The Express.
London, England, 1866-09-15 00:00:00

UNPROVED FIREARMS.

At the Mansion-house yesterday Mr. Charles
Bryson, a wine merchant, carrying on business in Cooper's
row, Tower-bill, and Mr. William Smart, who was de-
scribed as a merchant, but who, it appeared, was the clerk
to the other defendant, appmred before Mr. Al-
derman Lusk, who presided in the absence of
the Lord Mayor, to answer two summonees, Mimed
against them at the instance of the guardians of
the Birmingham Proof-house, charging them with having
disposed of twenty guns the barrels of which had not
been duly proved, and which did not bear upon them the
mark of the Birmingham Proof-house, whereby they had
incurred penalties amounting to 4001., or 201. for each
'barreL

Mr. w. S. Allen, solicitor, of Birmingham, appeared in
support of the complaint; Mr. G. Lewis appeared for
the defendants.
It was arranged that the case of Mr. Smart should be
first taken.

Mr. Allen, in opening the case, said it was unnecessary
for him to state that the question involved in the inquiry
was one of very considerable importance to the public, and
the object of the act of parliament under which the pro-
ceedings were instituted was to protect them from the con-
sequences of using defective and dangerous fire-arms, and
it was essentially n that it should be put in force.
If, therefore, he should sit tantiate the complaint against
the defendant, he felt it to be his duty to ask the court to
inflict a substantial penalty upon him as a warning to
others, and in order that the prig complained of
might be put a stop to. The Guardians of the Birmingham
Proof-house who were empowered by the act of parliament
to take steps in the matter, had very important duties to
perform, and there were great difficulties in the way of
detecting infractions of the law, but the offence was
considered of such a serious character that the
legislature had empowered a magistrate to inflict a
I fins of M. in every case where it was established.
It had been supposed, he said, that the act of parliament
under which the proceedings were taken was a private act,
but this was not the case. It was a public, act, and
persons in the condition of the defendants must have been
perfectly well aware that by the course they were pursuing
I they were breaking the law.
Mr. H. N. Marks, who described himself as an im-
porter and manufacturer, carrying on business in South.
street, Finsbury, was then examined, and he stated that
on the sth of September he was at a warehouse in
Jewry.street, where he saw the defendant and Mr. Bryson,
the other person summoned. He had previously been in
negotiation with Mr. Smart for the purchase of twenty
muskets, and an arrangement was made that they should
be sent to his office in Finsbury. Mr. Bryson said that
the muskets were the property of Smart, and Smart came
with them, and brought an invoice and receipt, and he paid
him for them. . .

In cross-examination the witness said that he saw some
marks upon the barrels of the guns, but they were
not the marks of the H ' ham Proof-house that
were required by the act of par • ent. He also said
that about a year ago he had himself purchased some
foreign guns that turned out not to have the legal proof
mark upon them, but he did so innocently, and returned
them to the parties from whom he bought them when he
discovered the fact.

Kr. Portlock, one of the oasis' tants at the Birmingham
Proof-house, deposed that he had examined two of the
guns purchased by the last witness, and which were
produced, and he said that neither of them bore the legal
proof mark, and be was unable to discover any proof mark
at all. He believed that the guns were of foreign manu-
facture, and that the marks that appeared upon them
were merely marks made by the different workmen
through whose bands they had passed in the course of
manufacture.

Mr. Lewis, on behalf of the defendant, said that he did
not at all complain of the proceeding that had been taken
by the Birmingham Proof-house ; but? on the contrary, he
considered that they had done nothing more than their
duty on the present occasion. His answer to the case,
however, was, that Mr. Bryson, who was the real party to
the transaction, carried on the business of a wine mer-
chant, and had bartered a quantity of wine and brandy
for a number of muskets, of which these twenty formed a
portion. He knew nothing whatever about the proof mark,
or that such a mark was required, but he came into pos-
session of the guns in the way he had stated, and if there
was anything wrong in the transaction he was ready to
render all the assistance in his power to punish the really
• PfirtY•
lir. Bryson was then examined, and he proved the facts
aa stated, and produced the contract for the exchange of a
quantity of wine and brandy for 920 muskets, the price of
which was represented to be 12s. 6d. each. He produced a
number of documents to confirm his statement, and
declared that he was entirely ignorant of the fact that
the proof mark was not upon the barrels. The original
transaction it appeared took place in November, 1664.
Alderman Lusk observed that in all probability the
muskets were originally intended for the use of the Con-
federate army.
Mr. Allen, at the close of the evidence of Mr. Bmson,
held a short conference with Mr. Lewis, after which he
addressed the bench, and said that it appeared to him that
the interest of all parties would be best consulted by his
I slaking for an adjournment of the inquiry for a month.
Alderman Lusk said he had no objection to this, upon
condition that the matter should not be smothered up.
Mr. Allen assured the alderman that nothing of the sort
was intended, but on the contrary, he believed that the
interests of justice would be better carried out by the
proposed postponement.
Alderman Lusk said it appeared to him that the proceed-
ing was one of very great importance to the public, who
were liable to have their limbs blown off by using defective
fire-arms, but upon the understanding mentioned he would
allow the matter to stand over for a month.