Hide Articles List

26 articles on this Page

,pMORGANSHIRE ASSIZES. '.

C0URT-

OPTHALMIA AT ELY SCHOOLS.

. ANNUAL DINNER OF CARDIFF…

—.» EDUCATION AT LLANDRINDOD…

.. INSURANCE CASE AT MERTHYR.

Advertising

CARDIFF WATERWORKS.

.ST^ JOHN'S CHURCN. CARDIFF

CABDIFF CORPORATION OFFICALS.

. N.U.T. BAZAAR AT SWANSEA.

.---...,...---WINDSOR DOCK…

SOUTH GIATTGRCIIA^ CONSERVATISM.…

EAST GLAMORGAN CONSERVATIVE…

A CARDIFF BURGLAR AT BRISTOL.

Advertising

LICENSING QUESTION. I

News
Cite
Share

LICENSING QUESTION. I THE CLAIM AGAINST MRSSRS. f XLVNCOCK AND CO, I SOME IMPORTANT POINTS RAISED. At ilte Glamorganshire Assize cm Saturday, I Mr. Justice Liiwraaoe, sitting without a. jury in tht. Crown Court at Cardiff Town-hall, resumed the hearing of the case in WIIIXII the plaintiii IS Ivir. Robert iiryani, ANA rJie defendants, Alessrs. W. IL^UOOCK alla Co. > toile well-known brewers. Mr. Abel Tlioma*, I.o!.U., M.x. IIND Mr. ludor iioweU, jU..J". UU" i»U-ucted by MESSRS. SUTTPAEN*, David, ANA Co.), appeared lor TIIE plamtnx; Air. ii. irancis V\n- najcus, Air. Artiiur Lewis, ANA kLr. S. X. iiivaiis, M.P. (iiistrumeu. by Air. J. UL. JONES), ueienaed. —TINS I&ets of tlie pwntul b CACE SET out tliat the LEA^E ot THE GROUND upon wnioh THE Princess Royal Pubuc- nouseat U-raugetown stood wae GRAUTEU by i*uru vv IIIOAUR A PI'EUTCTOOOR to a Air. OEORGE .NAVIES, ihe itxiiis or Uie lease, wiuen EXPIRTIS in LT)57, was vJ years, and me ground rent £2 10s. per annum, ilie lease wap tnuufenea by Davies to Daniel. Thomas- WHOSE interest was purchased *OR i-FROO by Robert iSryar t, the piamutt, M There was A covenant AG^UIST using any boiidng erected on til-a property for a pubbc-house, üT any luna ox 1raue, or ANY obnoxious BUSI- NESS, except witn tne CONSENT 01 the landlord, in October, 1873, tlie piamtili became the holder of the lease. At that time tlieie was a public-house en the premi £ es. The pla&miiii ill 1he ioilowing year lei t'ue NRCUII^ES on a lease for twenty-one years to Air. JOHN Biggs, who subesequei-tiy assigned hus interest to ,Me.it.ir. Jriancoct and \^O. 1 ue to Mx. liiggo ienuillatOO. ou the 1st of September, luKO, and on lhe 15Hi 01 September, IDCKJ, lli. .Bryant agreed to lease the Princess II JVAI to Messrs. BRAIN and Co., brewers, Carditf, for another tw enty-oiie years, the t&rai to com- mence, of COURSE, from the dace of the expira- tion of the lease granted to AIR. The rent was to be JRlbO a. year, but METERS. Brain and Co. further agreed to pay A PREMIUM, ot i>3,000, of winch JiiiiiU was paid down. U11 the 11th of April, 1891, Mary Evans was J he tenant of Messrs. Hancock and Co., "nd, that being a Saturday night, the police entered, ar d found ('n the premises A number of drunken -nen, with Morgan Evans, a son oi the licensee, serving in the bar in which those drunken tut-n were found. On the 20th of April Mary Evans WAS fined 40S. for supplying drunken PERSONS with intoxicating drinlc. Un the 31st of July the licence was, witii the consent of Messrs. Han- cock er.o. Co., transferred to MORGAN Evans, the person who wa«J actually T-ervmg in the bar when the oifenoe took placie, and on the 28th of August in the same year the head- constable served notice of objection to the re- newal of the licence. At the following licen- sing cessions the licence was refused, and on appeal the decision of the justices was confirmed. Mr. Abel Thomas stated these facts, in opening, pointing out that plaintiff lost in the first place the ±13,000 premium which he WAS to receive from Messrs. Urain and Co. a.nd the difference between J6160 and the present value of the property for a term of 21 years. He also contended that while there had been a large increase in the population of Grangetown no new license had been granted, so that a.t the end of the 21 years it was reasonable to suppose that a LEASE, on at least equally favourable terms could be negotiated for a similar period. Plain- tiff, it was urged, had therefore lost about £6,000, and defendants were liable, having not taken proper care AN the selection of tenants. Mr. Thomas put in formal documentary evi- dence, and oaiue to the point of the evidence given in the policie-oourt proceedings. I clice-oonstablo Joltn Phillips, called a<nd examined by Mr. Tudor Howell, said that Oil Saturday evening, the 11th of April, 1891, ho went to the Princcss Royal, accompanied by Police-constable Dymond. Mrs. Mary Evans was then the tenant. A man was CCMMG out drunk, led by another man. Nine men were m the bar, of whom two were drunk. Six men were in the taproom, and one of these, also under the influence of drink, was ejected by Morgan Evans, the landlady's som. The men were so noisy that Dymond consulted Sergeant Marley, and ascertained the names of tne men. Proceedings were taken before the magistrates against Mrs. Eva>n«, who was charged with permitting drunkenness, and fined 40s. amd costs. The four men charged with being drunk on the premises were each fined 5s. and costs. Bv Mr. Francis Williams: It is A pretty rough neighbourhood. Police-constable Dymond corroborated, add- ing that the licence was not endorsed. Ex-Sergeant Marley also gave evidence in confirmation. Mr. Dan Rees (clerk to the Cardiff magistrates) produced the record of the con- victions. The renewal of the license was refused at the general annual licensing meeting. an appeal to the quarter sessions was dismissed, and, carried to the House of Lords, it was there finally dismissed. The application of Morgan Evans for a transfer was refused on the ground of the conviction of the former licensee. Mr. Rees, in reply to Mr. B. Francis Williams, said there was a conviction against the Forge, a public-house in the same street. also on the same day. The renewal OF the Forge was granted, while that of the Princess Royal was not granted. The conviction of the licensee of the Forge was also for selling intoxicating liquor to a drunken person, the fine being 56. and costs. Mr. Head-constable McKenzie gave evidence as to the fct. > taken, so far as he was concerned, in reference to the Princess Royal, and to the matter of the lioence. Mr. B. Francis Williams: I cannot say that when, application was made for a new licence in 1894 there was an independent opposition on the part of Messrs. -Jrain and Co. on behalf of the Forge. Robert Bryant, York-terraoe, Grangetown, a retired innke< ER. 78 years of age, said that in October, IO74, he granted a lease to Mr. John Biggs, and in September, 1890, he granted a lease of the same premises to Mr. S. A. Brain ana his brother. He had received £200 out of the bonus of JM,000, and he had to pay that money back. So long as the licence ran he paid the Windsor Estate £5 a year. Evidence having been given as to the average takings. Mr. S. A. Brain, of tho fom of S. A. Brain and Co., brewers, Cardiff, was called, and said his agreement with Mr. Bryant was to pay a premium of JB5,000, and of that amount he paid £200 on account. He would have carried out the arrangement with pleasure if tie licei-ce had remained. Mr. W. H. Capel, architect, was instructed by Mr. Bryant to see about the repairs and they eventually agreed as to wha.t defendants' should pay. Mr. John Weaver, hotel broker, and licensed valuer, SAID th"6re haxi of late T^ARA been an enormous increase in the population ,>f Grange- town. The tald-igs were £40 to £50 A week. With the TAME description of bouse wtness could get A rental of JB250 to pay a premium of £3,000. Alderman David Jones, he next witness, saad he had estimated the damages Mr. Bryant had sustained by the loss of the licence. The value as a licensed house would, he calculated, be £6,908 14s. 6d., and deducting £491 15s. lOd., his valuation of the present unlicensed premises, put the total at £6,410 18S. 8d. Mr. George Thomas, architect, and Mr. J. E. Gunn, auctioneer and valuer, were also called by Mr. Thomas, and gave corroborative evi- dence as to value. At the close of the plaintiff's case, it was re- solved only to take evidence for the defence, as to valuation and repairs, all questions of law to be argued before hÏ8 lordship in London. Mr. D. T. Alexander, auctioneer and valuer, said he did not think the locality was an in- creasing one at present, though it was INCREASING in better-class residents. The accommodation of the Princess Royal WAS not large, and the BUSINESS was NOT of the highest class. IN his opinion JB4,107 was the value of the premises as a pubiic-hoiwe, if £160 was paid as rent and a premium on a 21 years' lease. Having regard to the present state of the premises, it would take JE75 to put them in a condition to pay a rental of £60 a year. Mr. Joseph Henry Jones (solicitor for the defendants) said he applied on behalf of Mr. Morgan Evans for the renewal of the lioence, which was opposed by the chief-constable. Wit- ness described the proceedings that subsequently followed, a.nd in which he acted all instructed by defendants. Mr. C. C. Jones, architect and surveyor, said that in December, 1895, he was instructed by Hancock and Co. to inspect the premises 86 to repairs, which were duly carried out. Mr. E. Corbett, surveyor to the MlI-r- quess of Bute's estate, fixed the net valuation at £ 4,356. Mr, Charles Waxing, valuer and estate agent, gave about the same evidence as to value. Mr. Charles Clarke, auctioneer and estate agent, considered that, if the licence still reo mained, the value of the Princess Boyal would be £3,778. P A Thia ooncluded defendants case. The legal arguments will be taken in London before his lordship on further consideration. The court then adjourned.

------------------------MUMBLES…

CARDIFF CORPOIIATION AND THE…

SWANSEA COiRFORATIOX FINANCES.

. DOCTOR QUESTION AT MERTHYR.

Advertising

NEW RECTOR OF NEATH.

-----.----------NORTH WALES…

PENARTH MISSING GIRL,

ST. DAVID'S AFFILIATION CASE.