Hawking without a licence - Cumberland and Westmorland Newspaper Transcriptions

Hawking without a licence

                       PETTY SESSIONS

                   WEDNESDAY, NOV. 17

         HAWKING WITHOUT A LICENSE

John BEVINGTON and John KELSALL, dealers in earthenware, were charged under
an information with having hawked goods without a license, contrary to the
50 Geo. III., c. 41, as. 6, 7, 17, whereby they had rendered themselves
liable to a penalty of £10. KELSALL did not appear.

MR. HOUGH appreared to prosecute, and MR. DONALD for the defence.

MR. HOUGH said this was a complaint against the defendants for trading as
hawkers without a license. As only MR. BEVINGTON appeared, they must
proceed against him. Section 6 of the Act requires a license to be taken
out by every person travelling about the country and exposing for sale any
goods, wares, or merchandise. The defendants called themselves manufactures
of those goods, but he, (MR. HOUGH) thought it would turn out that they were
not.

They go from town to town and the goods are sent to an auctioneer to sell,
and they were also sold by private contract. MR. HOUGH read the 7th
section, to show that by employing an auctioneer the defendants had rendered
themselves liable to a penalty of £10. That had been their mode of
proceeding here. He called

JAMES NICHOLSON, dealer in earthenware in this city. He said he was in the
salesroom in the Athenaeum on Wednesday, the 10th of this month. He saw the
defendant there. The goods were at that time exposed for sale.

MR. DONALD - Was MR. HARDY (the auctioneer) there at the time?
WITNESS - No.
MR. DONALD - Was it before the sale commenced?
WITNESS - Yes.
C. P. HARDY, auctioneer, was then examined by MR. HOUGH. Caused that
advertisement (produced) to be inserted in the Carlisle papers. Was
virtually instructed by the defendants to sell a number of dessert services
and dinner sets. Had no letters to produce. Had a written assignment. Was
communicated with from Hanley in the first instance asking him if he would
undertake the sale. The latter signed by "BEVINGTON and KELSALL". Could
not lay his hands upon the letter now. The purport of it was to ask him if
he thought a sale of China and Glass would take in Carlisle. It stated that
they had a very large stock, and as they were dissolving partnership, they
had determined to sell it by auction. He replied to that letter that he had
had a sale of earthenware which had occupied him a week, and also that he
had had a large sale at the Coffee House.

These things might militate against it, but if they liked to take their
chance they might send them. The goods came.
He was authorized by them to sell the goods. He could not tell where these
goods came from. These are the invoices (produced) of the railway peiople.
They did not come from Hanley, but by the Caledonia Railway. Had sold for
the defendants in Carlisle before. Knew nothing whether these goods were
the remains of a large sale in Glasgow. Never saw BEVINGTON till the
summons was issued. He did not come down to attend the sale. It was his
(witness's) duty to account to the defendant for the proceeds of the sale.
First saw the defendant in Calrisle on Wednesday night about ten o'clock.
Did not know when he left; but from what he (witness) had heard since he
thought the defendant would go through by the train; had heard that he did.

CROSS-EXAMINED BY MR. DONALD. - The defendant was never at the sale to
interfere. The goods were sent to him (witness) to sell. Never saw the
defendant in Calrisle previous to Wednesday night; nor afterwards till
Monday. He (witness) had the sole management of the sale.

RE-EXAMINED - Nobody came with the goods. Did not sell the whole of them;
the remainder are lying in the Athenaeum at present. Was not aware that
they had been sent off to Penrith: Was not aware that they had been moved.
They were all in the Athenaeum last night when he left the room. Had
received no orders about them, nor was he aware that anything had been done
with them. Had nothing to do with the goods not sold; had only to do with
those sold. They are lying there at my risk; did not know that they were
gone. should not send them away till he received orders. If any orders
came to him at all, they would come from the defendant. Was not aware the
goods were "trucked".

MR. HOUGH submitted the case was made out.
MR. DONALD said that as the information was laid under a penal Act, it must
be proved strictly. He submitted that the evidence did not come under the
Act. The facts appeared to be that "BEVINGTON AND KELSALL" dissolve
partnership, and they send the goods down to Carlisle. There was nothing to
show that the defendant took any part in the sale; it was left entirely to
MR. HARDY's management. There seemed to be some obscurity in the Act,
therefore, he hoped the Bench would deal with the case as lightly as
possible if they thought the case had been made out.

MR. REES said the Bench thought this case very clear. No doubt the parties
were liable for the penalty applied for. The defendant was down here; and
they might well suppose that he was here for the purpose of superintending
this sale. There was no other business shown that could have brought him
here. Therefore, they thought that he had rendered himself liable to the
penalty. - £10.

The fine was paid; half of it goes to the Queen, and half to the informer.
The Bench have no power to mitigate the fine.

========================================