The Sun.
London, England, 1830-04-26 00:00:00

BOARD OF EXCISE, APRIL 24.

James (lark, landlord of the White Horse, Long-
acre, was indicted on eight counts, charging him
with adulterating beer and spirits, and with having
in his possession colouring matter for the like pur-
pose.
The COURT, in passing judgment, observed that
as it did not appear that the mixture was pernicious,
they should mitigate the penalty of 2001. on the
second count to 101.

The next case was rather singular, as to the de-
fence attempted to be made. Alary
of the Freemasons' Arms, Long-acre, was similarly
indicted.

The officers, Bird and Simkins, deposed that
they had, in the course of their duty, searched the
cellars of the defendant on the 3d of November
last. On the bead of the butt, about two-thirds
full of beer, they found a tin can containing a small
portion of solution of sugar, and on the head of
another and around the bung a like appearance. On
questioning Mrs. Phillibrown, she said she wanted
to make a good beer trade to the house.
In answer to a question of the Commissioner,
the officer stated that it was an under-price house
for beer, it being ticketed in the window at 4d. per
pot.
Mrs. Phillibrown (to the officer)—Did I not
say to you that I had put but three ounces of
sugar into the beer, and that I was in the habit
of burning sugar to colour Leeward Island rum ?
Bird—You certainly did.
Mrs. Phillibrown—ls not the trade of my house
principally in spirits, and little in beer ? Bird—You
do more in spirits than in beer.
Mrs. Phillibrown in defence said that her son,
who was very weak in his intellects, had the charge
of her cellar, and would act entirely as he was
directed; bad he been desired to pat a gallon of
vinegar in a butt of beer, he would do it. '-Bird
the officer had asked him many questions for the
purpose of confusing him.

- -
One of the Commissioners inquired of Bird what
questions he had -put to the youth ; to which he
answered that had asked him what he had done to
the beer, and he appeared unwilling to answer.
The COURT, which appeared to lean very favour-
ably to the defendant, inquired of Simkins, who
had for some time surveyed the house, if the young
man had evinced any symptoms of derangement.
Simkins said he appeared wild at times but by no
means of weak intellect. lie had occasionally to
wait until he got up to survey the stock.

Here the mother said that he sometimes lay in
bed for sixteen hours, and that his master, a Mr.
Webb, a baker, in Chancery-lane, had been obliged
to part with him, being able to make nothing of
him. Here she put in a letter from him, which
after some time the Commissioners allowed to be
read by Mr. Mayo, when, unfortunately for the de-
fendant, it appeared the baker had been obliged to
part with his apprentice, riot for any mental de-
ficiency, but from an unfortunate and incorrigible
habit he had of getting tipsey.
The COMMISSIONERS said they were very willing
to hear any thing that could be urged in the de-
corium's favour, but that her defence was mast un-
fortunate. The offence had been clearly prOved,
and they should 'fine her, on the 7th count, in the
mitigated penalty of 151., which she might consider
a very merciful judgment.
Partew, of the Three Tuns, Great New-
street, Sr. Clement's Danes, was next indicted, but
it was clearly proved in evidence, that he had the
mixture (about half a gallon in a stone bottle) for
the purpose of colouring rum, of which he had a
large stock about 17 per cent. overpoof; but the
Court said he should have given notice to the of-
ficers when rie intended to reduce his spirits, and as
he had violated the law, they had no alternative
but to fine him, which they should do to the amount
of 101.

An indictment against Henry Brian!, of the
Artichoke, Clare-market, was withdrawn, in conse-
quence of some informality in tke proceedings.

WESTMINSTER SESSIONS, APRIL 24.

The persons who were apprehended in Hyde-
park by the policemen in disguise, for certain prac-
tic,:s, were this day placed at the bar for trial.
Wm. Benton, the first defendant, was found
Guilty, the policeman swearing positively against
the prisoner.
The evidence against the next defendant, Joseph
Clare, was equally positive, but the Jury without
hestitation acquitted him.
Edward Butler, the next defendant, was also
acquitted.
Mr. C. PHILLIPS, and all the other gentlemen of
the bar present, expressed the utmost indignation
against the demoralizing system of policemen dis-
guising themselves to enstrire to crime. Mr. C.
PHILLIPS remarked, that nv,tead of a. preventive
police, such persons as the prosecutors deserved the
designation of an accessorial police.