Wellingborough & Kettering News, August 14th, 1880, transcribed by Kay Collins
To the Overseers of the Poor of the Parish of Rushden, in the County of Northampton, and the Superintendent of Police for the Division of Wellingborough, in the said County of Northampton, and to all whom it may concern.
I JOSEPH ROBINSON (Shopkeeper and Fly Driver) now residing at a House situate in High-street, and adjoining Church-street, in the Parish of Rushden, in the County of Northampton, do hereby give Notice, that it is my intention to apply at the General Annual Licensing Meeting, to be holden at the Police Station in Wellingborough, in the Division of Wellingborough, in the said County, on the Thirtieth day of August instant, for a Certificate to sell by retail, Beer, to be consumed off the Premises, at the said House situate at Rushden aforesaid (being within the said Division), the property of and rented by me under Arthur Campbell Bulkley Praed, and now in my own occupation.
Given under my Hand this Fourth day of August, One Thousand Eight Hundred and Eighty.
|
Wellingborough & Kettering News, August 14th, 1880, transcribed by Kay Collins
To the Overseers of the Poor of the Parish of Rushden, in the County of Northampton, and the Superintendent of Police for the Division of Wellingborough, in the said County of Northampton, and to all whom it may concern.
I JAMES WARREN (Butcher) now residing at a House situate in Little-street (in a place called "Ann's Cottages") in the Parish of Rushden, in the County of Northampton, do hereby give Notice, that it is my intention to apply at the General Annual Licensing Meeting, to be holden at the Police Station in Wellingborough, in the Division of Wellingborough, in the said County, on the Thirtieth day of August instant, for a Certificate to sell by retail, Beer, to be consumed off the premises, at the said House, situate at Rushden aforesaid (being within the said Division) the property of and rented by me under Arthur Campbell Bulkley Praed, and now in my own occupation. Given under my hand this Fourth day of August, One Thousand Eight Hundred and Eighty.
The mark X of
JAMES WARREN
Witness, D. M. HENRY
|
|
Wellingborough & Kettering News, August 7th, 1880, transcribed by Kay Collins
To the Overseers of the Poor of the Parish of Rushden, in the County of Northampton, and the Superintendent of Police for the Division of Wellingborough, in the said County of Northampton, and to all whom it may concern.
I EBENEZER COX, now residing at "The New Inn," High-street, in the Parish of Rushden, in the County of Northampton, Beerhouse Keeper and Dealer, do hereby give Notice, that it is my intention to apply at the General Annual Licensing Meeting, to be holden at the Police Station in Wellingborough, in the Division of Wellingborough, in the said County, on the 30th day of August next ensuing, for a Certificate to sell by retail, Spirits and Wine, to be consumed on the Premises, at a House in my own occupation, known as "The New Inn," situate in High-street, in the Parish of Rushden, in the County of Northampton, and being within the said Division.
Given under my Hand this 30th day of July, One Thousand Eight Hundred and Eighty.
EBENEZER COX
[This case was ongoing - see the New Inn for more reports]
|
Wellingborough & Kettering News, August 6th, 1881, transcribed by Kay Collins
To the Overseers of the Poor for the Parish of Rushden, in the County of Northampton, and the Superintendent of Police for the Division of Wellingborough, in the said County of Northampton, and to all whom it may concern.
I EBENEZER COX, now residing at the New Inn, High-street, in the parish of Rushden, in the County of Northampton, beerhousekeeper and dealer, do hereby give notice, that it is my intention to apply at the General Annual Licensing Meeting, to be holden at the Police Station in Wellingborough, in the Division of Wellingborough, in the said County, on the 29th day of August next ensuing, for a Certificate to sell by retail, spirits and wine, to be consumed on the premises, at a house in my own occupation, known as The New Inn, situate in High-street, in the parish of Rushden, in the County of Northampton, and being within the said Division.
Given under my hand this Thirtieth day of July, One Thousand Eight Hundred and Eighty One,
|
Wellingborough & Kettering News, August 6th, 1881, transcribed by Kay Collins
To the Overseers of the Poor of the Parish of Rushden, in the County of Northampton, and the Superintendent of Police for the Division of Wellingborough, in the said County of Northampton, and to all whom it may concern.
I ROBINSON BURTON, now residing at Rushden, in the Parish of Rushden. in the County of Northampton, Baker, do hereby give Notice, that it is my intention to apply at the General Annual Licensing Meeting, to be holden at the Police Station in Wellingborough, in the Division of Wellingborough, in the said County, on the 29th day of August next ensuing, for a certificate to sell by retail, Beer and Cider, to be consumed off the Premises, at a House, Shop, and Premises, situate on the north-west side of Crabb-street, in the Parish of Rushden, in the County of Northampton, and being within the said Division.
Given under my hand this Thirtieth day of July, One Thousand Eight Hundred and Eighty-one.
|
Wellingborough & Kettering News, August 6th, 1881, transcribed by Kay Collins
To the Overseers of the Poor of the Parish of Rushden, in the County of Northampton, and the Superintendent of Police for the Division of Wellingborough, in the said County of Northampton, and to all whom it may concern.
I THOMAS HULATT, now residing at the "Coach and Horses" Inn, Rushden in the Parish of Rushden in the County of Northampton, Licensed Victualler, do hereby give notice that it is my intention to apply at the General Annual Licensing Meeting to be holden at the Police Station in Wellingborough in the Division of Wellingborough in the said County on the 29th day of August next ensuing for an Order sanctioning the removal of the Licence for the sale by retail of Intoxicating Liquor, to be consumed either on or off the premises, now held by me, from the "Coach and Horses" Inn aforesaid to a new House situate on the North East side of the Road leading from Rushden to Wellingborough, and at the junction of such Road with the Road leading from Knuston to Higham Ferrers, the said new House being also in the Parish of Rushden in the County of Northampton and within the said division.
Given under my hand this twenty-ninth day of July, one thousand eight hundred and eighty one.
|
Wellingborough & Kettering News, September 3rd, 1881, transcribed by Kay Collins
Wellingborough Brewster Sessions
The annual licensing session was held on Monday last,
Before H. M, Stockdale Esq. (in the chair), Spencer Pratt, Esq., and R. W. Arkwright, Esq.
Superintendent Bailee's Report
The following report was presented by Mr. Supt.Bailee:-
Wellingborough, Aug. 29, 1881.
I beg to lay before the magistrates a return showing the number of licensed houses in the above division on the 29th of August, 1881. There are 78 public houses, 42 beerhouses licensed to sell on premises, 66 beerhouses licensed off premises — being an increase of seven as compared with 1880 — Six refreshment houses are licensed to sell wine by retail on the premises; 22 persons are licensed to sell wine and spirits for consumption off the premises, which is an increase of one as compared with last year. 14 licenses have been transferred during the year, viz., five public houses, three beer-louses on premises, six beerhouses off premises.
During the year proceedings have been taken against three publicans, two convicted, one paid costs; one beerseller off premises paid costs—all for a breach of their license. The houses have been generally well conducted during the past year. The number of persons proceeded against for drunkenness &c., during the year was 98 (while in the previous year the numbers were 147, showing a decrease of 49). Of this number 49 were summoned and 49 were taken into custody; of these 24 were non-resident in the division.
(signed) John Bailee
Superintendent.
The Chairman and Magistrates
of the Wellingborough Division.
Application for Spirit License at Rushden
Mr. C. C. Becke, for Mr. Heygate, applied on behalf of Ebenezer Cox, landlord of the New Inn beerhouse, at Rushden, for a spirit license. Mr. Jackson opposed the application on behalf of Mr. George Denton and other gentlemen connected with Rushden Temperance Society.
Mr. Becke put in the Wellingborough News containing the advertisement, and the applicant proved that the requisite notices had been served and exhibited.
Mr. Jackson said that when opposing the application last year he had cross-examined the applicant in reference to several matters affecting his management of the house. He was always reluctant to refer to any past circumstances in a man's life, and if his friend (Mr. Becke) raised no objection he proposed upon this occasion, instead of again crossexamining the applicant, to put in the report of his cross-examination last year.
Mr. Becke having intimated that he had no objection to raise, the Bench consented to receive the report as evidence.
Mr. Jackson then read the following report of his cress-examination last year from the Wellingborough News:—"The applicant was subjected to a cross- examination by Mr. Jackson. He admitted that in December, 1877, Frederick Cox broke his leg in his house, whilst playing with a man, and that, in 1879, Thomas Litchfield hurt his leg, whilst he was in the New Inn. Witness was not aware that in consequence of the injury he met with Fredk. Cox was on the parish for twelve months, and he did not know that bad women had frequented his house.
About three weeks ago a man, named Henry Burgess, had an attack of delirium tremens in the yard of the New Inn. Witness was not in the habit of taking articles of wearing apparel from persons in payment of drink supplied; he once bought a coat of Wm. Abrahams for 8s., but after the purchase, Abrahams, being reluctant to part with the garment, walked off with it. On the 25th July, last year, witness was convicted of allowing drunkenness on his premises, and fined £1 and 14s. 6d costs. On one occasion the policeman cautioned him about the use of "the bull in the ring," which he had in his house, and he at once did away with it, as he had not received any general caution as to the way in which he had conducted his house."
Mr. Jackson (addressing the applicant): I have only one further question to ask you to-day. I Believe that you charged one of the police of the district with an offence in your house, and that on the charge going before the Grand Jury, they threw out the Bill. Was it not admitted in the evidence upon that charge that the policeman had in your house after hours?
Applicant: What do you mean, Sir?
Mr. Jackson: Was not the policeman supplied with drink in your house after hours?
Applicant: Yes; my wife asked the constable to have some brandy and water with her.
Mr. Becke said he had proved the formal part of the case, and he had now to ask the Bench to grant the spirit license applied for by his client. In reference to the line of cross-examination pursued by Mr. Jackson, he admitted that when a new license was being applied for character was a very material point, but in this case it, was not a question of character at all. The applicant already held an out-door license, and the questions to be really decided were, whether the house was structurally suitable to be a full licensed house, and whether this additional convenience was needed by the public. It was true that the application was refused last year, he need hardly point out to the Bench that it was their duty every year to exercise the functions entrusted to them after giving due weight to the evidence brought before them. For 35 years no additional spirit license had been granted in Rushden, although the population had increased in that period from 1311 to 3654. Now supposing that the magistrates in the exercise of their discretion in former times had decided rightly that the licensed houses now in Rushden were necessary for 1311 persons, then it was clear that additional accommodation must be needful at the present time, when population stands at upwards of 3,600. There were, no doubt, many in such a community who sometimes needed wines and spirits, and he contended that every reasonable facility should be granted to the inhabitants. Moreover, he would remind the Bench that a populous village like Rushden, carrying on happily a flourishing trade, attracted to itself many strangers—persons who visited it from business and other causes; and for their convenience he submitted that extra accommodation was necessary. He would not take up the time of the Bench in referring to the fitness of the premises, because there was no dispute on that but he might point out what he believed would be admitted by their opponents, that it was better to give a spirit license to an existing beer-house than to license entirely fresh premises. As his client's character he would again remind the Bench that that was not the question before them, that he would also point out that there was probably no one who had not made some mistakes in his past life, and as to Cox’s wife giving a policeman some brandy and water, he thought very few them would like to answer for everything their wives had done. (A laugh) The fact that Cox still held a license was evidence of general good character, and he trusted on the grounds he had advanced that the Bench would grant the application.
Joseph Higgins was then called, and proved that the next licensed house was 320 yards distant. The Inn had been recently rebuilt, and was thoroughly suitable to have a spirit license. The house was the first licensed premises on entering Rushden from Higham. Last year a petition had been numerously signed in favour of the application, Mr. Jackson then addressed the Bench in opposition to the application. He said that he had been instructed by a numerous and influential body of the ratepayers of Rushden to ask the Beach to decline to grant the application. He did so on three grounds—1st, that there was no public necessity for additional spirit license; 2nd, that the character of the applicant was not such as to render him a fit person to hold such a license; and 3rd, that no new facts had arisen since last year, when the Bench after a lengthy consideration refused the application. It was usual before asking a Bench to reverse their decision to adduce some new evidence—either an increase of population or additional public inconvenience, but upon the present occasion nothing of the sort had been attempted, there being indeed no freshness in the application. Dealing first with the necessity for extra accommodation he would admit that the population of Rushden at the last census was 3,600, but then in considering this it was necessary to make an allowance for the large number of total abstainers. It was notorious that the temperance movement had taken gigantic strides in Rushden in recent years, and he understood that not fewer than a quarter of the population were total abstainers. If they deducted then the teetotalers they would have a population of 2,700 to provide for. Now let him compare Rushden with one or two neighbouring places in reference to the number of licenses. Irthlingborough had a population of 2,700, with only four full licensed houses, excluding from the calculation, however, a house near the station, which although in the parish was not properly speaking in the village. Take also Earl's Barton, with its population of 2,300. This was not quite so large, it was true, but three full-licensed houses were found adequate to meet the wants of the population. Rushden therefore was in no exceptional position, and he would remind the Bench of the increase of the indoor beer licenses, another of which would probably be granted that day. He submitted that it had not been shown that any one required extra accommodation. There had been ample time to obtain evidence on this point, but absolutely none was forthcoming. Last year they had heard a great deal about the convenience of travellers; this year his friend called them strangers, and endeavoured to show that an extra spirit license was needed for their accommodation. He contended, however, that so far as travellers were concerned this license was wholly unnecessary. The fact was that persons visiting Rushden on business very seldom stayed there through the night, but preferred the extra accommodation and recreation to be obtained at Wellingborough. If, however, they were obliged occasionally to stay they would certainly prefer to stay in the centre of the village. Moreover, the house was not of the character to attract gentlemen of this class, the only travellers likely to put up there being persons of the German band type. (Laughter) He was prepared, however, with evidence on this point, for he held in his hand a memorial signed by 11 manufacturers, 10 commercial travellers — those usually visiting Rushden testifying that they do not think another full-licensed house necessary. He submitted that the applicant had completely failed to show either a general or special necessity for the license. With regard to character, he would observe that if it was necessary for good character to be proved when an outdoor license was granted it was far more important when an application was made for a full license. Now in this case the applicant had been convicted as recently as 1879 of a breach of his license, and although he did not say that the charge of assault to which he had referred in his cross-examination, which was thrown out by the Grand Jury, reflected upon the character of the applicant, it was certainly a very unsavoury affair for the landlord and landlady of an inn to be connected with. An applicant for a full license should at least be able to show a clean sheet for some few years, but in this case the reverse was the fact. In addition to the memorial he had named, he also presented a memorial signed by 144 rated inhabitants of Rushden against the granting of the application.
Amongst those signing the memorial were the whole of the members of the School Board, the two Guardians of the poor for the parish, the overseer, the parish clerk, and the rate collector. The signatures represented property rated in the aggregate at £3168, or one-third of the whole rateable value of the parish. In conclusion he again submitted to the Bench that no general or special necessity had been made out, that no new facts had been adduced, and that the character of the applicant was not such as to warrant the Bench in granting the application.—The following is a copy of the memorial signed by 144 ratepayers:—
"We, the undersigned ratepayers and inhabitants of the parish of Rushden, in the county of Northhampton, having regard to the application intended to be made to your worships assembled at the above mentioned annual licensing meeting by Ebenezer Cox, the keeper of a certain beerhouse, called or known by the name of "the New Inn," situate in High Street, in Rushden, aforesaid, for a certificate to sell by retail spirits and wine to be consumed on the premises at the said beerhouse, do hereby certify that in our opinion it is not in anywise necessary or desirably that a license for the sale of spirits and wine to be consumed on the premises should be granted in respect of the said beerhouse, for the following reasons, namely:—1, The said beerhouse is situated about 200 yards from the Rose and Crown Inn, in High Street, Rushden, aforesaid, which is a very old established licensed house and is well conducted, and there is an indoor beerhouse between the said New Inn and the Rose and Crown. 2. There are now existing in Rushden four full licensed houses, three indoor beerhouses, and five outdoor beerhouses, and we are satisfied that at the present time no good grounds can be shown why the number of licensed houses in the parish should be increased or why this license in particular should be granted, as the present number of licensed houses is quite sufficient to satisfy all the requirements of the parish. 3. A similar application was made by the present applicant to your worships at the annual licensing meeting last year and was refused, and there are in our judgment no fresh circumstances which justify an application to your worships to reverse the decision to which you came last year. We therefore trust that your worships will see fit to refuse to grant the said license. August 1881.”
The Bench said they did not think it necessary for Mr. Jackson to call witnesses. No new facts had been brought before them, and they declined the application.
|
Wellingborough & Kettering News, September 3rd, 1881, transcribed by Kay Collins
Transfer of License at Rushden
Mr. Becke then applied on behalf of Mr. Thomas Hulatt, of Rushden, under the 50th section of the 35 and 36 Victoria, ch. 94, for the removal of the license of the Coach and Horses Inn to new premises recently erected by Mr. Praed at a distance of 1100 yards from the present house, and at the point where the roads leading from Rushden to Wellingborough, and from Knuston to Higham intersect each other. Mr. Jackson opposed the application on behalf of Mr. Bayes and other ratepayers.
Mr. Becke said that this case was altogether unlike that which had just been decided. No new license was applied for, but it was simply proposed to take away a licensed house from these people who seemed to dislike them so much—(a laugh)—and place it at a convenient spot outside the village. The house to which the license now attached belonged to Mr. Sartoris, who had no objection to the transfer.
The applicant was then called, and having proved serving the necessary notices, said at the point where the new house had been erected there are 13 houses. The tenants of 11 of these united in a memorial in favour of the application, and the memorial was further signed by four out of eight owners of the building plots not yet built upon.
Mr. Jackson, cross-examining the witness: Have you ever had a complaint from Mr. Sartoris of noise in your present house?—Never.
Do you expect to do a better Sunday trade than anything else in the new house?—I can't say.
Mr. Bryan, architect, was next called, and proved the plan of the locality, which was then laid before the Bench. He also testified to the suitability of the premises for a licensed house, the rateable value, and the distance from the village.
Mr. Jackson: How far is the house from the Gas Works, which may be taken as the extremity of the village?—About 800 or 900 yards.
Mr. Becke in a brief address to the Bench, pointed out that this application differed entirely from that which had just been disposed of. He quite recognised the evils of extra licenses, but while it was quite right that great caution should be exercised in this direction, yet it was equally important that a populous village like Rushden extended itself, the public requirements should be met by the judicious removal of a license from a neighbourhood where there were other houses, to another part of the village where there were none. In the present case he was in accord with his friend's arguments in reference to the previous application. He had told the Bench that there were so many licensed houses in the centre of the village that another was not needful. Assuming this to be the case, was it not desirable to remove one of these houses outside the village where no convenience of the kind existed? The point at which the house stands which it was proposed to license was in the direct road from Irchester Station, and the premises would be a considerable accommodation to persons coining from the Station. He was informed that upon the average 300 persons and 76 vehicles passed daily from Rushden to the Station, and that there could be no doubt that to many of these the house would be a great convenience. With regard to the opposition to the application, he would point out to the Bench that in a case of transfer the right of opposition was restricted by the Act to those who in the opinion of the Bench were entitled to oppose. The law evidently did not contemplate that in a case of this kind those persons should be allowed to object who object to licenses altogether, but only those directly interested in the application. He submitted to the Bench with confidence that the extension of Rushden rendered the removal of one of the existing licenses necessary for the convenience of the inhabitants.
The following memorial in favour of the application, signed by 11 tenants and four property owners, was then put in:—
"We, the undersigned owners and occupiers of homes and land situated in and forming part of the Cross-roads Close, in the parish of Rushden, in the county of Northampton, hereby declare that we have no objection to the removal of the license for the sale of intoxicating liquors now held by Thomas Hulatt, of the Coach and Horses Inn, Rushden, from such inn to the new house lately erected at the corner of the Cross-roads Close aforesaid, and at the junction of the road leading from Rushden to Wellingborough with the road leading from Knuston to Higham Ferrers."
The Chairman, addressing Mr. Becke: How far is the new house from Irchester Station?
Mr. Becke: 2,300 yards. The house is erected at the only available and suitable spot between the station and Rushden.
Mr. Jackson, in opposing the application, submitted to the Bench that the transfer was not asked for on public grounds, that no necessity existed for a licensed house in the locality of the new premises, and that if the transfer were allowed it would be detrimental to the peace and best interests of the village at large. He presented a memorial signed by eight owners and 12 occupiers in the neighbourhood against the application, and he should call as witnesses two property owners, who would tell the Bench that a licensed house was totally unnecessary in the locality. He was further instructed that the land near the house it was proposed to license had already depreciated in value from the knowledge that this application was about to be made, there not being a single bid for several lots of land recently offered by auction. As to the plea that the house would be used by persons going to and fro between Rushden and Irchester station, he would only observe that persons going into Rushden after a journey would probably prefer to reach their journey's end before having refreshment, while when persons were going on a journey it was certainly not desirable that they should turn in and be lost amid the manifold seductions of the house. As to the necessity for the house he would remind the Bench that the land near the new premises was only thinly built over, and that those living there were hostile to the license. The present inn —the Coach and Horses—was close to the gates of Mr. Sartoris, and immediately under the control of the authorities, but if the license were removed to the new locality—a distance of 1100 yards, and 800 or 900 yards from the Gas Works—it was feared that persons would go from Rushden to get drink, and that they would then return to the village and disturb the peace of the inhabitants. He presented a second memorial, signed by 141 ratepayers, who were rated in the aggregate at more than £3,000, against the transfer, the signatures including all the members of the School Board, both the Guardians, one of the overseers, the parish clerk, the rate collector, and many other well-known and influential residents.
The Bench intimated that this being an application for a transfer and not for a new license, they could not accept as evidence the testimony of those not immediately interested—persons living in the locality or owning property there.
Mr. Jackson said he would not refer then to any further signatures, but he submitted that the opinion of the parish officials—who had the interests of the whole village at heart—was entitled to great weight. He would proceed to call one or two witnesses, who would he believed, give evidence showing that the transfer of the house to the new locality was quite unnecessary, and opposed to the wishes of the majority of the occupiers and property owners in the neighbourhood.
The following is the text of the general memorial:
" We, the undersigned ratepayers and inhabitants of the parish of Rushden, in the county of Northampton, having regard to the application intended to be made to your worships assembled at the above mentioned Annual Licensing Meeting, by Thomas Hulatt, the keeper of the 'Coach and Horses Inn,' Rushden, for the removal of the license, for the sale by retail of intoxicating liquors to be consumed either on or off the premises now held by him, from the Coach and Horses Inn aforesaid to a new house situate on the north-east side or the road leading from Rushden to Wellingborough, do hereby certify that in our opinion it is not in anywise necessary or desirable that the application for such removal should be granted, for the following reasons, namely:—1. The removal of the license if permitted by the Bench will be particularly distasteful to the majority of the owners of property in the neighbourhood of the said new house, testified by the signatures of those owners being appended to this petition, and we respectfully submit that special consideration should be given to the owners of such neighbouring properties before a public-house is opened in their midst against their strongest wishes. 2. The said new house is situated at a considerable distance, namely, about a quarter of a mile from the village of Rushden, in a new neighbourhood where no necessity for a licensed house exists. The house is so far from the village that it is practically removed from observation, and, if licensed, will form a rendezvous at which idle and disorderly persons may congregate with comparative impunity, whereas the Coach and Horses Inn, from which the license is proposed to be removed, is a well conducted house, and being centrally situated is too much under the constant notice of the authorities and the inhabitants to permit of its being used by such persons as it is apprehended will frequent the new house if the removal of the license is allowed, to the detriment alike of the immediate neighbourhood, and of the parish at large. We therefore trust that your Worships will see fit to refuse to grant the removal of the said license. August, 1881."
The following witnesses were then called: Joseph Bayes said he owned a rood of ground in the same field as the new house to which it was proposed to transfer the license of the Coach and Horses, and also three cottages in the next field. He believed a licensed house at that spot was entirely unnecessary, and would prove a great evil. He had no doubt that it would depreciate the value of the neighbouring property, that application, indeed, having already done so. He attended a recent sale by auction, when several of the lots of land were offered, but he did not, think there was any real bidding, but Mr. Pendered knew best on that point and he was present. (Laughter) He employed carters and considered that the house would be a temptation to men with teams. As to the memorial on the other side they had had a week in advance, and had got some signatures which otherwise they would not have done. All the owners and occupiers signing the petition against the transfer lived close by the premises.
Cross-examined by Mr. Becke: You look, I suppose, upon all public houses as man-traps! —Yes, pretty much in that light, but I oppose this license on other grounds.
Has not Mr. Sanders—who signed the petition against the transfer—bought some land there since notice of this application was given?—I believe he bought some land there about a month ago.
Re-examined by Mr. Jackson: Did not Mr. Sanders sign the memorial after he had bought this additional land?—Yes, Sir.
Charles Bayes, owner of half a dozen houses near the proposed inn, endorsed his brother's evidence. In reply to Mr. Becke, he said that himself, his brother, and one other person owned the whole row of houses, and their tenants had signed the memorial against the transfer.
Mr. Becke, in reply on behalf of the applicant, submitted that the opposition had completely failed.
According to his friend's case it came to this that it was to be the people of Rushden and not the Bench who were to be the licensing authority. As to some neighbouring land not being bid for at a recent sale, they well knew that land was at present a drug in the market, and it was unfortunately by no means an exceptional thing for no buyer to be forthcoming. They had heard, however, that since it was known that that application was to be made Mr. Sanders—who was a gentleman his friend had made a great deal of—had bought land in the immediate vicinity so that that argument was disposed of. He submitted that the class of persons signing the memorial were persons who objected to all licenses, and that however much their opinions might be entitled to weight when a new license was applied for as in the former case, the law did not intend such objections to be entertained in cases of transfer as was clearly shown by the wording of the sub-section. He admitted that the owner of the new premises had an interest in the granting of the application, but as his interests altogether depended upon the amount of business done they were practically identical with those of the public.
The Bench then retired, a brief adjournment taking place for luncheon. Upon the re-assembling of the Court, the Chairman said that the application being for the transfer of an existing license from an old house to a new and more suitable structure, and not for a new license, the Bench had decided to grant it.
|
Wellingborough & Kettering News, September 3rd, 1881, transcribed by Kay Collins
Out-Door License at Rushden
Mr. Parker, representing Mr. Heygate, applied for an out-door license for Robinson Burton, of Rushden. A memorial was presented as to the character of the applicant, and Mr. G. F. Bearn proved that the property was of sufficient value.— Application granted.
|
Wellingborough News, 12th August 1882, transcribed by Kay Collins
To the Overseers of the Poor of the Parish of Wellingborough, in the County of Northampton, and the Superintendent of Police for the Division of Wellingborough, in the said County of Northampton, and to all whom it may concern.
I, ARTHUR CAMPBELL BULKLEY PRAED, Licensed Dealer in Spirits, now residing at Rushden Cottage, in the Parish of Rushden, in the County of Northampton, do hereby give Notice that it is my intention to apply at the General Annual Licensing Meeting, to be holden at the Police Station in Wellingborough, in the Division of Wellingborough, in the said County, on the twenty-eighth day of August next ensuing, for a Certificate authorising me to apply for and hold an additional Excise License to Sell by Retail Spirits to be consumed off the Premises, at a House (or Shop) called or known as the Brewery, in my occupation, situate in Sheep-street, in the Parish of Wellingborough aforesaid, and being within the said Division.
Given under my Hand this thirty-first day of July, One Thousand Eight Hundred and Eighty Two.
|
Wellingborough News, 12th August 1882, transcribed by Kay Collins
To the Overseers of the Poor of the Parish of Rushden, in the County of Northampton, and the Superintendent of Police for the Division of Wellingborough, in the said County of Northampton, and to all whom it may concern.
I, PHILIP WHITBREAD, now residing at 1 Rushden Hill, in the Parish of Rushden, in the County of Northampton, Carter, do hereby give Notice that it is my intention to apply at the General Annual Licensing Meeting, to be holden at the Police Station in Wellingborough, in the Division of Wellingborough, in the said County, on the twenty-eighth day of August, 1882, for a Certificate to Sell by Retail Beer to be consumed off the Premises, at a House, situate at Rushden Hill, in the Parish of Rushden, in the County of Northampton, and being within the said division.
Given under my Hand this second day of August, One Thousand Eight Hundred and Eighty Two.
|
Wellingborough News, 2nd September 1882, transcribed by Kay Collins
WELLINGBOROUGH POLICE COURT
Monday, August 28. Before Mr. H M. Stockdale (in the chair), Mr. F. U. Sartoris, Mr. R. Arkwright, Mr. N. P. Sharman, Col. Rawlins, and Mr. Spencer Pratt.
THE ANNUAL BREWSTER SESSIONS Were held immediately after the above cases had been disposed of. The following report from the Superintendent of Police (Mr. Bailie) was read by the Chairman:—
"Wellingborough Division, Aug. 28th, 1882. "I have to report for the information of the magistrates that there are in the above Division 78 public-houses with full licenses and 42 beerhouses to sell on the premises, being the same number as last year. There are 71 beerhouses to sell off the premises, which is an increase of five as compared with last year; 22 persons are licensed to sell wine.
Philip Whitbread, carter, applied for an outdoor beer licence for a house in course of erection at Rushden Hill, in the parish of Rushden.
Mr. Heygate in support of the application, said his client had held a similar licence for 12 years, but the premises he occupied had been leased to Messrs. Phipps, brewers, who had raised the rent beyond his power to pay. Consequently he had had a house specially built for the purposes of the trade and of which he sought the licence. There were 60 houses in the immediate neighbourhood, with a population of about 400, and the nearest licensed houses were two full licensed houses, each a quarter of a mile from Mr. Whitbread's premises. It was in the interests of morality and temperance that the people should be encouraged to obtain what liquor they might require in their immediate neighbourhood rather than they should obtain it from the fully licensed houses referred to. He had a memorial signed by 31 of the occupiers of houses in support of the application, a number which would doubtless have been greater but for the fact that the owner of the other houses had obtained signatures to a counter memorial, principally, however, from his own tenants. His client, as he had already said, had held a licence in the neighbourhood for twelve years without the slightest complaint being made against him, and he trusted the Bench would accede to his present application.
Mr. Jackson opposed on behalf of Mr. Simons, the owner of 21 houses and of land adjoining the applicant's premises. He had also a memorial from a number of residents in the locality in opposition to the application, they having always found the existing accommodation sufficient for their requirements. Moreover, the next house to that for which the license was sought was already licensed. As to the population the Bench had already refused an application in a case where there was a population of 1,000, and he thought that was an argument against their granting the present application. He contended also that the notice in the newspaper was not in form.
The Chairman said they would consider the application on general grounds first, and take any technical objections afterwards.
After consultation the Chairman said the Bench had decided to grant the application. There was no other licensed house within a distance of a quarter of a mile in either direction, and the Bench were of opinion that the competition would be useful.
Mr. Jackson would like the Bench to decide whether a license could be granted to a house not yet erected.
The Chairman said their decision was subject to any decision they might come to on the legal points which Mr. Jackson might raise.
Mr. Heygate, who said the notices appeared to him to be regular, called Philip Whitbread, the applicant, who said he had held a license 12 years without any complaint having been made against him. The house for which the license was asked would be finished in a fortnight. In reply to Mr. Jackson, he was not living in the house, although he slept in it the previous night. He could not say whether the floors were finished nor whether the windows were all in.
The services of the usual notices having been proved, Mr. Whitbread re-called, said in answer to Mr. Jackson, he did not know whether the present door to the premises was a permanent or only a temporary one. The notices were on the door of the house on the 13th and 20th August. The roof was not on at the former date.
Mr. Foskett, builder, said the rental of the premises would be about £20 per annum, and the house would be completed in about three weeks.
A discussion now arose as to whether Mr. Heygate on behalf of the applicant would have the right of replying to any remarks Mr. Jackson, as the opposing counsel might offer to the Bench, Mr. Jackson contending that inasmuch as he had produced no witnesses in opposition to the application, his friend had no right of reply.
Mr. Heygate contended that on questions of law he had a perfect right of reply.
The Bench concurred.
Mr. Jackson then addressed the Bench in opposition to the application on the ground that the house was not finished at the time the notice was put up, and was not finished now in fact. It was therefore not a house within the meaning of the Act. Certain courses of bricks were laid upon the foundations, but this did not constitute a house, and the Bench had no guarantee that it would be completed, or that when completed it would be occupied, and they had therefore no power to grant the application. That objection would be sought to be met by postponing the application until the house was completed, but he submitted that in that case fresh notice must be given. Then the notice in the newspaper did not define with sufficient clearness the situation of the house to meet the requirements of the Act. The street or boundary should be given, or some more exact definition than that contained in the present notice.
Mr. Heygate, in reply, said as to the last objection no one could possibly be misled as to the location of the house as was proved by the fact that his learned friend had produced a memorial in opposition to it. As to its not being a house that was an ingenious contention on his friend's part, but he had no authority for saying the Bench had no authority for granting the license on that ground. The house would be completed long before the license would come into operation, and no mischief therefore could accrue from its being granted. It was absurd to suppose that his client would not complete the house or that it would not be occupied when completed. If the Bench had any doubt on these points he would suggest an adjournment till the adjourned licensing sessions.
The case was adjourned on the understanding that if completed by the date of the adjourned licensing sessions (September 29) the license would be granted.
|
Wellingborough News, 18th November 1882, transcribed by Kay Collins
Wellingborough Police Court. Friday, Nov. 17th.
Before Mr. F. U. Sartoris (in the chair), Mr. K. Arkwright, Mr. N. P. Sharman, and Col. Rawlins.
TRANSFERS—The license of Philip Whitbread of Rushden, was transferred to W. J. Simons, as were also those of G. Pym to F. Copson, and C. Drage to W. Holt, all of Wellingborough.
|
|
