The Express.
London, England, 1846-11-11 00:00:00

BAIL COURT,

IN THE MATTER O;IIIiAB:I;bITNN.—CHANGE OP
VENCE IN INDICTMENT FOR PERJURY.—Mr. Dunn, who
is the defendant in a prosecution for perjury, instituted by
Miss Burdett Coutta, appeared in person to move that the
venue be changed from London to Middlesex. The motion
was made on his affidavit, which contained all the usual
facts, except that he was not able to swear cfactly that he
could not obtain a fair trial in the City of Lfir#ll, yet that

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
Sittings in Banco.
THE ATTORNEY•GENERAL n. BAILEY.—BREACHES OF
THE EXCISE LAWS BY CHEMISTS.—This was an informa-
tion filed by the Attorney-General against the defendant, an
extensive manufacturer of sweet spirits of nitre, carrying on
business at Globe-road, Whitechapel, for the recovery of
penalties for various breaches of the Excise Laws. It was
tried before the Lord Chief Baron during the Middlesex
Sittings after last Trinity Term, when the jury found a
verdict for the Crown for penalties amounting to 6,600/.
Upon the first count of the information they found that the
defendant was liable for 2,0001., for having in his possession,
and using, private or unentered stills. Upon the fourth
count 5001., for distilling spirits without a license ; and upon
the fifth count 4,04'01., for removing stock without permits.
At the trial, it was contended on behalf of the defendant.
that he had not incurred the penalties sought to be recovered
by the Crown on the first and fourth counts, as the still and
machinery found in his possession had been established for
the distillation of sweet spirits of nitre, and other spirits
used in the manufacture of low wines, for chemical pur-
poses, for which no license was necessary. The learned
judge, however, intimated that there was no doubt of the
defendant's liability, and directed the jury to find a verdict
for the Crown, if they believed the evidence.
Mr. Martin now moved for a new trial, on the ground of
misdirection as to the defendant's liability, upon the first
and fourth counts; and, as to the fifth count, to reduce the
damages, as the number of breaches were not clearly proved.
Since this case was tried, the legislature passed an Act of
Parliament (9th and 10th Vic., chap. 90) removing all doubt
as to the liability of distillers of spirits for chemical pur.
poses. The fact of enacting a statute rendering such dis-
tillers liable to duty in future, proved not only that doubts
of their liability had previously existed, but that they
were not at all liable, unless they distilled spirits for sale or
for ordinary consumption. The defendant in the present
cue had not done so; the spirits he distilled were for chemi-
cal purposes, and therefore he did not, as a distiller, come
within the meaning of the oth Oeo. IV., chap. 80, and
I was not liable.
The Court thought there ought to be no rule upon either
ground. Every man having a still in his possession was
liable for penalties if not duly licensed to have it, and no
doubt could exist, even under the old act (independent of
the recent statute), that, in a ease like the present, where
spirits were manufactured and afterwards sold, such a manu-
facturer of spirits is a distiller, who should be duly licensed.
The legislature must have meant to prevent the sale of spirits
without license, and the defendant being thus liable, the
direction of the learned judge was right. As to the reduc-
tion of damages, it appeared, on looking over the evidence,
that there was sufficient proof to support the twenty penal-
ties claimed by the Crown, and, therefore, there should be
no rule on that subject either.—The rule was accordingly
refused.