card of Messrs. Stables and Williams ; I believe
he is a relation, and that he is in the distil-house now.
Do you know whether there is any connection be-
tween Messrs. -Banbury and Messrs. Stables and
Williams have heard there is, but I cannot say
further than that.
Was it your opinion that if you dealt with or sold
your house to Messrs. Hanbury, you would get a
licence; and that if you did not, you could not ?
Yes, that was my opinion.
Is that the generally received opinion in that part
of the town ?—lres, it is.
Do you keep a public house now ?—I do.
Under whom ?—Mr. Calvert.
Are you bound to have your beer of Mr. Calvert ?
—Tel, it is Mr. Calvert's house.—(To be maimed.)