Sarah
Hawkins Genealogy Site
Newspaper
Articles
The Western Chronicle, Yeovil (Established in 1764 at the Sherborne, Dorchester, and Taunton Journal), With Which is Incorporated “The Dorset Record.”. Friday 09 Feb 1912
Page 5 Column 5 and 6
YEOVIL COUNTY LICENSING SESSIONS.
THE LATE Mr H. B. BATTEN.
ANNUAL LICENSING REPORT:
DECREASE IN DRUNKENNESS.
APPLICATION FOR A MARTOCK LICENCE REFUSED.
WEDNESDAY. - Before Mr Geo. Troyte CHAFYN-GROVE (in the chair), Col E. H. BERKELEY, Major Quantock SHULDHAM, Mr R. A. SANDERS, M.P., Mr J. W. GOODFORD, Mr W. H. SLADE, Mr J. VINCENT, Rev. E. H. BATES HARBIN and Mr W. BURT.
THE LATE MR H. B. BATTEN.
The Chairman remarked that before they commenced the business of the Court he wished to say a few words concerning the great loss that had been sustained by the Bench by the death of Mr H. B. BATTEN. He had been joint clerk of that court for a great many years and had been a most useful gentleman in many ways – one whose opinions the magistrates always took with great pleasure. He was sure they would all join with him in expressing their great appreciation of Mr BATTEN's services. He also held many other public offices in the town and had always been esteemed and respected by the inhabitants of Yeovil. It was his (the Chairman's) painful duty to propose a vote of condolence with the family in the great loss they had sustained and the bench's deep regret at losing such an able clerk.
Mr C. F. SAUNDERS said that on behalf of the solicitors practising in the Court he should like to record their appreciation of the services of the late Mr BATTEN. During the whole time he (Mr SAUNDERS) had practised in that Court – upwards of 20 years – he had found Mr BATTEN to be a most able servant of the magistrates and the public. He had been most courteous and obliging to the advocates whose duty it was to practice before him, and he (Mr SAUNDERS) had greatly appreciated that courtesy.
Mr W. MARSH said that as joint Clerk to the magistrates with the late Mr BATTEN he should like to add his expression of regret at the loss of a most courteous professional friend.
THE ANNUAL LICENSING REPORT.
DECEASE IN DRUNKENNESS.
Supt. HOUSE presented his annual licensing report, which stated that there were 66 licensed houses in the division made up as follows: 38(?) fully licenced houses, 22 on beer-houses, six off(?) beer houses, one grocer's licence, and one off cider license. He was advised that the grocer's license would not be renewed that day. One licensee, Wm. HILL, of the Bull Inn, Ilchester, had been proceeded against for permitting gaming on his licenced premises. The case was dismissed on payment of costs. With that exception all the licensed housec <sic> had been well conducted. Five persons had been proceeded against for drunkenness and convicted and fined. This, when compared with last year, showed a decrease of three cases of drunkenness.
The Chairman: Very satisfactory.
ALL LICENSES RENEWED.
The Clerk (Mr W. MARSH) announced that all the licenses would be renewed.
OFF WINE AND SPIRIT LICENSE.
APPLICATION FROM MARTOCK REFUSED
Mr Ivor EVANS (from the office of Mr J. Trevor DAVIES, solicitor, of Yeovil) applied, on behalf of Mr Wm. LYE, of Byron House, East Street, Martock, for a wine and spirit license to be consumed off the premises.
Mr C. F. SAUNDERS and Mr J. A. MAYO appeared to oppose the application.
Mr EVANS, in opening the case, said that a similar license to the one he was applying for had been in existence in Martock for nearly 40 years, carried on by Miss SMITH, and before her by her father. Last October Miss SMITH went to live at Bournemouth and the license lapsed. The applicant (Mr LYE) was a member of the Martock Parish Council and had lived in the parish all his life. He already held an off license, for the sale of beer. He had held that for about 16 years and what he now asked for was practically to renew the wine and spirit license held by Miss SMITH and her father for nearly 40 years. He (Mr EVANS) was given to understand that this was the only off wine and spirit licence existing in Martock. On account of several people having urged to Mr LYE to make the application for practically a renewal of Miss SMITH's license, he had come before the Court that day to make such an application. Mr EVANS here produced a petition signed by about 50 of the most influentual residents in Martock supporting the application.
Mr SAUNDERS objected to the petition being handed in, and said it was not evidence, It was notorious how these petitions were procured. The production of a petition was not evidence. If the persons who signed it wanted this license let them come there and say so, and subject themselves to cross-examination. Licensing legislation required that all evidence should be on oath with regard to licences(?).
The Chairman: It is not a new license.
Mr SAUNDERS: Yes it is. If it was only a renewal the contention I am raising would be all the stronger.
The Clerk: It is perfectly true the petition is not evidence, but the Bench had always been accustomed to receive petitions of this sort.
Mr SAUNDERS: That is not my experience. If it is not evidence what is the object of receiving it. I cannot conceive of the Bench receiving anything the Clerk tells them is not evidence(?).
The Chairman: We have always received petitions.
Mr SAUNDERS: I have had them refused in other courts.
Mr EVANS: I leave it to the discretion of the justices whether they recognise the petition or not.
The Bench decided to receive the petition.
Mr EVANS proceeded to say that the population of Martock was something like 2,000 persons. The off beer license held by Mr LYE was carried on in his house and the beer was stored in a cellar at the back. Anybody who wanted beer had to come to the front door and received the bottle of beer from there. They did not go on to the premises at all. If the Bench granted the application Mr LYE was willing to carry on the wine and spirit license in the same way. Messrs Gilbey & Sons, wine and spirit merchants, had sold their wine and spirit merchants, had sold their wines and spirits in Martock since 1872 through Miss SMITH's license. Mr LYE was willing, if the Bench granted the license, to limit the sale to GILBEY's wines and spirits. The call for Gibley's wines had been considerable for some years. Mr EVANS repeated that the application was practically for the renewal of an old licence, through, under the 1910 Act, they were bound to treat it as an application for a new licence. After the magistrates had heard of the number of people who had approach the applicant in support of the application, he trusted they would come to the conclusion that there was a necessity for such a licence in Martock and would grant the application. Numbers of people in Martock preferred going to a private house for their wines and spirits than to a public house. There never was any opposition to Miss SMITH's licence and he (Mr EVANS) did not know what was the nature of the opposition he had to meet that day. He respectfully asked the magistrates to consider whether or not there was a necessity for a licence or not there was a necessity for a licence which had been in existence since 1872.
Mr Wm. LYE, the applicant, supported his application in the witness box. He said he had held the off beer licence for 16 years and Miss SMITH, his sister-in-law, had held an off wine and spirit licence in Martock for 10 years and her father before her for 25 or 26 years. The licence had now lapsed. Numbers of people who obtained Gilbey's wines and spirits from Miss SMITH had urged him to apply for the licence. He obtained the signatures to the petition himself. The petition stated that “the signatories are of opinion that Wm. LYE is a fit and proper person to hold a wine and spirit licence for consumption off the premises and his holding the licence will be a great convenience to the residents of Martock.” The petition was signed by 50 people and was headed by the Rev. T. Frazer FULTON, of Ash Vicarage.
Mr MAYO: Ash is outside the parish of Martock.
Mr. LYE: Mr FULTON does his business in Martock and came to me about the agency.
Cross-examined by Mr SAUNDERS: The licence of Miss SMITH was situated in North Street. He (Mr LYE) was a baker and confectioner by occupation, plus that he sold beer off the premises.
Mr SAUNDERS: Is this Messrs GILBEY's application? - No.
You are proposing to sell their wines and spirits only? - That is so.
There is a great liking for their wines and spirits in Martock? - I dont know. There is a trade for it.
Have you ever heard of Ring and Co? - Yes.
Don't you know that they sell wines and spirits? - They haven't a magistrates order.
That isn't necessary. Wines and spirits are procurable there are they not? - They don't sell Gilbey's wines and spirits.
How far is Messrs Ring & Co's office from your house? - 80 to 100 yards.
Have you measured it with a tape? - No, I have paced it.
It has been measured with a tape, and may I tell you that it is 50 yards away.
How far is the White Hart Hotel from your place? - 500 yards.
Mr SAUNDERS: May I tell you it is 180 yards.
Mr MAYO: You dont suggest that Ring & Co, cannon sell Gilbey's wines and spirits? - I dont think Gilbeys would allow them. I think they go in for an exclusive holding.
They like to have a monopoly. Have you come to any arrangement with Messrs GILBEY with regard to this licence? - None at all.
You have said that this licence has lapsed. Do you not know that it was the owner's personal wish that the licence was dropped? - That is so.
Mr SAUNDERS, opposing the application, said he was rather amazed to hear Mr EVANS just say to the Bench “That is my case,” because the only evidence which he called in support of it was the evidence of the applicant himself and the production of a petition, which the Clerk had said was not evidence. He hadn't called a single one of the petitioners to give evidence on oath. One would expect to have some person of influence or some respectable householder called before the Bench to any that it would be a convenience to him if the licence was granted. But not a single soul had come to say so. The petition was headed by a gentleman living outside the parish and the petitioners took it upon themselves to say that the parishioners of Martock would think the licence a convenience. The applicant had gone so far as to say that his reason for asking for the licence was that there were persons in Martock who preferred to have their wines and spirits from a private house and who did not wish to be polluted by going late licenced premises. He (Mr SAUNDERS) thought it was a good deal better that people, especially women, should go to a properly licensed house when everybody would know what they were going there for. It was dangerous and undesirable that the housewife of the lower middle class or the poor class should go to a baker's shop, perhaps behind her husband's back, so that everybody should think she had gone there to purchase bread or confectionary, whereas in reality she had gone to buy wines or spirits(?).
Mr EVANS interrupted with the remark that the shop was away from the premises in question.
Mr SAUNDERS said the same argument applied to a private house. It was an undesirable encouragement to secret drinking. It was suggested by Mr EVANS that this was not really an application for a new licence. Legally it was. It was an application in respect to premises where a wine and spirit licence had never been carried on before. Then it had been further suggested that this licence had been allowed to lapse, but the truth was that Miss SMITH had to give it up. He would read a letter from the owner of the premises, who was a J.P. for that Court and who compelled the licence to be given up. Mr W. T. BRADFORD wrote as follows:- “I understand that Mr William LYE is applying for a new licence for Martock. This is quite unnecessary. We want the licences reduced and on this account the one recently carried on by Miss SMITH has been dropped by my express wish.” Therefore instead of giving up the licence voluntarily, Miss SMITH was compelled to give it up by the owner of the premises because he thought there was no necessity for it. He was sure that the Bench would refuse to increase the facilities for drinking in Martock. He recollected that the Brewster Sessions before last the Bench objected to the renewal of three licences in Martock on account of redundancy. The present was then surely an inopportune time to grant a fresh licence. If there were people in Martock who were so squeemish as to object to be seen entering a public-house he would remind them that 50 yards away from Mr LYE's house there were Messrs Rings wine and spirit stores He appealed to the Bench not to encourage that kind of thing. It was hard enough for respectable wine and spirit merchants and licensed holders in Martock to get a living already without creating an agency for a big London firm and thus be putting money in their pockets. There was already ample provision for any householder who wanted wines and spirits and he asked the Bench to refuse the application.
Mr MAYO said he had in Court the three overseers of Martock, who would say that they thought the licence was unnecessary. He also put in a petition against the petition signed by 56 residents of Martock.
The Bench decided to hear one of the overseers only.
Geo. Wm. MOODY then went into the box and said that in his opinion the licence was unnecessary. He had nothing against Mr Lye personally.
Mr. MAYO: That makes your opposition stronger.
Mr EVANS: Why do you think the licence is unnecessary? - Because there are enough licences in Martock already.
The Bench unanimously decided to refuse the application.
THE LIBERAL HALL, MARTOCK.
The theatrical licence of the Liberal Hall, Martock, was renewed.
Considerable laughter was created by an application for an occasional licence at the Conservative smoking concert in the Liberal Hall, Martock. - The application was granted.
CYCLING WITHOUT LIGHTS.
David BRIDGES, a stud groom, of West Coker, was fined 2s 6d for riding a bicycle without a light at the White Post cross-roads East Coker, on Jan. 1st.
P.c. LOVELL proved the case and said defendant told him that the lamp was alight at the top of Hendford Hill.
A fine of 2s 6d was also imposed on Edward STIBY, a cowman, of Lower Chilton Cantelo, for a like offence at Marston Magna, on Jan. 20th.
P.c. HILLMAN gave evidence.
IGNORANCE OF THE LAW.
Jos. PARSONS, of West Coker, a haulier, was summoned for riding a motor cycle without a licence.
P.c. HOLLARD was the informant and defendant said he did it in ignorance of the law. He got the cycle to try it and only rode a little way. It was not his property.
The Bench dismissed the case.
THE LIGHT WENT OUT.
Geo. GUPPY, a dealer, of Mudford, admitted driving a vehicle without a light.
P.c. PRING proved the case.
Defendant said that the lamp only just went out when he met the constable. Having no matches and only having a little farther to go, he decided to go on.
Fined 2s 6d.
STREET FOOTBALL AT STOKE.
Reginald TERRELL and Joseph GRINTER, of Stoke, were summoned for playing football(?) in the street at Stoke on January 21st.
P.c. SEYMOUR gave evidence and said he had had a lot of complaints of this dinner hour football in the streets.
The Chairman (to defendants): It is a dangerous practice and must be put a stop to. You will be dismissed now but if you come here again you will be severely punished.