The Express.
London, England, 1847-11-19 00:00:00

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.

ATTORNST-OINIKAL e. BAILBY.--SARET SPIRITS
Or NITRE NOT LIABLII TO DUTY AS " SPIRITS." In
this ease also, which was an exciee prosecution against a
chemist for making and willing sweet spirits of nitre without
paying duty and accounting as for " spirits." a written judg-
ment was read by the Lord Chief Baron, to the effect that
sweet spirits of nitre, though forming a part of ordinary
spirits, yet were universally known as quite distinct from
them—were an ordinary well-known ;article cf commerce—
were treated in several statutes u a totally different sub-
stance from " spirits "—were rot expressly included under
the definition of " spirits " in the statute on which the pro-
secution was founded—were commonly sold by chemists and
druggists, and not by publicans under a beer sod spirit
license, and that consequently they did not come within the
meaning of the word " spirits " in that statute—and, there-
fore, that thejudgment should be for the defendant.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
Sittiass in Banco.
WATSON, APPILLANT,o. COTTON, RESPONDENT.—Ra-
°TITRATION ArPSALS.—This was an appeal from the re-
vising barrister for the county of Worcester, and the case
submitted to the court was es follows :—The voter, Wm.
Cotton, claimed as the occupier of a wharf and shed, the
latter being composed of upnght posts, died in the ground
and covered by a tarpaulin roof, one of the sides being
formed by the boundary of the wharf, and the other by deal
boards nailed from post to poet. The question raised was,
whether or not this was a " building" within the meaning of
the 27th sec. of the 2 & 3 Will. IV., which gave persons a
right to vote in respect of any house, oeunting.house, ware-
house, shop, or other building of a certain yearly value.
The barrister decided that it was such a building as the act
contemplated, and, therefore, allowed the vote.—Mr. Orey,
on the part of the appellant, now submitted that that deci-
sion was wrong, inasmuch as the shed in question was not in
any respect ejusdem generic with such buildings as were de-
scribed in the statute.—Mr. Setjeant Byles was pro-
ceeding to argue the case on the part of the respondent,
when the court interrupted him by delivering judgment as
follows The question left to the court to decide was, whe-
ther the shed described was • " building" within the mean-
' log of the act of parliament. It was stated to be an erection
formed by six posts and two sides, which were closed, and it
had also a roof. The building was connected with the occu-
pation of the wharf, and was used, it appeared, for the pur-
pose of keeping wheelbarrows, shovels, coal baskets, and
other articles that might be required for the business of the
wharf. When, therefore, the shed was used, it must tie con-
aidered to be ejuedam generis with the buildings which the
act contemplated under the denomination of warehouses.
As a warehouse, it was used for the deposit of certain goods
necessary for the enjoyment and employment of the wharf.
The case found by the barrister further stated that one
Mark. was allowed to keep things in the wild building.
When, therefore, the court found that the revising barrister
had held it to be a " building" within the meaning of the
act, the court must suppose that every objection had
been pot forward which suggested itself to the other aide.
On the whole the court could see nothin; to prevent this
being • building analogous to a warehouse connected with
the enjoyment of the wharf. What the barrister had stated
was quite consistent with its being so considered, and the
court were of opinion that his decision was right, and must
be affirmed.—Decision affirmed. _

WATSON, APPELLANT, P. PITT, RESPONDENT.—This was
another appeal from the decision of the revising barrister (or
Worcestershire, and the question was as to the sufficiency of
the service of a notice of objection under the 17th rection of
the 6 Vic., chap. 18. The case was argued at some length,
but inasmuch as it appeared that the barrister had not so
stated the fact. as to enable the judges to come to a satisfac-
tory conclusion, the court directed that the case should be
remitted to the learned gentleman, in order that the grounds
of the appeal might be more fully explained. Their lord-
ships expressed their regret that such a course should be
necessary, not only on this but upon many other occasions.
PRIOR, APPELLANT, O. WARING, RESPONDENT.—This
was a consolidated appeal from the decision of the revising
barrister for the borough of Lyme Regis.—Mr. Serjeant
Biles, on behalf of the appellant, proceeded to explain that
the property in respect of which the present claimante
sought to maintain their right to vote consisted of a house
which four gentlemen occupied conjointly.--The Court, in-
terrupting the learned counsel, observed that although this
was a consolidated appeal, there would be great difficulty in
dealing with it as one came. Each party concerned did not
stand en one and the same position in reference to the case,
and notwithstanding the revising barrister had acted with
the laudable desire to NM expense, he had not stated the
particulars in such a manner es to enable the court, within
the 65th section of the act, " to give its judgmeat in law."—
The mart, therefore, held that, inasmuch as the deficiency
was not such as the parties could by law claim permission to
amend, the case did not come within its jurisdiction.
ONIONS O. BOWDLIIR.—This appeal was from the deal-
aion of the revising barrister for the borough of Shrewsbur7,
and the question was, whether or not the barrister had
power under the 40th section of the 6th Vic., chap. 18, to
amend a certain entry in the list of voters. It appeared that
the voter had sent in his qualification in these terms: "House
is succession; residence, Butchers'-row." The voter was
objected to on the ground that the description was not cor-
rectly given as a memoirs occupation, the claimant baring
omitted to mention " Colcham," the name of the other
place alluded to under the term " house in succession."
The robing barrister refused to amend, and hence the pre-
sent appeal.—Mr. Whateley argued the case on the part of
the appellant, and Mr. Kestink on behalf of the respondent.
—The court held that the remising barrister bad no power to
make the amendment. The power to correct was given by
the 40th *action of the 6th Vie., which enacted that where
certain matters had been insufficiently described or wholly
omitted, and were afterwards supplied to the satisfac-
tion of the revising barrister, he might amend,
provided that no evidence be given of any other
qualification than that described in the list of voters.
And it was also enacted that no alteration should be
made by introducing a change in the description of the
qualification as It appeared in the list, "except for the
purpose of more clearly and accurately defining the same." ,
The claimant in this ease had described a house in succession
in Butchers'-row, as his qualifying property, and the addi-
tion of " Colcham," as afterwards suggested, would hare
been a substantial addition of some other premises, not in-
troduced for the purpose of " more clearly and accurately de-
&deg the house in Butehen'-row." On these grounds the
court were of opinion that the revising barrister had no
power to amend, and that therefore his decision must be
affirmed. The appellant to pay the oats.—Decision affirmed.

COURT.

THIQUIIIN o. B.A74I;*:eiILUXDI/Li.-:CILOWN EITINT.
—FAlLitill 01 TIM BRIDPORT BkNX.—This was an in-
quiry under a writ of extent to ascertain in what amount
the defendants, banker at Bridport, Dorset, were indebted
to the Crown for notes of their bank received in payment of
I customs duties, but payment of which had been refused by
the bank. The sum claimed was 951.—The learned com-
missioner, who opened the writ, said the only question for
the jury was the amount in which the defendants were in-
debted.—The collector for the district was called, and proved
receiving the notes, and presenting them for payment, when
the defendants refused payment, on the ground that a fiat M
bankruptcy had been opened against them that di in the
Exeter Court of Bankruptcy, end they had been advised by
their attorney not to pay the money due to the crown
for duties—No one appeared to resist the proceeding, and
the jury, under the direction of the learned commissioner,
gave a verdict for 951.

COURT OP BANKRUPTCY.
Beton Mr. Oommladoner Fonblanque.
Its 111 S. B. MOODY.—ALLeOII) FRAM:I.—This bank-
rupt was an engineer, described as of Fencburch.atreet, and
Demerara, and to-day was rpecially fixed for the certificate
meeting. He was opposed b r Mr. Pontifex, a solicitor, on
behalf of Messrs. Pontifex, of Shoe-lane. There were three
points urged against the bankrupt, and the one of excessive
expenditure was admitted. The second point, vie., of ob-
taining goods from the opposing creditor, was denied.—Mr.
Pontifex said that there hail been three shipments of goods
from kis clients to the bsnkrupt, who acted as their agent in
working a sugar refining machine in the West Indies, and
the fraud complained of took place on the second shipment,
which was apparent to Mr. Edward Pontifex in the first
instance upon the 2nd of January, 1847. On Moody's own
showing, he admitted that he promised to pay for certain
goods on the bills of lading being given up, and which
having been given up, he called at Messrs. Poutifer's
offices, saying that he would not pay, and there he re-
quired upon the last shipment of goods that the bills
of lading should be given to one Porter. They
lost twelve hundred pounds upon the transaction. The
bankrupt had charged Messrs. Pontifex with doing
the work improperly. Since the bankruptcy they had Bent
out a man to the West Indies, et an expense of about 2001.,
to look at the whole of the machinery, and he said that it
worked admirably, and that the whole of the difficulty
arose in consequence of its being improperly fitted up by the
bankrupt and his men. There were letters to prove these
facts, which could he corroborated by the owner of the estates.
These works were the subject of a patent, and it was now
complained that Moody had actually got it manufactured
elsewhere. He could prove these allegations.—Mr. Macon,
for the bankrupt, said that it had not been proved that Messrs.
Pontifex had received an injury by the transaction, and there-
fore it could not be • fraud. If he had intended to act fraudu-
lently, be could have disposed of the goods, and appropriated
the looney to his own use ; but he had received nothing.
Ilia client had acted honestly, bet was mistaken as to the
views of Mows. l'oatifsa ; and there was no suggestio falai
or suppresaio seri upon his part.—Mr. Commissioner Fon-
blanque remarked that where there were very large transac-
tions and dealings with all invention at a long distance off, be
could not but imagine that failures would arise.—
Mr. Commissioner Fonblanque inquired of Mr. l'ontifex
what he could have done with the goods'—Mr. Pontifex
answered that he wad have sold them all. The bankrupt
°Wined his goods urn a promise which he did not fulfil,
whisk was that ha eis old pay for them; and after this,
regeiring mother fteamt of goods to be seat to Porter, it
ovinied his (Pondl) as, and made hint think that his
ends were bsdne dealt with by the bankrupt.
Ho lost 1,2001 bp bill' of lading tram him.
—Mr. Co shad what had batons of
t et goods,—Mr. Pontlisx
If
(er ZalinialPilik oss the banknipt's
I Mil% af 10 bil IletWireporty