Taunton Courier 07 Mar 1906 Taunton Annual Licensing Sessions Tailors Arms Three Mariners King and Queen Bird-in-Hand Dove Inn Golden Lion Spread Eagle Crown and Mitre

Sarah Hawkins Genealogy Site
Newspaper Articles


Taunton Courier and Western Advertiser. Wednesday 07 Mar 1906

Page 3 Column 3 to 7


TAUNTON ADJOURNED ANNUAL LICENSING SESSIONS.

EIGHT LICENSES OBJECTED TO.

SIX REFERRED: TWO RENEWED.

LESS PUBLIC-HOUSES, THE MOST DRUNKENNESS.”

THE EVIL OF CLUBS.

A WHOLE DAY'S SITTING OF THE COURT.

The adjourned annual Licensing Sessions for Taunton were held on Wednesday at the Shirehall. The whole of the day's business was devoted to the consideration of eight licenses in Taunton, which were objected to by the magistrates at the annual Sessions held on February 7th, on the grounds that they were not desirable and not necessary to meet the requirements of the neighbourhoods in which they were situated. The Mayor (Alderman J. G. VILE) presided, and the other magistrates present were the Deputy-Mayor (Councillor Josiah LEWIS), Mr. H. J. BADCOCK, Mr. J. E. W. WAKEFIELD[?], Councillor H. J. Van TRUMP, Mr. C. J. GOODLAND, Mr. W. POOLE, and Mr. W. LOCK. The proceedings throughout were followed with keen interest by a large number of spectators, and not for many years past has there been seen at one sitting of the Court such a large gathering of solicitors as on this occasion. Among the legal gentlemen present were Mr. J. TREVOR-DAVIES, of Yeovil; Mr. W. T. BAKER, of Bridgwater; Mr. J. MAWER, of Wells; Mr. C. F. SAUNDERS, of Crewkerne; Mr. Sidney WATTS, Yeovil; Mr. W. H. TARBET, Exeter; Mr. C. P. CLARKE, Taunton; Mr. A. F. SWEET, Taunton; and Mr. F. W. BISHOP, Bridgwater.

Mr. MAWER, who appeared on behalf of the objectors to all the licenses, in opening the proceedings, said he understood that at the general annual licensing meeting on the 7th instant the justices started objections to several licenses, which he should deal with in detail later, and directed their Clerk (Mr. KITE) to serve notice of objection upon the licensees, which had been done. They had now to enquire into the nature of the objections, and decide whether such a case was presented on behalf of the objectors as to justify them in referring the licenses to Quarter Sessions. The Licensing Act of 1904 gave the justices power on certain grounds to refuse the renewal of any license without compensation, but that question did not arise that day; they had merely to decide after hearing the grounds of objection put before them whether they felt justified in referring them to Quarter Sessions for compensation.

THE TAILOR'S ARMS.

The first license objected to was that of the Tailor's Arms, Upper High-street. The owner of the house is Mr. HITCHCOCK, the lessees Messrs. Hanbury & Cotching, of Taunton (for whom Mr. W. H. TARBET appeared), and the tenant (Mr. George BARTLETT (who was represented by Mr. F. W. BISHOP).

Mr. MAWER stated that the grounds of objection were that the house was not well adapted for public-house premises; it was old, and not in good repair, and the ceilings were low; in fact, it was a poor-class house, and the Superintendent of Police would tell them that it ought not to have a license at all, as it was totally unfit for licensed premises. So far as the convenience of the public was concerned, there were two other houses – the Somerset Inn and the Bear – in close proximity, which supplied all the public needs, and no-one would miss the Tailor's Arms. The house was not easy of police supervision, inasmuch as there was a back entrance from a court, which offered facilities, if the licensee was so disposed, for illicit trading, although he did not allege anything of the kind against the licensee.

P.C. EMERY proved service of the statutory notice to the tenant.

Mr. F. H. PRICE, architect and surveyor, of Taunton, said the Tailor's Arms had a frontage of 29 feet 5 inches, and comprised a bar, entering from the street, and with a jug and bottle department cut off, measuring 12 feet 6 inches by 12 feet; an inner bar, or smoking-room, adjoining, measuring about 14 feet 3 inches by 13 feet 7 inches; a sitting-room and kitchen for the use of the public, and two cellars. There was a door to one of the cellars leading to Court No. 9, which, however, was fastened up, but there was a door at the back of the yard communicating with the court. The upstair accommodation was four bedrooms and two attics. The smoking-room was about 7 feet high. There were about seven cottages in the court at the back. The distance from the smoking-room door to the Somerset Inn, on the opposite side of the road, was about 29 yards, and to the Bear Inn about 47 yards. Both these, he should say, were larger houses than the Tailor's Arms.

By Mr. BISHOP: Witness had not been over either the Somerset Inn or the Bear Inn, and did not know the accommodation of either. This was the only public-house on that side of the street.

Superintendent DURHAM stated that the population of Taunton at the last census was 21,087. In the West Ward, in which the Tailor's Arms was, the population was 4,984; in the East Ward, 5,981; and in the North Ward, 10,122. There were 97 on-licensed houses in the borough, which gave one for every 217 of the population. The males in the borough numbered 9,334, and the females 11,753. This was equivalent to one on-licensed house to every 96 males, including male children. There were 43 on-licenses in the West Ward, one for every 116 persons; in the East Ward there were 28, one for every 213 of the population; and in the North Ward there were 26, or one for every 389. He did not consider the house well adapted for public-house business; it was very small, out of repair, old, and the ceilings very low. He did not think the house did very much trade. He considered both the Somerset Inn and the Bear Inn superior houses to the Tailor's Arms, and quite sufficient to meet the requirements of the neighbourhood.

By Mr. BISHOP: He did not object to the license on the ground of misconduct, and admitted that he had never objected to the back door before. There were many other houses in the borough with back doors of a similar character. The house was well conducted. What he meant by stating that the house was out of repair was that it wanted some attention on the part of the painter and paperhanger.

By Mr. TARBET: He had never suggested to the tenant that the back door should be closed.

Re-examined by Mr. MAWER: If any house in Upper High-street had to go he should chose the Tailor's Arms.

Mr. BISHOP, on behalf of the tenant, expressed astonishment that more evidence was not brought forward to show that the house was not required. He was surprised, too, that anything should be put forward that day as to the repair of the house, or as to its not being easy of supervision, because they were both grounds upon which the Superintendent of Police could have objected at any Licensing Sessions, or he could have asked them to comply with certain requirements, but they had never received any suggestion that those things were required until they came into Court that day. Had such a suggestion been made the matter would have been attended to. The Superintendent had evidently had very little trouble with this house, and he thought when they had heard the tenant the magistrates would say it was not a house which should be closed. They ought to proceed cautiously, as the question was in a transition state, and they did not know whether, if they did away with a number of public-houses, the amount of drunkenness would be decreased.

George BARTLETT, the tenant said people frequently lodged at the house, especially at the time of the Assizes and Quarter Sessions, when he was always very busy. He was well satisfied with the house, and was very anxious that the license should not be taken away.

This concluded the case with regard to the Tailor's Arms, the magistrates reserving their decision till they had heard the whole of the objections.

THE THREE MARINERS.

The next license to which objection was taken was that of the Three Mariners Inn, High-street, Taunton.

Mr. J. TREVOR-DAVIES, of Yeovil, appeared on behalf of Messrs. Starkey, Knight, & Ford, brewers, of Taunton and Bridgwater, who are the owners of the house.

P.C. EMERY proved the service of the notice of objection on the landlord.

Mr. F. H. PRICE gave evidence as to the dimensions and accommodation of the house, which had a frontage to High-street of 17 feet 9 inches. There were three smoking-rooms, besides other accommodation, and rooms upstairs. The house adjoined a court on the left-hand side. The Green Dragon Inn was about nine yards away, the Full Moon is about 29 yards, the Bell Inn about 67 yards, and the George about 80 years distance away.

By Mr. TREVOR-DAVIES: Witness knew nothing about the internal state of repair, but the house was in good repair outside. He had no knowledge of the class of business that was done there.

Mr. TREVOR-DAVIES then put in a plan of the premises.

Superintendent DURHAM was next called by Mr. MAWER, and the same statistics that he had given with regard to the first case as to population, &c., were accepted. The Three Mariners adjoined the Green Dragon, the latter having stabling. The former had no stabling. The Three Mariners was a moderate size and a very decent house. He thought three or four doors opened on to an adjoining court, three certainly, and that was objectionable to the police. There were six cottages in the court. He thought that High-street was sufficiently supplied with licensed houses without the Three Mariners, and he considered that the public would not suffer any inconvenience if the license were extinguished.

By Mr. TREVOR-DAVIES: He did not think there was any more harm in retaining the Three Mariners than in any other house in the street.

Mr. TREVOR-DAVIES: With regard to these cottages. Have you ever had any complaint about them? - No.

Have you ever had occasion to summon either the landlord of the Three Mariners or the cottagers with respect to any dealings between them? - No.

Can you tell me if there has been occasion to take any proceedings for the last 20 years? - No, I think not.

Or during all the time that these six cottages have been there nothing has happened to set the law in motion? - No.

Mr. TREVOR-DAVIES, continuing his cross-examination, asked witness: May I take it as a fact that you have never had to complain of the landlords, Messrs. Starkey, Knight, & Co.?

Superintendent DURHAM: No; I have never had to complain; the house has always been well conducted.

The class of people who go there; you don't suggest anything against them? - No, I do not.

They have a concert there sometimes? - Yes.

Nothing wrong about that? - No.

My learned friend did not ask you, but do you suggest yourself that the interests of the public at large would be better served by the house being closed? If you say yes, I am going to ask you why. - Witness replied that he would answer both question by saying that there were so many public-houses in Taunton.

That is not the point. Have you any suggestion to make against the character or the goodness of the house, or the respectability of the brewers and the tenant? - Witness: It would be a good thing to have fewer houses.

That has nothing to do with this house. Can you suggest anything why it should be deprived of its license? - No, I don't think I could. Witness further stated that he did not know Messrs. Starkey, Knight, & Co had purchased a quantity of property at the back of the house.

Mr. Abraham DUNN, the tenant of the Three Mariners, was called, and examined by Mr. TREVOR-DAVIES. He said that he had been tenant of the house for nearly five years. It was what they would call a tied house for beer, but he was entitled to go where he liked for cider, minerals, tobacco, and those sort of things. He was also entitled to buy his spirits out of bond if he wished. His turnover for spirits and beer was about £1,000 a year. He paid the brewers, Messrs. Starkey, Knight, & Co., about £60 a month for beer. His sale of beer alone for four years had been at about the rate of £611 a year. Added to that his profits would be £150 a year. He sold about one hogshead of cider a month, and about eight gallons of spirits a month. His spirits, roughly speaking, cost him about £170 a year. He let rooms in the house, and could accommodate about half-a-dozen people comfortably, and had on an average about three persons a night staying there. He sold tobacco, and made a little profit on that. He also had smoking concerts in the house now and then, with a chairman, and perfect order was kept.

Mr. TREVOR-DAVIES: There has been no complaint against the house since you have been there? -No, sir.

And you have done your best to conduct it properly and carefully? - Always, sir. - Witness, replying to further questions, said he was able to make a fair living in the house, he had no other business, he had a wife and three children, and his wife assisted him in the business. The rateable value of the house was £25 per annum. Football club meetings were held in the house.

Mr. TREVOR-DAVIES then put in two largely-signed petitions, signed in the immediate neighbourhood, objecting to the license being done away with. One petition was signed by ratepayers and owners of property in the immediate neighbourhood on both sides of the High-street. The other petition was signed by people using the house.

THE KING AND QUEEN.

The third license on the list which had been objected to was the King and Queen Inn, a fully-licensed house in Paul-street, Taunton, owned by the same firm, Messrs. Starkey, Knight, & Co.

Mr. J. TREVOR-DAVIES also appeared in this case for the said firm.

Mr. MAWER, in support of the objection, said he was instructed that it was a very old house, but it had recently been put in repair. There were three other licensed houses in the same street, namely, The Boot Inn, fully licensed, the Prince of Wales, and the Devonshire Inn, the two latter being beer-houses only. They were also described as refreshment houses.

The service of the notice of objection on the tenant, Mr. Henry DIMOND, having been proved by P.C. EMERY.

Mr. F. H. PRICE gave evidence to his inspection of the premises, which had a frontage of about 32 feet five inches, and containing inner bar, tap-room, sitting-room, kitchen, and cellar, and bedrooms upstairs. There was also a skittle alley, and a good long garden at the back of the house. The Bird-in-Hand Inn in Mary-street was about 115 yards away, the Boot Inn in Paul-street about 25 yards, the Devonshire Inn about 87 years, the Prince of Wales about 111 yards distant.

Mr. TREVOR-DAVIES, producing a plan of the King and Queen Inn, said that it showed the house to have all the accommodation that premises of that character required. There was a bar, a bar-counter, a commercial-room, a smoking-room, kitchen and scullery, ample sanitary accommodation outside, and there was also the skittle alley. - The plan was then handed up for the inspection of the magistrates.

Superintendent DURHAM gave evidence as to the King and Queen being a fully-licensed house, and he alluded to the other houses in the street already mentioned. He did not think the public would suffer any inconvenience in Paul-street by the removal of the license of the King and Queen, although he recognised that that house served the people at the top of the street and in the neighbourhood of the Mount.

By Mr. TREVOR-DAVIES: People went to the Devonshire and the Prince of Wales Inns more for refreshments. It might not increase the comfort of the other two inns if the King and Queen were closed. The present customers of that house would probably go to the Devonshire Inn for their beer. Although he differentiated as to the usefulness between the Boot Inn and the King and Queen, he admitted that the frontage of the latter was bigger. There was no court adjoining either of the inns.

Mr. Henry DIMOND, called by Mr. TREVOR-DAVIES, said that he was the tenant of the King and Queen, and he did a very good business there. He kept four rooms for lodgers, and if anybody required refreshment, such as meals, and tea and coffee, he provided them. There was also a large commercial-room for entertainments. He had only been tenant of the house himself for about five months, but he was able to say that he made a very good living out of it. He did no other work. He was married, had three children, and his wife assisted him in the business.

Mr. TREVOR-DAVIES said it was no use asking the tenant questions as to the takings in the house, but he himself could inform the magistrates that the payment for beer and spirits averaged about £545 per annum on the past four years. He put in two petitions similar to those of the Three Mariners Inn.

This concluded the evidence.

THE LESS PUBLIC-HOUSES THE MOST DRUNKENNESS.

Mr. TREVOR-DAVIES then addressed the magistrates in an interesting speech of half-an-hour's duration. He said it was his duty to address them on behalf of two parties interested. First, on behalf of the firm of brewers whose property was now in peril, and, secondly, on the part of the tenants whose livings were in danger of being taken away from them. With regard to the brewery interest, he was well aware that he was at once met by the answer that if they lost the houses they would be compensated, but he was sorry to say that the experience of brewers nowadays and the experience he had had himself in these matters proved that such compensation was somewhat of a delusion. It was true that they were supposed to have something like the value of the house taken away from them, but as that amount was whittled down by all manner of reductions, it ended by the brewer being a large loser. If that sort of thing went on, it would have far-reaching results. It would mean that brewers would be reducing the number of their employees, consequently less hands would be employed in producing the beers, men would be discharged, and go and swell the ranks of the unemployed. With regard to the tenant it was more serious. He had not the funds at his back which the brewers had, and after devoting himself to the trade for some years, he and his wife and family were thrown out with a pittance in the way of compensation which could not re-pay him for his disturbance. The magistrates had not put this law into force, and he was going to ask them in Taunton not to rush in too heavily if they wished to make an experiment. Their Worships had now selected a number of houses, and those only which they thought in their discretion should be referred to the compensation authority. He could not help thinking – and he did not wish to say anything disrespectful to the Bench, but those who practiced in the Courts had felt the difficulties – that if the old system had been adopted that where there were three or four houses in the same street, it would be better to give notice to them all to appear, so that it would have been easier for the advocates to have attempted to show their Worships that the houses they represented ought not be be the ones selected. He knew nothing of the Boot Inn, or why it should not have been selected instead of the house of his clients. He could only suppose that the magistrates were there to select a number of victims, but he had looked into the Act of Parliament and there was no suggestion in any Act that they should shut up houses. He believed the idea was started in Farnham or in some obscure village in the wilds of Sussex. (Laughter.) But that was no reason why it should now be desired to disturb his clients in the possession of their two houses. The only reason brought forward was that in the general interest of the public the renewal of these licenses was not desirable. He was sorry to say that some of the Benches of this country had got hold of the idea that if they reduced the number of houses they would reduce drunkenness. It had been taken as an axiom, he knew, but no Act of Parliament had suggested it. He was aware that there had been a little more drunkenness in Taunton during the past year, but he believed it had arisen mostly from tramps, and why, he asked, should his clients be made to suffer for that? Mr. TREVOR-DAVIES went on to say that if the magistrates were satisfied that in punishing his clients they were going to reduce drunkenness in a few years, all facts and all statistics were the other way about. He hoped[?] that drunkenness would decrease, and it was decreasing, but not because public-houses had decreased, for they had not, but on account of the better education of the people. It was a fact that in the six counties in this country with the most public-houses, there the drunkenness was less. There was not getting away from it, for he had the statistics with him and the Blue-book to prove it. Reverse it, and they came to where there were less public-houses, and there they found was the most drunkenness. That was a fact beyond doubt. He proceeded to quote instances in support of this. He mentioned the town of Cambridge, with seven public-houses to every 1,000 of the inhabitants – the most in England. Drunkenness there was one per 1,000. In Bootle, with one public-house to every 1,000 inhabitants, there they found that drunkenness was about seven or eight per 1,000. In Liverpool, where the number of houses had been decreased, the convictions for drunkenness had increased largely. In Birmingham the same result had been experienced. With these facts before them he did seriously ask the Justices to be careful what they were going to do in Taunton in this direction, because he had no hesitation in saying that if they reduced their licensed houses they would increase the drunkenness in the town. They were going to try this experiment at the expense of his clients, who would suffer, and, he felt certain, no public good would come of it. He asked the magistrates to differentiate between these houses, and deal with only those that would be the least to suffer. It seemed to him a very unfair thing that his clients should be made to suffer because there might be some chance of less drunkenness. He thought it had that those two houses should be reported on that account, and he trusted that the magistrates would not consent to it. In the case of the Three Mariners Inn, where there was a turnover of business of about £1,000 a year, could they have a better proof than that that the house was wanted? Mr. DURHAM had nothing to say against it, it was a well conducted house, and no convictions against it during 20 years. Cui Bono, for whose good, therefore, was it that these licenses should be taken away when it was not pretended that any harm came by their existence? No-one said that the morals of the neighbourhood would be any better, but it was said that in the interest of the public it would be desirable. What proof was there of that? They had no petitions from the local temperance party against the houses; there was not a single person from any temperance society present to urge that the houses should be shut. Nobody could be called to say that these houses were a nuisance to the neighbourhood, or that they were not wanted. What a monstrous injustice, therefore, to Messrs. Starkey, Knight, & Co., to put them to this peril and loss. If a man wanted drink and he could not get it at one house he would get it at another. Mr. DIMOND, the tenant of the King and Queen, said that he sold £500 worth of drink a year. Why should they send that £500 to another house? He had very little doubt that if the Justices did decide on sending a few licenses to the compensation authority, in 12 months' time they would find that more harm than good had been done. By so doing they would be forcing the opening of clubs for the sale of drink, which he had no hesitation in saying was a great evil. That had been the result in Liverpool. In Bradford also at the present time there were 81 such clubs, with 45,000 members, and these clubs did not pay licenses. These 81 paid about £2,300 in rates, whilst 81 public-houses paid over £2,300. Of these drinking clubs a large number were open on Sundays nine hours longer than any public-house. They nearly all had Sunday concerts, and the powers of police supervision were very small. Mr. TREVOR-DAVIES mentioned an instance of clubs at Bournemouth,where he was concerned in drawing up rules to avoid the inconvenience of having to come before the magistrates. The same thing had been done at Torquay. In conclusion, Mr. TREVOR-DAVIES brought an eloquent address to a close by reminding the magistrates that there was no drunkenness in Taunton that they need be ashamed of. The all knew that temperance was now the order of the day without legislation, for it was well known that you could not make people sober by Act of Parliament. When he started in his profession the amount of drunkenness was five time more than what it is now, and the decrease had not been brought about by the reduction in the number of houses, but by the education of the people. The brewers must protect themselves, they must get a proper outlet for their business, and he asked the magistrates to be careful not to make experiments at the expense of others, which in the result would do more harm than good.

THE BIRD-IN-HAND.

The Bird-in-Hand Inn, Mary-street, was next dealt with. - Mr. TARBET appeared for the owners, Messrs. Hanbury & Cotching, brewers, of Taunton, and also for the tenant, Mr. David LLOYD.

Mr. MAWER said that the house was very old and very ill-constructed, but it afforded a very large acommodation [sic] for the pedlar and hawker class, who paid from 4d to 6d a night for a bed. That, from a police point of view, was a grave objection to the house.

Mr. TARBET, however, pointed out that no objection was raised to the house because of its being used in the manner described.

Mr. MAWER, in reply, stated that although there was no such objection he was allowed to introduce these facts by a recent ruling in the Court of Appeal. He did not urge anything against the tenant, but against the house, because it was a lodging-house, and it was undesirable to run that and licensed premises together. The actual residential population around the house was very small, and there was also another house in the same street – the Dove Inn – not very far away, with others within easy reach, at the top of High-street and in Paul-street. The requirements of the neighbourhood could be very well met without this house.

Mr. PRICE gave evidence as to the frontage and accommodation of the house, which included a large room which was used as a lodgers' bedroom. The Dove Inn was only 126 yards distant, and the King and Queen, Paul-street, 115 yards.

Superintendent DURHAM stated that there was an infants' school at the back of the house, which was attended by some 30 or 40 children, the Young Women's Christian Association premises were next door, and a chapel in the same street, as well as one or two private schools. There was very little residential population in the street. If this lodging-house was extinguished there would still be plenty of accommodation in the borough for the people who went there. The house was not easy of supervision, and they heard more of the Bird-in-Hand than any other house in the town owing to the class of people who used it. He had, however, had no trouble with the present landlord, who had managed the house very well.

Mr. David LLOYD said he had been licensee of the house for two years and nine months. Some of the lodgers he had were there before he came, and were still there, in fact one man had lodged at the Bird-in-Hand continuously for 23 years. If any of them became disorderly he put them out and gave them their money back. He did not serve any of the lodgers with drink after closing time, unless they came in after that hour, although he knew he could if he liked. He did a very satisfactory trade with the people in the neighbourhood as well as the lodgers, and put in a memorial signed by 212 persons in support of the continuance of the license.

The Magistrates' Clerk stated that he had received a counter petition, which Mr. TARBET objected to being put in on the ground that the sending of a thing like that through the post was not respectful to the Bench. - Mr. KITE replied that the Bench had not yet decided to receive either of the petitions.

Mr. LLOYD, continuing his evidence, said he had been a railway guard 29 years.

Frank BEEL, shoe-maker, of Chapel-terrace, Mary-street; James LAWLESS, military pensioner, of Paul-street; and Henry THYER, saddler, 4, The Mount, spoke to using the house for purposes of refreshment because it was more convenient than others for them.

Edward GOODMAN, pedlar, travelling about Taunton and district, said he had lodged at the house for 23 years. It had during the whole of that time been his home. He had always been well treated, and everything was comfortable and clean.

Alfred PICKEN, pork butcher, who had lodged there with his wife for nine months, bore similar testimony.

Mr. TARBET then addressed the Bench. He said he was sincerely obliged to his friend, Mr. TREVOR-DAVIES, for the observations he made that morning, which, coming from such a source, he felt sure would receive every attention from the magistrates. He adopted his (Mr. TREVOR-DAVIES's) wording and his views, and would not detain them with a repetition thereof. He stood in the same position as Mr. TREVOR-DAVIES did in acting for clients who had two houses attacked, and they were the only advocates standing in that position. If it could possibly be avoided, he did not think one individual should be attacked in regard to two houses. The whole point of the objection to the Bird-in-Hand seemed to be that it was used, as his friend Mr. MAWER would like to put it, as a common lodging-house. That being so, he would ask the Bench if they were going to legislate for one class as against another. People in good positions lived at hotels, and were they going to say that people in humbler spheres of life – such as the pedlar who gave evidence – should not adopt the same manner of living? Were they going to say that although the higher class hotel was to remain licensed, the humble Bird-in-Hand, which afforded shelter for those who could ill-afford to pay heavy prices, which for years past had been helpful to the police, helpful to those who frequented it, and against which not one finger could be placed as to its conduct, should be robbed of its license? It was not an undesirable thing where they could get a house of that kind well conducted that the people in this walk of life should be under the care and supervision of one who held a license dependable for its renewal upon the good conduct of the house and the people in it. The magistrates held that weapon over the tenant, which would carry with it no compensation whatever, and he submitted it was a case in which they could with every propriety honestly renew the license.

THE DOVE INN.

The Dove Inn, Mary-street, was next considered. It is owned by the Taunton Town Charity, which body was represented by Mr. A. F. SWEET; the lessees are Messrs. H. M. Lang & Co., of Hambridge; and the tenant Mr. William SEALEY, for both of whom Mr. C. F. SAUNDERS appeared.

Mr. MAWER suggested that only those of the magistrates who were not members of the Charity Trust should deal with this case, with the result that all the Justices but the ex-Mayor, Councillor Van TRUMP, and Mr. C. J. GOODLAND retired from the Bench.

The chief objection raised to the license by Mr. MAWER was that there was a right-of-way through the yard leading to Mr. WEST's house adjoining. He mentioned also that there were three other licensed houses in close proximity, which were quite sufficient to meet the requirements of the neighbourhood.

Mr. PRICE, in his evidence, said the frontage of the house to Mary-street was 57 feet 9ins. The Park Inn was only 47½ yards away, and the Bird-in-Hand 126 yards. There was a private right-of-way from the back of Mr. WEST's house into Mary-street.

Supt. DURHAM said the public would suffer no inconvenience if the license was done away with. A back entrance such as this one possessed always made a house more difficult of supervision. He mentioned that Major LITTLE, the commandant of Taunton Depot, Somerset L.I., whose head-quarters are near the Dove Inn, has asked him to state that although some of his sergeants and men used the house he had no objection to it.

By Mr. SAUNDERS: He did not suggest that the right-of-way had been used for improper purposes, but it could be. He was not aware that men from the Poolwall Factory used the house for refreshment during the dinner hour, but they might do so. He should not be surprised if as many as 180 customers used the house on an ordinary day. He believed the house did a good trade, and he had never heard it mentioned in the way of complaint. Some of the police officers when visiting Taunton on special duty used the house of purposes of refreshment because it was very quiet.

Mr. William LANG, of the firm of Messrs. H. M. Lang & Co., the lessees of the house, said they took up the lease in March, 1899, and from that time till now the trade had steadily increased till at the present time the tenant paid them £682 per annum for beer.

Mrs. Jane SEALEY, who managed the house for her husband, said she was there before Messrs. Lang leased it. She paid £60 a month for beer, in addition to which there was £3 a month for minerals and the profit on the tobacco, cigars, and cigarettes she sold. She was doing so well that she was able to save £3 a week. During the last few days she had counted the people who came into the house, and found that on the previous day (Tuesday) they numbered 167, and on Monday 159. That was about the average except on market days or when anything was going on in the Park. She often supplied Poolwall employees with food as well as drink.

Mr. John BAGGS, foreman, and Mr. Clement S. PAVEY, clerk, both employed at Poolwall Factory, deposed to having used the house to obtain food, as well as for other refreshment, and asserted that it would be an inconvenience to do away with the license.

Mr. William Walter HUGHES, of Elm Cottage, said he had used the house for the last 16 years. It was always well conducted, and was, in his opinion, a public necessity.

Mr. SAUNDERS submitted that Superintendent DURHAM, the only real witness before them, had failed to prove either of the objections to this house, the furthest he went towards it being his statement that he thought those who used the house could be supplied elsewhere. The house was used by the police, and the Commanding Officer at the Barracks, whose men used it also, had gone out of his way to tell the Superintendent that he did not object to the renewal of the license. If the men from the barracks had made improper use of the house Major LITTLE would certainly have objected. As to the right-of-way he did not think that objection was seriously made. Far from the house being undesirable and unnecessary he contended that it had been proved that it was necessary, and should not therefore be closed.

Mr. A. F. SWEET, on behalf of the Taunton Charity Trust, mentioned that four years ago the trustees voluntarily gave up a license in the neighbourhood – the Rose and Crown, which was now used as a soldiers' home. The trustees were not large owners of public-houses, and he considered it would be hard upon them to take away another license in so short a time, although in that case they would get some compensation.

THE GOLDEN LION.

The next house objected to was the Golden Lion Inn, East Reach, of which Messrs. Arnold & Co., Ltd., brewers, of Rowbarton, are the owners, and Mr. Geo. DOSWELL, the licensee, for both of whom Mr. C. P. CLARKE appeared.

Mr. MAWER said this was a 1869 house, with an on beer license. It was a small house, the back door of which and that of a cottage were contiguous, which in the eyes of the police was an objection.

Mr. PRICE stated the dimensions of the premises, and mentioned that the White Hart was only 103 yards distant, the Seven Stars 38 yards, and the Foresters' Arms 86 yards.

Superintendent DURHAM said the fact that the back door of the inn and that of a cottage were contiguous was a great objection from the police point of view.

By Mr. CLARKE: That was the only ground of objection, and he considered it a very strong one. The house had been fairly well conducted, and there was no opposition on the ground of structural requirement. He considered there were too many licenses in that district, and this one would be a very good one to remove.

Mr. DOSWELL, the tenant, said he had held the license for over nine years, and was anxious to continue to hold it. He had never received any complaints from the magistrates or police as to the premises. He worked away during the day, and his wife managed the house. They had done so well there that he had been able to save.

Mrs. DOSWELL said she was perfectly satisfied with the business done, and put in a petition in favour of the continuance of the license.

Mr. CLARKE submitted that there was very little necessity for doing away with any houses at all in the town. He drew special attention to the fact that the tenant of this house had not only been able to make a living for nine years but to save money, and asked why under such circumstances the license be taken away while there were other houses where frequent changes of tenants were taking place? He did not think when a house had been well conducted and the licensee was able to make a living out of it, as in this case the license should be taken away.

THE SPREAD EAGLE.

The next house for consideration was the Spread Eagle, in North-street, owners Messrs. Hancock & Sons, brewers, of Wiveliscombe.

Mr. C. P. CLARKE appeared for the owners.

Mr. MAWER said there was no doubt as to the accommodation of the house in question, but there was an objection to a public court alongside the house, called Spread Eagle-court. There were also seven other licensed houses within a small radius – the Half Moon, the Bear, the Fleur de Lis, and others. There was stabling accommodation belonging to the house, and it was also used for billeting soldiers. He was, however, informed by the Superintendent that there was ample accommodation for soldiers elsewhere in the town.

Mr. PRICE gave particulars of the dimensions of the house, the frontage being 19ft., and there was stabling at the rear which would hold 20 market horses.

Mr. C. P. CLARKE: That means fat horses, I suppose. (Laughter.)

Mr. PRICE said that the Half Moon was about 20 yards, the Bear about 29, and the Fleur de Lis about 38 yards distant from the house.

Mr. CLARKE: This house is one of the landmarks of Taunton. Do you want to destroy the antiquities of Taunton? (Laughter.) - Witness did not see that that had anything to do with it.

Mr. CLARKE: If you were going to illustrate Taunton, you , would go to the Spread Eagle, it being a quaint old place.

Mr. WAKEFIELD (one of the magistrates): You cannot illustrate a license.

Mr. CLARKE replied that if the license were taken away it would mean that the house would have to be destroyed.

Superintendent DURHAM gave evidence that he did not think the public would be inconvenienced if the license were extinguished, North-street being already well supplied with licensed houses. From a police point of view he had great objection to the court behind the house.

By Mr. CLARKE: He had come to the conclusion some time ago that the license ought to go. The tenant was a respectable man, and had been in the house for some years. There was plenty of other houses for billeting soldiers.

Mr. Robert GREENSLADE, the tenant, stated that he had been the licensee of the house for 14 years, with no complaint or conviction against him. They let eight beds in the house, and he was quite willing to keep it on.

Mr. CLARKE submitted that no case had been made out for taking away the license, and it was a hardship that, because somebody thought there were too many licenses in Taunton, Mr. GREENSLADE, who had been a good tenant for so many years, should be turned out.

CROWN AND MITRE.

The Crown and Mitre, Pig Market-lane, was the last house dealt with. The owners, Messrs. Brutton & Co., of Yeovil, and the tenant, Mr. Wm. FORD, were represented by by Mr. S. WATTS.

Mr. MAWER said this was a fully-licensed house, situated in a passage only five or six feet wide. It was a very curious place to ever have had a license granted, and he thought the magistrates would say that of all the houses brought before them that day that especially should be extinguished. There were other licenses in proximity.

Mr. PRICE said the distance to the Market House Vaults was only 72 yards from the Crown and Mitre, which was situated about 45 yards up a passage.

By Mr. WATTS: The premises were in a very good state of repair.

Superintendent DURHAM described the house as almost impossible of police supervision.

By Mr. WATTS: He had never had any fault to find with the conduct of the house.

Mr. FORD, the tenant, said he had held the license 14 years, and had lived on the profits of the business. He should like to continue there. The house was very much used by cabmen, and market people frequented it on Saturdays.

Mr. WATTS pointed out that during the last 25 years there had been only two tenants in this house, the previous tenant having been there 10 years, and the Superintendent of Police had not had occasion to make any complaint against the conduct of the house. Mr. FORD was over 70 years old, and gained his livelihood at the house. If the license was not renewed it was very unlikely, at his age, that he would be able to get his living in any other way.

The justices retired to consider their decision.

The Mayor said: The justices have decided to refer the question of the renewal of the following licences to the Somerset Compensation Authority, and in the meantime the licenses will be renewed provisionally:- The Tailor's Arms, the Three Mariners, the King and Queen, the Golden Lion, the Spread Eagle, and the Crown and Mitre. The justices have renewed the following licenses for the present year:- The Bird-in-Hand and the Dove.


Back to Miscellaneous Page

Back to Home Page






<NOTES: William Walter HUGHES, married Eliza MALE>