The Express.
London, England, 1847-11-12 00:00:00

COURT OF EXCISE.

Before Admiral the 11701.-B7:11. 7erc7,ll.7.7tephenaon, Part., and
C. J. Decries, Esq.
LEGAL OBJECTIONB.—L. Cowan, of No. 139, New Gravel-
lane, soap manufacturer, was charged with sending out of
his premises scraps and parings of soap, and also pieces of
soap not in bars or parts of ban, which pieces should have
been returned to the boiling copper, and for which 10 per
cent. is allowed in the charges for duty. The penalties were
laid at 2001.—Mr. W. Haggonbor stated that he was a silk
dyer, in the employ of Mr. Machu, of Twister's-alley,
Bunhill-row. He remembered a quantity of soap being
brought, on the 26th of April but, by Mr. Cowan's carmen.
It was taken out in baskets and removed to the soap cellar,
where it remained unmixed with any other until it was
seized by the excise officers. When it was removed it was
the same in appearance as when it came in. The soap re-
ceived from Mr. Cowan was not in bars, but in all kinds of
shapez—Mr. Wauell, the foreman, said when the soap
arrived a bill of parcels was handed to him by a person
named Pope (since deceased), in Mr. Machu 's employ.
He found a good deal of small, and observed that it was
very different from what they had been in the habit of
receiving, that being usually in ban, and this in very irre-
gular shapes. When it was seized by the excise officers it
wu in the same shape and size as when it was received.
After the seizure saw Mr. Cowan, and told him that the
excise officers had reined the soap, and he replied that the
article was perfectly legal, and that Mr. Machu had no
right to suffer it to be seized, but afterwards, on
a settlement of the bill, deducted the nine of
the quantity seized. Mr. W. T. Gregory, super-
visor, said Mr. Cowan claimed the 10 per cent. allowed on
scraps of mottled soap, on condition that he complied with
the terms of the act of parliament. The soap should be cut
into bars of 15 inches in length, and none other were legal.
The soap on the table consisted of scraps and parings, and
ought to have beea returned to the copper. Great refuse
arises from mottled soap in consequence of the deposit of
lees, and 10 per cent. was allowed by act of parliament to
cover efts lowa so sustained. The pious of soap prodneed have
n been ban or parts of bars—Mr. W. Sleeper, super-
visor, deposed to seizing the soap for the reasons given by
the last witness. He told Mr. Cowan that he had seized soap
at Mr. Macho's, and that it consisted of scrape and parings, and
remarked the low price at which it had been sold (42s.per cwt.).
Mr. Lewis, a solicitor, having cross-examined the witnesses
on the part of the defendant, Dr. Bateman said that was the
eau on the pert of the crown.—Mr. Lewis, before addressing
the court for the defendant, took an objection, that as the
solicitor for the crown had closed his case, and had not
proved that the defendant had ever sold the soap at all to
the person on whose premises it was seized, that no case
whatever had been made out against the defendant, and
that the information must be dismiseed.—The court was for
. .

some time in consultation, and ultimately gave their opi-
nion that a link in the chain of evidence was wanting, and
that the objection taken by the learned gentleman for the
defence was fatal to the information.—The information was
thereupon dismissed.
POSSUBING ILLICIT SPIIIITS.—John Smith, of No. I
Bullock-alley, Whitecrose-street, St. Luke's, was charged
with the possession of illicitly manufactured spirits, with in-
tent to defraud her Majesty of the duty.—Mr. F. Pargeter,
excise :officer, stated, that on the 26th of July last he went
to the above premises, having received information that
illicit spirits were concealed there. He sounded the floors,
but could discover no hiding place, and made a minute ex-
amination of the apartments but without effect. However,
before leaving, be removed the tea kettle standing in the
fireplace, and finding the back of the fireplace loose he re-
moved an iron elide, and there found a large recess, with a
quantity of spirits in bladders concealed. The whole had
been illegally distilled.—The landlord of the premises said
he let the rooms to a man, who gave the name of J. Smith.
They were formerly occupied Ny Mary CUT, who had been
committed, and was aow in the House of Correction for •
similar offence.—The court gave judgment in the penalty of
1001.

SHER.II.IOS COURT.
Before James Burebell,...Beq., anti Stephen John 11.4

To. (loam; V. Wnirwer.c. —.6nowre COMMISSION.—
This was a proceeding prosecuted by the Crown authorities
on behalf or her Majesty's Cocarniutonems of Woods and Fo-
rests, land revenues, and works of building, to recover of the
defendant, Henry Whitwell, the awn of 2871. 18s. 7d. The
Commissioners of Woods and Forests entered into an agree-
ment with the defendant for the use of certain premises, &c.,
which the defendant held of Dr. Lushingten. At the tints
the agreement was made, the commissioners paid half • year's
rent in advance to the defendant, who at the same time was
considerably in tartar to his landlord; and soon after the
commissioners entered upon possession Dr. Lushington, the
superior landlord, demanded of them the rent they had paid
to Whitwell, and they bad to pay it over again. Therefore
the present proceedings were to recover back from Whitwell
the money they had paid over to him and the money
the had paid to Dr. Lushington en his account.
J.Bushell, Esq. the under-sheriff, briefly explained the
nature of the proceeding to the jury. Upon the evidence
adduced it was only necessary for them to find the defendant
indebted to the Crown in the sum of 2871. 18s. 7d.—Verdict
accordingly.
PitOCLAMkTION OF OOTLAWRY.—At the Sheriffs Court
yesterday, Mr. Hemp, the bailiff, called upon the following
to surrender or to stand severally outlawed Rchd. Norman,
Lord William Paget, Edward Kent Bayard, Stephen Tem.
plo, Erie Charles Henry Burgess, and W. W. fileigh.

WESTMINSTER COUNTY COURT.
Before D. C. Moyton, Dm., Judge.
FRIEND O. PlalOTr.—ti•ta7ltNO UP "CONCHILTS " in
FURNISHED LODGINGS.—This action was to recover of the
defendant, a clerk in the service of the Eastern Counties
Railway Company, the sum of 111. 10s., for thirteen weeks'
rent of furnished apartments at 30s. per week, from the 30th
of July to the 25th of October.—Mr. Dod, on behalf of the
pl►intiff, said that on the sth of May last the defendant took
the apartments of the plaintiff, and entered into an agree-
ment to kei p them for twelve months certain, the rent to be
paid weekly. On the Ist of July the defendant wished to
get away from his agreement, and on the 2nd of that month
a notice was served upon the plaintiff, to the effect that, if
he did not discharge his servant, who had been impudent to
Mrs. Parrott, he •hould leave on the 16th. The plaintiff de-
chned to do anything of the kind, ►nd called the defendant's
attention to the agreement, which he was willing to cancel
if Mr. Parrott paid the rent up to the 29th of September.
This defendant refused, saying he could go "slick" through
the agreement, and would create suck a disturbance in the
house that Mr. Friend would be glad to get rid of
him at any price, even to calling in the police ago
turning hint out. The learned gentleman read several
letters addreseed by the defendant to plaintiff of the most
laughab:e nature. In them Mr. Parrott complained of the
girl refusing to fetch him eggs for breakfast and being im-
pudent to Ddrs. Parrott, and of Mr. Friend representing
himself to be a gentleman of the legal profession when he
naiad him to be an actor. He eh/waned to Miro hit