Middlesex Sessions, Frida...
The Times, 1824-01-17T00:00:00

This was an appeal against the cenvicdon of Thomas Dove Brookes, of Brentford, in the parish of Ealing, in Middlesex, on the information of- Proctor, for having sold beer and ale of a par. ticular description, by rctail, without a magistrate's licence, at a victualler. The question, which is one of very great importLace to thepublic, has excited considerable interest, not only in London, but in almost every town ia the kingdom. WIle had made arrangements to give a full account of the arguaments of the learned coansel engaged on both sides, and the decision of the magistates; but the turn which the matter has now taken, and the certainty that in a very few weeks at the latest, it must come on for a ful discussion, and, per- haps, final decision in the Court of King's Bench, vould render that task unnecessary, had the case been heard at length. It was, however, only partially gone into. It will, thereforc, suffice for the present, to describe whbat passed on the subject. Mr. BOLLAND appeared, by order of the Board of Excise, for the appellant. He was attended by the solicitor of Excise. Mlr. Sergeant PELL appeared etor the respondent. The learned sergeant proceeded to contend, from the construcdon of the act 35 Geo. Ill. cap. 113, under which the conviction had taken place, and from the fair interpretation of some clauses in the 26th Geo. IL., the 32d and 48th Geo. III., that no person could seU beer or ale of a particular description by retail, without being duly licensed by the magistrates. lWhen the learned gentleman had concluded, The Chairnan (iWr. CoNsT) said, it appeared to him and other magistrates on the bench, that in this court the present important question could not be satisractority decided. W'hich way soever thev might decide, some party would be dissatisfied ; the question would liot be set at rest, and similar appeals would multiply in different parts of the country. It was plain, theu, that to a higher tribunal the matter must be ultimately referred. He would therefore recommend, that counsel at each side, having agreed upon the ficts, should make this a case for the decision of the Court of King's Bench. Air. BOLLAN?D said, that he would have no objection to this pro- position. The question was a most important one to the public, and it was necessary that it sihould be set at rest. The learned gentle- man, in reply to an observation whicii had falen from Air. Ser- geant Pell, accounted for the Board of Excise having taken up the appellant's case, by stating, that wben aomie retail-breweries were first proposed,application was madeto theTreasury, as to the legality of such establishments selling by retail. The Treasurry referred the applicants to the Board of Excise, and by that Board they were in- formed, that if a comnmon brewer disclaimed the usual allowances (three barrels in 36), and paid duty accordingly, it would be perfectly legal for themito sell beer or ale by retail, to be consumed otlherwise than on their own premises, without the necessity of obtaining a vie. tualler's licence. As far as the decision of the magistrates at Brent. ford had gone, the opinion of the Board of Excise hadk been declared to he in error; and the Board, finding that tbeappellant had acted by their advice, and believing stillthat that advice wias in conformity with the due construction o the law,. felt bound to take up his cause. !hir. Sergeant Par.. said he wouhla not individually oppose the courserecomrnmended by the Bench, but aSsome of hisclients, rhom he did not know, might be in court, le fet it but justice to them to declare his solemn conviction that the fair sad true con- struction of the acts of Parliament faUy supported the decision made by the ;magistrates at Brentford. He would be quite willing to abide by the decision of this Court without going further, but he had no objection, if it were so wished, to meet etiopposite parties in the Court of King's Bench on the question. In conclusion, lie said, that with every respect for the Board of Excise, he trusted the would not be too rcady in future to give their opinion of what was or was not law on importantquestions, until thenmatter had'oeen first decided to be so by some of the superior courts. Evidence was now given that the appellant had taken out a licence as a common brewer, had given the regular notice of selling by re- tail, and had disclaimed theallowance. 'The facts being agreed to on both sides, the Magistrates affinned the conviction, leaving, of course, executionsuspendedcuntil thefinaI decision by the Court of R ng's DSnch. JONES BOWDEN V. LOAD KENYON. This was an appeal by Lord Kenyon against a conviction before MIr. Alinsbull, at Bow-street, in August 1823. When it was called en to-day in its regular turm. the appellant did not appear and it being understofod that, an application was about to be luade on Ihis Lordship's behalf to have the case farther postponedi lr. C. P aILLIPS, for the respondent, addressed thc Bench, and. said,hbe would object to any farther postponement. Hie 5tated to the Court the reason why he objected. . This case came originally before Mr. Minshull, the magistrate, as a summons, calling upon Lord Kenyon, wvho was described as the proprietor of the Truc Briton evening newspaper, for thepayinentof (we think)31. 12a. Cd, due to the respondent Bowden, who wvas a journeyan rinter, and had worked on the paper. Mr. llinshull decided that lis lordfip should pay the money. Lord Kenyan,isowever, for vcrg goiO rea. sbns no d-3ubt, appealed against the maRistrate's decision. The case had been put oit once before, and he (fr. Phillips) eulbrnitteda that it would beinjusticeto his client, who.oughttolhave recehi.e his money lqng sinco, to allow i to be farther postponed. TIme noble appellant wds obsent, and could -not attend. He was in fact in the country. Under those circumstances~ he hbped--the Court *odld afflrm the decision of thi rnagistrate. HIe acted in this applicatiob by the earnest desire of his client. The COURJT, tnig that the appellbnt was no0ready toprocewd atfuned the V. wgiin. COBBETT V. WV1311. This was an appeal by Felix Ve'b, one of the tolloloUecto on the Hamrmersmith.road, against a &nvietion i4idd before air Richard Birnie.. The conviction was ieadL It We. faith, that on tih 27tb of Novemelis1, F-Webb,'bdin thei a collectr eni tle4W Tie ersmit1s.road, did use and utter certain abusive uords to Wila1 Cobbett. bein' then a traveller or passenger along the sid roaa, to wit_.." You darc not show youtr face in any court of us- aice; there i5 nO magistrate who would believe yonr woro.' 'this wvas allee,ed in the usual wasy to be contrary to the form of the sta- tute, aud the detEadsnt was fined 51. A,,ainst this conviction, the appeal was made. Mr. ADOLIEsUS, who appeared for the appellant, was proceeding with sonie preliminary objection to the conviction, on the ground of the want of jurisdiction in the magistrates, when mr. FREtCc1, who appeated for the respondent, interfere-3. He said that he had an objection to make, which must take precedence of that of his learned friend. He objected to the notice of' a-peal as irregular, or, he would rather say, he would adImit the receipt of a certain paper, whichi he did not allov to be a suf?eient notice, as the act directed. He then referredl to the act, which stated that the notice should (amongst other things) contain an appeal against the conviction, "and set forth the matter thereof." Now the paper which respondent received, alluded to the maLtter of the conviction no farther than these words_." considering that I arnnot guilty thereof." Tis, he maintained, was not sufflcient. Th!e 11ag4strates held this objection to be valid, and affirmeed the Mr. FnExCHr applied for costs. The Co UP.T refused, on the ground that the respondent need not have asneared with such a nntice. MfIDDLESEX SESSIONS, Friday, Jan. 16. RETAIL BREWERIES.-BROOKES V. PROCTOR.