The Sun.
London, England, 1847-07-23 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF EXCISE, July 22.
(Before H. F. STEPHENSON, Esq., C. J. HERMES, Esq.,
and CHARLES Ross, Esq.)
Joseph Murray alias John Smith, keeper of the wine
and supper-rooms, familiarly known as " Mother IL's,"
opposite Drury-lane Theatre, was charged with retailing
foreign wines without license. This case, as in many
others, arose out of the supposed protection that a name
of a free vintner would bestow, of enabling any persen
borrowing the same to retail wines without license. The
court was again much crowded, especially with accommo-
dation " free vintners," who appeared greatly interested
in the proceedings.
Dr. Bateman appeared on behalf of the Crown ; Mr.
Humphreys for the defence.
Mr. John Austin, Supervisor of Excise, was the
first witness examined. He stated, that on the 15th
of May last, he went to the house of the defendant,
No. 13, Brydges-street, Covent-garden, which is
used as a wine and supper• rooms. There is
a large ' room or saloon up stairs, which is opened
at a late hour in the evening. It is known as '• H.'s
Saloon." Mr. Sillifant went with him, but entered
the house first, and remained there for a quarter of an
hour. When he came out, witness entered the house,
and seeing a lady and gentleman at a bar, he asked to

see by what authority they sold wines there without
license. The gentleman said they had not got the autho-
rity. Witness then inquired for Mr. Smith, who was not
to be seen. The name of " Joseph Emanuel Castellino,
Free Vintner," was over the door. A few days after-
wards he went again to the house, accompanied by Mr.
Sillifant, and upon the door being opened by a girl, he
inquired for Mr. Castellino, and was informed that he
was not there; and upon further inquiries as to Mr.
Smith, she replied that she did not know such a person.
A female then said that a Mr. and Mrs. Murray attended
there every night. After several visits they succeeded
in seeing Mr. Castellino, who was with Mr. Murray.
Castellino remarked, " All the wines sold here are mine,
and the premises are mine." Witness inquired if he had
any other premises for the sale of wine, and he replied
in the negative. Murray has no entry for wines, either
in the name of Smith or Murray. Had seen the name
of Castellino at a house in Bridge-street, Westminster,
but since these proceedings have been instituted be has
withdrawn his entry from it.
Mr. Sillifant stated that he went with the last witness
to the house, 13, Brydges-street, and having gone to a
room up stairs, he ordered a glass of sherry, which was
brought. On leaving he went to a bar to pay for the
wine, when a shilling was demanded, upon which he
remarked that it was a very high charge for one glass
of wine. The man at the bar said it would have been
the same amount if he had had two glasses; upon
which he ordered another glass, which he gave to a
female who was sitting near to him.
Mr. D. Coghill, the poor-rate collector of the parish
of St. Paul, Covent-garden, deposed that Mr. Murray
was the rated occupier of the whole house, 13, Brydges-
street, and had been so for some years. Had frequently
received the rates from him. Had never seen Mr. Cas-
tellino till yesterday, when he was introduced to him.
Never heard of him before.

Mr. Humphreys cross•examined the witnesses, but
nothing material was elicited.
Mr. Hu:umiak:vs then addressed the Court for the de-
fendant, and contended that the case had not been
proved against the defendant, as there was no evidence
to show that he had sold the wine, or, in the words of
the information, " that you (naming the defendant) did
then and there" commit a certain offence.

Mr. Commissioner STEPHENSON—It is proved that the
wine was purchased in the house of Mr. Murray, and
it is also proved that he is the rated occupier.
Mr. HUMPHREYS contended that the premises were
not Mr. Murray's, and that Mr. Castellmo was the real
bond fide occupier.

A long discussion ensued, in which various points
were urged and combatted by the solicitor on behalf of
the Crown.

The COURT eventually gave judgment against the
defendant for the full penalty, with liberty to petition
the Board, and it was the opinion of most persons in
court that the decision in the case was not a unanimous
one.

Two other cases of a similar description were with
drawn.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.
NORTHERN CIRCUIT.—York, July 21.
CROWN COURT.—(Before Mr. Justice WIGHTMAN.)
There being two other indictments in the Mirfield
murder case,
Mr. Justice WIGHTMAN asked Mr. Bliss what course
ho intended to pursue ?
Mr. Buss replied, that in a case of such importance he
wished for time to consider, and it might be proper to
consult some high authority—say, the Secretary of State.
His LORDSHIP assented to this view.
Ja)nes Bradley, aged 23, and George Bradley, aged
26, brothers, were indicted fur the wilful murder of John
Riley, at Sheffield, on the 12th of January last.
Mr. Sergeant WILKINS (Mr. Pickering and Mr.
Pearce with him) stated the case to the jury for the
prosecution. He said John Riley was a tobacconist,
carrying on business at Sheffield, and living at a place
called Broom Lees, about a mile from Sheffield, on the
Grimthorpe road. He was about forty years of age. He
left his shop in Sheffield about half-past nine o'clock, and
with a friend, went to the Cattle-market Inn. He left
there to go home about twelve o'clock, and when he got
to a place called Bailey's-gate he was attacked and
robbed, and so injured, that, although he was able to
get home by about two o'clock, on the 16th of January
he died.
Eliza Tune, landlady of the inn, examined—Mr. Riley
and several others were there on the 11th January. Ile
left there a little after 12 o'clock, quite able to know
what he was doing. He had three sixpenny glasses of
brandy and water. He walked perfectly well, and was
quite capable of walking home.
Mary Riley, widow of the deceased, examined—She
went to the shop at Sheffield. His watch was then in
its place. Her husband came home at twenty minutes
to two o'clock the following morning. She alone was
sitting up for him. He rang the bell, and she let him in.
His face and hands were covered with blood. He had
no hat on, or stick which he ususually carried. He
walked into the kitchen and sat down on a chair. He
had a large bruise on his forehead. His right hand
pocket was turned out, and one brace broken. At nine
o'clock the following morning she sent for a surgeon.
Her husband died on the following Saturday. His
health was generally good. In the left-hand pocket
there were 15s. The watch produced was his. He
generally wore it in his waistcoat pocket, without swivel
or guard. He had it not when he got home that
morning,
George Bowling, edgetool-maker, examined—On the
Thursday following the murder, James came to the
Coach and Horses, where witness lodged. Witness was
asleep and James woke him, and asked him if ho could
sell him a watch? He produced it—it had no glass or
swivel to it. The one now produced was like it. Wit-
ness asked him what he had done with them? He re-
plied he had broken the glass, and broken or thrown the
swivel away. Witness said he would go and see if he
could sell it to a person called Sayles. They then went
to where Sayles worked. Sayles gave him 175., and
witness gave him the watch. He then went and called
the prisoner James out, and gave him 15s. and kept 2s.
Sayles went away but returned in half an hour. James
said they were not to say anything about the watch, it
had come from Master Riley, the tobacconist, in Wain-
gate. He had robbed him of his watch and 30s. He had
heard that he had missed 31. and the shop-door key. He
said ho was alone ; he had stood at the top of a lane by
the tea-garden cottages, waiting for Riley, and had
knocked him down the first blow. Witness promised he
would not tell. On Sunday night, the 24th of January,
witness saw James again at the Coach and Horses. They
sat together, and James said he had heard Master Riley
was dead, adding, "it is a bad job for me." He then
said it was not he who struck the blow, but he would
not tell who it was—he would stick staunch if he got
hanged for it. He again told witness to say nothing
about it, and he promised ho would not. He said the
police had been to Green's on Saturday. Witness told
him that Sayles had said ho had taken the watch back
and put it by Mr. Riley's garden-wall. He said that
was a good job.
Cross-examined—He first told this on the 3d of April.
There had then been 100 i reward offered. The reason
he did not tell before was, he had had such threats. The
reason he told then was, he could not keep it on his
mind any longer. He had himself been brought before
the justices three times for felony. He had been con-
victed once for one felony only. lie bad been taken up
for highway robbery, but he got off. He was dis-
charged.
Re-examined—The conviction was for stealing a pair
of trousers. The third case was this transaction, for
selling the watch.
George Sayles, cutler, corroborated the last witness.
T. Raynor, chief policeman, proved the statement
made before the justices.
Cross-examined—The prisoner James had been set at
liberty after being arrested on this charge.
Statement of James, read in substance as follows:
Challoner and I went home together on Monday night.
We met the watchman about half-past twelve o'clock.
I had been at home half an hour when my brother
(George) came in, and put the watch into my hand
saying that he had found it by the side of Mr. Riley as
ho was lying on the road. He showed me some money,
also 10s. or 12s. Ho gave me the watch to sell for 15s.
I was to have what I could get more. What Bowling
and Sayles had said that I had said about striking the
first blow was false. I neither knocked him down nor
robbed him. I never stated that I did. I could not
say so, for I was not on the road when Mr. Riley was
robbed.
Statement of George, read in substance as follows:
I found the watch, and lls. 4d. in silver, on the road, the
silver squandered about. I did not know the man but
it was Mr. Riley, I suppose. He was very drunk, and I
tried to help him up. He was lying with his head
against the wall, as if he had fallen. I told him I had
found a watch and some money, and he said, " D—n you,
go, I can do without you." I saw a man coming down
past him before I got the money, who, in passing me,
said to me, " There's a man drunk yonder." I don't
know who the man was, he was running. I then went
home, gave my brother the watch, and told him I had
found it by the side of a man. Mr. Riley was covered
with blood, lying between Bailey's-gate and the Tea-
gardens Cottage. I never mentioned the watch to my
brother after giving it to hint. I never asked any-
body about it, but I heard it had been found in Mr.
Riley's garden. Mr. Riley said he had fallen three times.
For the defence it was attempted to be shown that
Riley had received the injuries of which he died from
a fall.

At twenty-five minutes to six o'clock the jury retired
to consider their verdict, and at a quarter past six re-
turned and pronounced the prisoners Not Guilty.

Mr. E. V. Sidebottom and Dr. B. Hawkins had also
an interview yesterday with the Right lion. Baronet.