The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1841-01-26 00:00:00

KIRKDALE SESSIONS.-JANUARY 25.

IMPORTANT TO PUBLICAN

APPEAL AGAINST A CONVIC-

TION.-FLETCHER V. RUSRTON AND HOUGHTON, ESORS

This was an appeal of Stephen Fletcher, publican, of Brick-
street, against a conviction by Edward Rushton and Richard
Houghton, Esqrs., magistrates of the borough of Liverpool,
in the penalty of 505., for having had drunken and disorderly
people in his house contrary to the tenor of his licence, on
the night of the l4th November last.
Mr. Wilkins represented the apps
eppeared for the respondents.
Dr. BROWN, in support of the conviction, commenced
He said he appeared before the court in support of a convic•
tion by two magistrates of the borough of Liverpool ; and,
inasmuch as this was a conviction which might seriously affect
the interests of the appellant, who was represented by his
learned friend, he was anxious to try the whole question of
fact, because at present he was in a condition to prevent the
hearing of the appeal at all. But, representing, as he did,
magistrates who were anxious only to do their public duty,
he was willing to go into the question cf whether the offence
had been committed or not.
Mr. WILKINS.-lf you please.
Dr. BROWN, with an understanding that no formal objec-
tion should be taken by one side or the other, would there-
fore readily wave any objection which he might take, and
which would be fatal to the appellant.
Mr. WILKINS expressed his assent.
Dr. BROWN then said, that the very short question in this
case was, whether the appellant had committed an offence

;Bant, and Dr. Brown

against the tenor of his licence, that offence being his having
knowingly permitted drunkenness upon his premises. After
the understanding which his learned friend and himself had
arrived at, he should merely call before the court witnesses

who would prove the case beyond all question. They would
prove that on the day named in the conviction, viz., the ]4th
of November, they went into, at a late hour of the night, the
premises of the appellant, and there found twenty or thirty—
nearer thirty— persons, more than half of whom were in a
state of intoxication. If he proved that fact, he apprehended
he should be entitled to have the conviction confirmed. He
knew not what answer might be attempted to be given to it,
but if his learned friend had any witnesses to call, he should
have an opportunity of testing their evidence. The learned
counsel then requested that the witnesses on both sides might
withdraw. Mr. Wilkins immediately assented, and the
learned councel continued. If he was rightly instructed, a
number of persons were there, and they were in a condition of
intoxication. He should be able to prove, too, that con-
siderable acts of misconduct had taken place. He would re-
peat, that if he proved these facts, he,apprehended his learned
friend would have no defence against this conviction. He
should call his witnesses, and it would be for the court to
say whether, upon their evidence, the case was made out. At
all events, he did not apprehend his learned friend would be
able to shake their evidence by any witnesses that he might
call.
The CHAIRMAN.—Have you the conviction ?

Dr. BROWN replied in the affirmative. It appeared to be
for having suffered drunkenness upon the premises against
the tenor of his license. According to the form of his
license, one of the conditions of it was, that the appellant
should not knowingly or wilfully permit drunkenness upon
his premises ; and it was for breach of that condition of the
license that he was now brought before the court.
The CHAIRMAN asked whether it was under any clause in
the act, or only against the tenor of the license, that the
conviction had taken place.
Dr. BROWN replied that it was under the 21st section, as
well as against the tenor of the license. The learned coun-
sel then called Ronald Macdonald who was examined as
follows :

Are you au inspector in the Liverpool police force?

What situation were you in upon Saturday night, the 14th
of November last ?—Upon the 6th permanent section, south
division.

Do you know the house kept by the appellant, William
Fletcher ?—I do.
Have you known it for some time ?—I have.
What sign is his house?—lt is the sign of the
in Brick-street.

In the Borough of Liverpool ?—Yes.
On that night did you go into his house ?—I did.
At what time ?—Three or four minutes before 12 o'clock.
Did you find him there ?—I did.
What room was he in ?—He was standing in the bar.
is he the master of the house ?—He is as far as I under-
stand.

You have known him as master of the house ?—I have.
In what condition did you find the house at that time?—
At the time I entered the bar, the word was passed to the
adjoining room—the tap-room—that the police had come in.
I proceeded furward to the tap-room. They were in a very
confused state there, and were fiddling and dancing. Some
were pulling and dragging each other. There were about 20
men and 12 women in : there were more when I first went
in ; but when I began to count them, some went out. There
were several glasses on the tables, containing ale and spirits.
How many did you count then ?—About 32 in all.
What was in the glasses ?—Apparently ale and spirits.
Were the people disorderly then ?—Yes, very.
How many were there drunk ?—There were 10 men and 4
women drunk.

Have you any doubt that they were drunk ?—Not the
;lightest.

Did any of the persons who were drunk do anything to
you ?—One of the women took up a glass of ale, and threw
the contents in a man's face who stood near me. A portion
of it fell into my face, and into that of the officer near me.
Who was that officer ?—lt was No. 20, Atherton.
Did you see this woman afterwards ?---Yes, I saw her when
she was taken out of the streets into bridewell, for drunken-
ness.

When did you see her ?—Early on Sunday morning.
Was anything else done ?—Yes ; another man, who sat on
the opposite side of the table to the woman, got up, took off
his hat, and threw it in the officer's face.

What officer was that?—lt was No:20, Atherton.
Are you sure that the number of persons you have spoken
of were drunk and disorderly ?—I am ; there was one man
in particular who was shouldered out in my presence. He
was told that the police were in the house, but he said
the inspector!" and that he did not care a curse
for the police.

Was that man drool
And the others who were

'—He v

Wog him out

They were

Was there anything else that you noticed ?—Nothing par-
ticular. I watched their motions and conduct for ten minutes,
and I feel satisfied that there were that number drunk.
Crois-examined by Mr. WILKINS.—What time was it
when you went into the house ?—About three or four minutes
to twelve.

How many went in ?—Only two of us.
Is there any ohe else here but you to speak of the tran-
saction ?—Not to that exactly.

Did any one else see any part of the transaction ?
police do you mean ?

'—Of the

_
Anybody : I care not who.—Not except those in the house.
Then, have you anybody here except your brother officer?
—Not of that night.

How long have you been upon that beat
the month of May last.