Thomas Shepherd Fuller applied for an off-license for 158, Queen-street, Rushden.

Mr. G. J. Phillips, for the applicant, submitted a petition, and stated that in that street 100 persons were asked to sign it and 90 did so. In the adjoining street 58 out of 60 requested also signed, thus showing that the license was wanted.

Mr. Fuller said that the buildings were upon a site respecting which an application was made last year by Mr. Green. It was 400 yards from the nearest beerhouse. There was no licensed house in Queen-street, and to fetch beer a person would have to go 370 yards in one direction and a quarter of a mile in another. He put in references as to character.

Mr. J. M. Sharman, who produced the plan of the street, said he thought the house was in every way suitable. It was at the corner of the street, and would be open to police inspection.

Mr. Frank Newman, who opposed, said since last year, when the application was refused, the conditions of the street had not altered. If the license was granted he suggested it should be for a free and not a tied house.

The Chairman said they found that if they granted a free house it did not remain free very long.

Mr. Charles Green, shoe manufacturer, said his factory was immediately opposite the site in question. There was no necessity for an off-license, and if it were granted it might prove detrimental to his business. The workmen would be able to get beer at this house and drink it in the factory.

The Bench reserved their decision.

Arthur Sargent applied for an off-license in respect of 86, Queen-street, Rushden.

Mr. W. W. James, for the applicant, said this house was in a more central position owing to the fact that a new road was being constructed that would open up Portland-road with Queen-street, The owner of the 17 adjoining houses, himself a teetotaller, did not object to the granting of the application.

The applicant said he would undertake to keep it a free house for ten years. There was a clause in purchasing the property that it would never be used for an “on” license.

Cross-examined by Mr. Newman, the applicant said six new houses had been built since last year. The extent of his frontage was 20 feet.

In answer to Mr. Phillips, the applicant said the house was an ordinary cottage, and he would turn the front room into a shop. He did not propose to keep the beer in the bedroom or to live in the coal-house himself. (Laughter.)

The Bench reserved their decision.

Samuel Robinson, High-street, Rushden, applied for a license to sell beer on the premises in Portland-road, the property of Messrs. Campbell Praed and Co., and asked that the off-license held by his mother in High-street should be transferred to Portland-road.

Mr. C. C. Becke represented the applicant, the opposition being represented by Mr. G. J. Phillips and Mr. F. Newman.

The applicant gave figures in support of his application, and put in a memorial, containing 282 signatures, asking for the license to be granted.

Mr. J. M. Sharman produced a plan of the house and Mr. Becke put in testimonials as to the character of the applicant from Mr. W. H. Wilkins, Mr. J. S. Clipson, and Mr. Ellard.

Mr. Newman contended that the local conditions were the same as last year, when the Bench refused a similar application, and that the license was quite unnecessary.

Mr. Arthur Henry Hensley, shoe manufacturer’s foreman, said that he occupied a house in Portland-road, where there were nine houses besides the one in which he resided; there were three on the Rectory Estate.

Mr. Frank Bollard, manager of the Co-operative Wholesale Society, whose factory is situated in the lower portion of Portland-road, said that those who resided on that part of the road would be nearer to the “Feathers” than to the license applied for.

James Bridgford said he was the owner of property at the corner of Portland and Cromwell roads, and he strongly objected to the granting of the license, as, in his opinion, it would affect the letting of his houses. - Cross-examined; Witness resided at Luton, and if the license were granted it would not personally affect him. He had not consulted his tenants. Further, he had never seen them.

Mr. Becke advised the witness to see them at once and collect the rent. (Laughter)

The Bench reserved their decision.

An Application Withdrawn

George Burfield, of 141 Queen-street, Rushden, had given notice to apply for a full license on the Rushden Estate of the Artizans’ Land and Mortgage Corporation, Ltd.

Mr. G. J. Phillips said that in view of the statement made in the report of the superintendent that one off-license was sufficient for the needs of that district, he had advised his client not to pursue the application, although if anyone was entitled to a full license it was his client, as he was the owner of the plot of land especially reserved for the purpose.

The application was therefore withdrawn.

Albert Samuel Page, residing at the corner of Pratt-road and Cromwell-road, Rushden, applied for a full licence, the owners of the premises in respect of which the application was made being Messrs. Allsopp and Sons, Ltd.

Mr. Ryland Adkins, for applicant, said that the house was situated between two lines of roads along which Rushden was growing rapidly, and which were connected by a road in which there were 132 occupied houses. The house was near the cricket and football ground, which was a resort of the public, and the mere situation of the premises was unrivalled. There was no opposition from the owners of adjoining property except the ordinary objection of his friend Mr. Newman.

Mr. G. Denton stated that he also objected to the licence.

Continuing, Mr. Adkins said that no considerable number of adjoining owners were opposing the application. The opposition which came from Mr. Denton and Mr. Newman was largely on temperance grounds, to which he would say nothing disrespectful, but he would point out one important feature. There were 132 houses occupied in Oliver Cromwell-road, and of these 130 occupiers had signed the petition. In these cases the question of clubs came in, and if they got a district like this, which was growing, and a successful club there, a successful drinking club invariably led to another and they got a sequence of what he deliberately called illegitimate drinking, because of the entire absence of legitimate drinking. His own clients had been approached to make this place into a club, but they had repudiated the suggestion, and in a district where clubs existed and were growing he submitted this was a reason for granting at any rate one place where drink could be sold on the premises in the light of day. The applicant was a person qualified to conduct a licensed house, as he had been trained in the traditions of public-house order and management.

The applicant bore out Mr. Adkins’ statement and said that altogether 311 people had signed the petition in favour of the licence being granted.

Cross-examined by Mr. Newman, the applicant said the requirements of the people who went to the football matches were met by the provision which could be obtained from the bar on the football ground; therefore a licence would not benefit them a great deal. He wanted a licence for the accommodation of the public generally.

Henry Gross, Cromwell-road, shoe manufacturer, said there was a great want for a license. He was an owner of the adjoining property.

Mr. Newman held that whatever requirements there were for drinking were met by off licences. He appeared not only for the Temperance Society but also for the Free Church Council, and the gentlemen who had instructed him had as much at heart the welfare of the people in the district as their friends who were backed by the brewers.

The Rev. C. F. Groom stated that he was minister at the Wesleyan Chapel at Rushden, and he was also secretary to the Free Church Council. They had six churches there with a total membership of 900. He was authorised to speak on behalf of the Council at a meeting held last Friday. In his opinion an indoor house was not required there; it was very undesirable. If a licence was granted it would tend to lower the character of the residents.

Mr. Alfred Shaw, shoe riveter, living five houses from the applicant, deposed that there was no requirement for an outdoor licence. The off licence, in his opinion, was sufficient.

Mr. George Denton said he considered the outdoor licence sufficient. He had a great objection to the licence being granted, thinking it would be injurious to the district.

Mr. Robert Hooper, speaking as a voluntary witness, said that if the magistrates granted the needs of the locality they would consent to three new licences in the locality. (Laughter)

The Bench reserved their decision.

A License for Harborough Park

Thomas Lack, of 48, Harborough-park, applied for a beer off-license.

The Bench granted the application on the understanding that not less than six bottles were sold at a time.

The Bench’s Decisions

In announcing the decisions of the Bench, the Chairman said that there were two questions they had to decide. The first was whether it was necessary to grant an additional outdoor license in a new part of Rushden, and they had decided that they would be justified in granting one. As to which was the most desirable, they thought Mr. Fuller’s was the best situated, and the best house as well, and therefore they granted an outdoor license there. The question they considered next was whether the present outdoor license of Mr. Page should be made into a full license, but they could not see any additional evidence to show there were any greater requirements than in previous years, and therefore they felt justified in refusing it.