From the Dover Express and East Kent Intelligencer, 17 March, 1863.

LASSIES IN LIQUOR

Ann Triscoll, a Scotch lassie, was brought up by police-constable Terry, who had found her the worse for "mountain dew," lying on the pavement at an early hour the same morning. She was utterly helpless, and had to be trundled to the station-house on a wheel-barrow. The prisoner seemed very much ashamed of herself, and as this was her first appearance the Magistrates took a merciful view of her offence and dismissed her with a caution.

Clara Greenstreet, a very old offender, had been found in a condition scarcely less humiliating ten the first prisoner, and although she had not needed a barrow for her conveyance to the police station, her advantage was more than counterbalanced by her resistance of the policeman, who took her into custody. She was found by police-constable Faith extended across the pavement in Snargate Street, just below the "Apollonian Hall." When brought to a state of consciousness by the policemen, she declared, with such profane and abusive language, that she would not remain in his company, and violently resisted his efforts to take her to the station-house. In default of paying a fine, she was committed to 21 days to the House of Correction, whither she was conveyed in a paroxysm of rage which found went at her fingers' ends on the faces of the unfortunate constables who had her in custody.

From the Dover Express and East Kent Intelligencer, 23 May, 1863.

LENEY & EVENDEN v NEWRY

Plaintiffs in this one, for whom Mr. Fox appeared, are brewers of the Phoenix Brewery, Dover, and the defendant is the landlord of a public-house at Faversham. The claim was for £6, the value of four barrels of beer. The debt was not disputed by the defendant, but it appeared that he had written to plaintiffs, asking for time to be allowed him. Plaintiffs were willing to allow a month, and the delivery of beer having been proved, the Judge made an order in these terms.

From the Dover Express and East Kent Intelligencer, 23 May, 1863.

COUNTY INTELLIGENCE

IMPORTANT TO HOTEL KEEPERS

A somewhat novel and very unusual application was made to the borough magistrates, at Canterbury, last week. Mr. Greenstreet, of the "Royal Fountain Hotel Tap," in conjunction with Mr. Finn, the landlord of the hotel, applied for a special license to be granted to the former to carry out business of a licensed victualler at the tap. The application was made in consequence of the Excise authorities having given to Mr. Greenstreet that, unless he obtained such a license, he will be proceeded against, under the Licensing Act, for defrauding the revenue, and informing him that he is liable to a penalty of £50 a day for every day he carries on his business without such a license. - The Magistrate's Clerk (Mr. Aris) explained the circumstances which the application was made. He said it had been the custom for many years for the business of the tap to be carried on under the license granted to the "Fountain Hotel." That was perfectly right so long as it was carried on by a servant of the landlord of the hotel, for his benefit and entirely under his control. Circumstances had arisen in consequence of which the hotel keeper had no longer any control over the tap, which had in fact been let to other parties, and the business was carried on by Mr. Greenstreet for his own benefit. Mr. Finn had ceased to have anything to do with it whatsoever. The Magistrates were in a position to entertain the application, under the special clause of the Licensing Act, the circumstance being different from those connected with an application by the keeper of a beershop to obtain permission to take out a spirit license. In the latter case the applicant would have to comply with certain enactments such as the posting of notices on the church doors three successive Sundays in the month of June or July, and the application could only be considered at the annual petty sessions for the removal of public house licenses. But in the case of a tap, which had been previously licensed in connexion with an hotel no such notices were necessary. As the tap had ceased to be under the control of Mr. Finn, the application had to be made for the purpose of protecting Mr. Greenstreet from the consequences of selling without a license - Mr. Finn stated that he had certain control over the tap, inasmuch as the tap premises were a portion of his building. The rent for them was included in that of the "Fountain,"  but he sublet the tap to Messrs. Ash and Sons, brewers, who had again let it to Mr. Greenstreet. He had control over the tap, inasmuch as he could at any time recover possession by giving Messrs. Ash notice. The Clerk said Mr. Finn's explanation altered the case. The fact of Mr. Finn underletting the tap was an offence. - Mr. Finn said he was aware of it. - The Clerk said the case had better be adjourned till Monday, in order for a special application to be made. - Mr. Finn asked the Bench to give Mr. Greenstreet an authority to sell in the meantime. - The Clerk said the Bench had no power to grant such an authority. Mr. Greenstreet would be liable to penalties for selling, but he would represent the circumstances to the Excise officers and most likely no proceedings would be taken.

On Monday Mr. Finn and Mr. Greenstreet again attended at the Guildhall, accompanied by Mr. Brothers, clerk to Messrs. Ash and Sons, brewers, who are the tenants of the tap premises under Mr. Finn. - Mr. Aris explained that if Mr. Finn took the tap into his own hands, and put some one into manage it for him in his own name, he would not require a fresh license; but he had no power to undirect the premises at all. If any arrangement could be made by which the owner could let the tap separately to Messrs. Ash or Mr. Greenstreet, the magistrates would then be in a position to grant a new license.

Mr. Brothers said the case had been laid down by Mr. Aris was very plain. - Mr. Aris said he had fully explained it both to Messrs. Ash and to Mr. Finn. He had taken a great deal of pains in drawing out a special license, and was explaining the matter to the magistrates when Mr. Finn informed them that he retained certain control over the tap. - Mr. Finn said he simply stated that the tap was included in his lease, and that he had let it to Messrs. Ash.

Mr. Aris: Which you are not justified in doing. You must either have the tap in your own hands, or it must be a separate letting.

Mr. Finn: Very well, it must be so then.

Mr. Aris: It is necessary that some arrangements should be made at once to protect Mr. Greenstreet from the consequences. He is liable to a penalty of £50 per day for every day he sells. The Excise officers called on me this morning about it.

There are several cases in Canterbury, and many throughout the country, the circumstances of which are almost identical with the above, and we believe the Excise office have been instructed to make the necessary investigation with a view to ulterior proceedings.