Retail Breweries.
The Times, 1824-02-13T00:00:00

Tinls aay v as appointed for hearing intormations preterreo agains M5r. Adatosand M r, Tilley, retAnil brewcrs, in tbis toWn, under 35 Geo. ll . c. 113, for selling beer by retail, ilot being duely licenscd so to do. At 11 o'clock, W. AsiiitEiW, Bsq.. the M.ayor, and L. AUSTWICK, Esq., one of the aldermen of the borougli, took their seats in the Council Chamber, which soon afterwards became crowded to exces.I Mr. PLAT'r appeared for the prosecutions, aDd Mr. TALFouitD for the defendants. The inforniatioti against AIr. Adams was first caUcd on. Mlr. TALFOURD took the preliminary objection, tbat the pro- ceeding was not instituted by order of thle Escise, or by the Attor- ney-General, althoughl it related to the revenue," since the 48 (Geo. III. had placed the iliences under the direction of the Excise. Tite MIAYOR ove~rruled the objection, and, in sb doing, took aa- sion to advert to some reblectione which had been cast on thle magis- tTates for receiving the informations: he had consulted the Re- corder (1r. Bolland) on the subject, and was sancdoned by his de- cisive opinion that tlev could not have done othersvise. He adverted to a paragraph in the foriiiA Chronicle, cexisstring the mnagistrates troendless. He ehd also received an aioryioius letter, v,hich wras too futile to deserve noticc. Mwlr. VIsrES, the attorney for the defendants, begged to disclaim ill knowledge of the para ph or the letter. The al AX oi said tis disclaimer was tunnecesssry, as MIr. Vines was the last man in the town whom be could suspect of such a pro- weeding. l\lr. PLATT then ptoceeded to open his case; He wvas astonished to find persons so foolish as to think they could serve a cause by wnting anonymous letters to inagistrates tbose unpaid magistrates of whom England was sojastly proud, and who mUust treat such ap- plications with contemnpt. He adverted to the expressions of feeling elicited at Brentford, anddeprecated in strong language the recurrence of such expressions here. Thin infornation was preferred by a per- son who had a right to exhibit it, to put down what the law regarded as an evil, and which must be so regarded whlile that law remnained in force. It was framed on 35 Geo. III., c. 113, which imposed a penalty on any person selling beer by retai1. not being duly licensed so to do, and which extended irD terms to every descriptioni of per- sons, and required from all a Magistrate's licence. This act remain. ed uncontrolled by any excise laws, as was evident from the " ling v. liansob," 4 Barn. and Ald., 134, and referred, not to revenue, but to policez The learnetd counsel, after referring to the several classes of brewers, proceeded to designate the defendant as n " Vic- tualling Brewer," and to state that he should plainly shew him to have sold beer by retail, not having a AX agtistrate's licence. Thonsas swallow (the informer in the other case) was then called, and after some delay appeared amnidst violent hissing. Allt. Ti.SLFoua begged it would be understood, that any per- son expressing his feelings in this manner was the worst enemy of the defendants. The witness proved the purchase of beet en the 8th of Januar-y at Air. Adams's brewery, at 4d. a not, being Id. per pot lower than the public-house price. It Fartherappeared, that Mr. Adams's was not a publi&-houge-that placards were conspicuously displayed5warning persons that they must not drink beer on the premises-that Mlr. Aidamls had disc?aied the allowances, and made entry as a retail brewer-end that a retail brewer, though paying the same duties as abrewing viethiaUer, was surveyed in a different manner. Mlr. TALFOTRD addressed the Court for the defendant. He agreed in the obsefrrtiocs of AIr. Platt respecting the foUll of at- tempting to bias magistrates by antonymous letters indeed, it was so foolish, that it probably canme front the side which the writer pre- tended to o'ppose, as was not unknowvn in the history of spies and in- fornier H1ee ten proceeded to argue that the deferrdant was entitled to an acquittal an three grounds-first, that the 135th Geo. IIL was rnodifid, if not repealed, by 48 Ge. I lL., c. 143: secondly, that the retaii brewers were not tle parties contemrplted by36th Geo. 11. ; and lastly, that if they were so contemplated5 Ai r. Adams was "duly licensed" within the meaning of that act. On the frst point he urged that theact Z5th Geo. III. was referable to a state of things no longer in exisietee , that the licence,finally granted even to the pub-- licat`, was now an excise lidence granted under 48 Geo. III.; tbat this actcame in the room and stead df a-lptevious acts, and that it expressly restricted its renalties to thosc -rho sold beer "to be con- 5umedon his premises, '-which was the reason why it had been overlooked, _nd the 33th Geo. 111. plucked usundei from its con- nesian. -On the 3scond uoint, lie arged that all the statutes respect- ingalehouse-keepers pro-_-l that the Legislature conwemplated mis:I chiets from which thle retail brewer was tree; that the common law right to sell beer as anv other.corrhodity was not taken away,except vherl thre heeping of an alehouse w3S connected with it that there were a chain ofstattes from 12 Car.1I., c. 15, down to 43 GeO. III., tecognizing btsewers Selling by retil as a legal cilass of common bsrewers, contradisdnguished from aleho-asc-keepers and victuallers, and depriving them of certain allowances which r1lr. Adamshad dis- claiined; andthatin 42 Geo. III. therewasactuallyaspecialexception in fhaour of a common brewer selling by retail, aad exempting hin from a necessity imposed on all others, of taking out an alehlouse- keeper's licence. On thle third poiat besaid heswould produce Air. Adnanms licence t& etil, granted by the Excise, who were the parties now aufiorized tegrant it, and who, if they had granted it improperly, otilii io be assaited, and not the party whom theyhad led into error. In conclasion the learned counsel called on the Bench, even if.they doxibged' on either of these points, to ac- quit thli defendants, who were needlessly assailed la the -in terval betXween. th- raising of the qutestion and' thb setting it at rest.i-.who had beeu encouraged, sanctioned,' and incited to ibisrt their property, by those on whose authority thev had a - xight to reyose. He entreated thli Bench to look - it the -spiritof the acts against alehouse-keepers, and to observe howfree tlhe retai1-rewers wvere fromnpartaking in the evils they were iptend. ed loi .resmedy; nay, how eflfectuaUy they opposed them, by provid. ing for the poor-a cheap oeverage, without tiTur tenptations,which they might share. ,q~tkseirfarniles., It wasi noquestion.ofmoralI, butof ooilv not !even b-etween the s*na1 brevers and the great; but on the evidencc in the cause,, whet1*r .tlhe people should hzve beerchtepp and goodat homc,or be force) -to buy it ata bishiei prtej0it,midstttecotrntios o the-dlc bbie, ;'e asked-ile vidf gitr.e.s;tli. if-they Iled- t -i4i-" as h6kitiiOe l Of tbe2fisile ;_he aike; it o 4 sle policyd afv:' shad heai cded ^4e ae4st~ in tlhe naileo f$?e ff_S o England;: -; AliOM iar r.AdOmsi grntea by theExcidz,ns thek o authorizing him to carryom trade- s as ccmmioebrir7i: ria, on which 45ii duty,was paid.: It washe i ho4wn that lie bid dueentrieN and wss charged with *e duties as a -brettrd i g the allowanises. MIr. PL ATT, in reply, urged that the statute of 35. G. . wans not affected by 48 &eorge ILL, as was decided in the" IEKibgv. ganson"-rthatlthe excise laws and the police aiws weze esseuti4ly distinct-tha the licence produced was a mere excse lieence,,'whpic did not even exist when the 35th of George Ill. was vpgst&; and. conse%uently could furnish no defence- unded its :pr rWonn.:,gc urged that the cheap beer would become dear whets t.he -blitsn's ran was acco ppshed-tbat the ile.house was indispensableeto dne poor man wvho had no bome 4-but that, independent of theset #esi- derations, the bench were bound to-act on s1i?]gw as it stood, and that was clearly againt the defendants. The MKAoA psLtponed jUOdgDneit till Me3esday week, in the hope that the special case in the King's acncb way De in time decidea -That cate difters from t,his,- ioweier, inismudi as there the defexdants had no licenc fo141ft'oo theoxc; The.laformation agaist Mr. Tilleg wnigone thoughpr4forsn4 and the4icision postponed. - MIr. t.&TT Abandoned ote inforn;ation 3gairnst. eearapar_ tie;, 9n Account.. of the disqualification annexed to . second. con- T->Y- -HALL, BRGrlHToN, Mondsy, Feb.19. This morning at an ear,i hour the court wras crowded to excess by common brewers, xicua;3, &c., to hear. the decision 'elative to several seizures made.on the jirt'erty of Mlr. tWi. Bush, of the Bell Inn, Warwick-lane,. retafl brts.?ers and -at. Churchautmr, Brighton. The magistrates on the bencFr yerce Sir David sott and J.V. Cripp, Ease. The conviction was under -@ (eo. IL, c. 38, for selling beer at a fiigber price than 1Ad. per quart, i.5s CftTy nDot-beCg made as a common retail brewer, but entereda as a. r dealer (in error.) The Excise acknowledged that the beer bad psId its full duty as a retail common brewer. The Magistrmtes inflictIltheskIl. penaltv, but mitigated it to 12. lOs., with an order to return 211 the beer seized, amounting to 856 gallons, with casks ana vyaridis -utes-- Sils. Mr.Bush gave notice of appeal respecting the penalty, &Ad entered into the usual recognizance for the same. RETAIL BREWERIES. READINS. FPIDAY. FEB. 6.