The Sun.
London, England, 1841-01-11 00:00:00

LAW iNTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF EXCISE, .14. v. 9.
Oa Saturday Mr. May, the Solicitor of this Court,
communicated to the Honourable Commissioner, Sir
John Alortlock,and others, the result of a trial which oc-
cupied three days at Devizes, before H. Ludlow Bru-
ges, Esq., M.P., T. H. Setheran, Esq., M.P., and three
other Magistrates. The following are the particulars of
this extraordinary case :—During the summer months of
last year a number of persons were engaged by a gen-
tleman named Palmer, resident in the above borough,
to gather hawthorn leaves and sloe leaves, and it hems
rumoured that they were to be used for en illegal pur-
pose, information was forwarded to the Govertnant.
and Mr. Golding Bird, a gentleman of great experience,
who has been connected with the Excise Dapartment
more than thirty years, was tf!spatched to that eis
trict to make an investigation. He visited Mr. Pal-
mer, and, on searching his premises, in a back kitchen
he discovered 17 boxes filled with something which at
first sight he took to be tea, but on close examinatioe
he saw that it was dried sloe and hawthorn leaves. It
a budding in the g irden he seized two other nove;
of similar stuff. Each box was marked with the
weight and tare. Tim weight of the whole was I,'3olbs.
The place where the two boxes were found was fi ted
up as a complete manufactory of making stuff sold as
tea. There were in it stoves, boilers, sieves of different
sizes to sift the leaves, and all other necessary articles.
Mr. Palmer said that he was not aware he had be,!n
doing wrong, adding that he had been engaged by Mr.
Heale, of Mincing-lane, City, to manufacture the tea
on whose premises Mr. Golding Bird had also seized
forty-five hogsheads of leaves, prepared in imitation
tea. The samples were produced by Mr. Bird. The
common observer, he said, might be deceived by its
appearance. He also exhibited a sample of four-fifdis
of tea, or four-fifths of the article seized, that would de-
ceive an experienced person. Another sample, in the
proportion of one-fourth of the manufactured rubbish.
would deceive the common purchaser ; and another, of
two-thirds leaves and one-third tea, would, in his ()pi-
' nion, even deceive many persons. The defendant told
Mr. Bird that he paid the persons he had employed a
penny for every pound they had brought him. The in-
formation upon which the defendant was charged con-
tained twelve counts. It was laid under the 17th Geo.
111., c. 29, which states that if any person manufactures
any leaves in imitation of tea, he shall forfeit for every
pound of such leaves the sum of 51., and upon non•pay
went be committed to the COll/11/011 gaol for twelve months
By another section of the Act it is enacted, that if any
person has in his or her possession any quantity of leaves
(exceeding Gibs.), whether green or manujactured, and
shall not prove before a Justice that they were not
gathered other than for the purpose of manufacturing
the same in imitation of tea, he or she, on conviction,
shall likewise be fined in the sum of W. for every pound
of leaves so seized. The prosecution was conducted by
Mr. Stone, the barrister, and Mr. Mayhew, the solicitor;
and the defendant found a powerful advocate in Coun-
sellor Smith. Only two witnesses were examined for
the Crown. The defendant called a number of persons
on his behalf, chiefly to show that he had not been car-
rying on the manufactory clandestinely.
The CHAIRMAN, in summing up, said that the only
question was, had Mr. Palmer offended the law. Th
Court had no hesitation in saying that be had, and con-
viction must follow to the amount of the peaalties,
amounting to 1,200/.
Mr. MayetEw said the Court would be'satisfied with
one penalty of 2001.

The COURT then gave judgment to that amount.
Mr. MAYHEW would have proceeded with another in-
formation, but on the defendant undertaking not to give
any further trouble to the Excise, and to pay the fine
already imposed, it was withdrawn.
There are several other informations to be heard,
implicating some of the first wholesale dealers of the
metropolis.

INSOLVENT DEBTorcS uOURT, .1.4 X 9
Mr. James Christie Whyte, described as late of
Bedford. street, Bedford-square, author, and occasion-
ally selling wine on commission, and general commis-
sion-agent, and also a Director of the Universal Cement
Company, the British Galvanization of Metals' Com-
pany, the London Grand Junction Railway Company,
the Safety Cabriolet and Two-wheel Carriage Com-
pany, appeared on his petition to be discharged. He
was opposed by Mr. Dowse, on the part of Mrs. Fen-
dall, of Fundali's Hotel, Westminster, and Mr. Hume,
a general merchant, and Mr. Bell, discounter, Berners-
treet, Oxford-street. He was supported by Mr,
Cooke, with Mr. Woodroffe.
Time insolvent, it appeared, had resided at Fendali%:
Hotel, where he was very ill, and, contracted a deb:,
for which he gave several promissory notes. He had
been engaged by Mr. Colburn, the publisher, to write
the " History of the British Turf," which work had
been published. He had received 170/. from Mr. Col-
burn, and said he was entitled to receive 50/. more.
Mr. Cooke read the agreement made by the insolvent
and Mr. Colburn for the " History of the British Tort."
It was to the effect that Mr. Colburn should give 150/.,
in six payments, for 1,200 copies ; 50/. more when the
sale reached 2,000 copies, and 1001. on a new edition ;
a sum of 201. to be given towards the expenses in col-
lecting the materials for the work.

The insolvent stated that the work was not completed
by the appointed time. He said he had not the means
to pay the notes held by Mrs. Fendall ; and when she
offered to take Ios. in the pound he had not the means
of paying the money.
Mr. Dowse said he had no case on the part of Mrs.
Fendall, and the witness he required in the other oppo-
sition was not in attendance. The insolvent would,
however, file the agreement in Court made with Mr.
Golburn.

The CouRT ordered the agreement to be filed, and. the
case was just about to be disposed of, when the witness
required made his appearance.
The proceedings in the action, " Hume v. Whyte,'
were produced by an officer of the Court of Common
Pleas. The action was brought on a bill of exchange
for 2001., indorsed by one Hayes to Mr. Hume. The
plea was, that it was indorsed to the plaintiff for an
usurious consideration. The action was undefended,
and a verdict was given for the amount claimed. The
costs amounted to 261. Bs.

James Calverhouse, the material witness, said he
had the management of the action in question. If the
action had not been pleaded to, the costs would have
been about 84 Mr. Hume was a gilder, and occasion-
ally discounted bills. The witness spoke very low, and
Mr. Cooke told him it was the frost he supposed that
prevented him, but when the thaw came they should
have it all.—(A laugh.) He did not know that 40 per
cent. had been taken as discount.

The insolvent was examined by his counsel, Mr.
Cooke. lie stated that Hayes was a discount agent.
Mr. Hume held three of his bills for about 130/. ; they
were drawn by Hayes, and accepted by him (the in-
solvent) ; when the first bill was discounted he lodged
sonic wine-warrants as security. The rate of interest
charged was between 2s. and 31. in the pound. He
was a Director of the British Galvanization Company,
and deposited as security, which he gave to Hayes, 60
shares, which were then worth 2/. each.
The CHIEF COMMISSIONER asked what the shares
were now worth ?

Mr. Cooke--I suppose the Compaq does not exist
now?

Insolvent—No ; he said there had been a patent
for it, which was once worth 1,0001. The three` bills
had been twice renewed, and money paid. An action
was afterwards brought, and then a bill for 2001. was
given, with further security. He was advised by his
attorney to defend the action on the ground of usury.
The Learned CHIEF CotaNitsstoNEß, in giving the
opinion of the Court, said, that in looking over the
bill of costs of the attorney who pleaded, it did appear
that the insolvent had a bona fide intention to defend
the action on legal grounds, and the Court could not,
therefore, say that the defence was " vexatious."
The Court ordered hint to be discharged.