The Sun.
London, England, 1846-02-04 00:00:00

COURT OF EXCHEQUEB, Feb. 3.

.. , •
(Sittings at Nisi Prius after Term, before Mr. Baron PLATT
and Special Juries.)
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. CREUTZER. -- SAME V. :BOUVET-

_
DAVID.
In these cases, which were informations filed at the in-
stance of the Crown for the infringement of the Excise laws,
verdicts were taken by consent for the plaintiff.

THE ATTORNEY GEXERA.L V. WARD.
This was another information filed at the instance of the
Crown for an infringement of the Excise laws, to which the
defendant had pleaded that he was not guilty.
The Solicitor-General, Mr. Jervis, and Mr. Wilde appeared
for the Crown; and Mr. Wordsworth for the defendant.
The Sommon-GENERAL stated the case for the Crown.
The information had been tiled against the defendant, who
was a labourer occupying a small cottage at a place called
Willoughby, on the Lincolnshire coast, for concealing a
quantity of tobacco which had not paid duty to the Crown.
From information which the Revenue officers of the neigh-
bourhood received in December, 1844, they proceeded and
searched the defendant's premises, where they found con-
cealed in a shed adjoining the house a quantity of tobacco,
amounting in all to 3,000 lbs. in weight. The defendant
and his wife pretended they knew nothing of the tobacco,
nor how it came into their shed ; but the fact of a mouse's
nest having been found in the centre of the tobacco, proved
that it had been concealed there for a long time, and the
shed was so situated that a person could not have got at it
without being seen by the inmates of the defendant's cottage.
There was too much reason to believe that the defendant
was connected with a gang of smugglers, who made his
premises the receptacle for their contraband goods; and it '
would be nonsense for the defendant to say that he knew
nothing of the tobacco, or how it came into his shed, because
he never could have gone to feed his pigs, which were in a
sty adjoining the shed, without smelling it.
Mr. Baron PLATT—Hardly so by the side of a pig-sty.
The SOLICITOR. GENERAL continued— The Act of Par-
liament under which this information was filed rendered the
defendant liable to pay a penalty of 2001. and treble the
value of the tobacco, which was 315/. 15s. 6d. The infor-
mation
was therefore to recover 515/. 15s. 6d.

Evidence having been adduced to prove the case,
Mr. NVORDSWORTH addressed the jury for the defence, de-
claring that the tobacco was deposited in the shed without
the defendant's knowledge, and that no one was more sur-
prised when it was discovered there than the defendant
himself.
The Soucrron-GE:vznal. replied, ridiculing the idea that
so large a bulk of tobacco could be placed upon the defend-
ant's premises without his knowledge or consent. There
could, he contended, be no reasonable doubt that the contra-
band goods were placed in the shed with the guilty know-
ledge of the defendant, and therefore the verdict of the jury
ought to be for the Crown.
Mr. Baron PLAIT then summed up; and the jury, after a
short consultation, found a verdict for the defendant.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Feb. 3.
(Sittings at Nisi Prins, before Mr. Justice ERLE and a
Common Jury).
The Court was engaged all the forenoon with an action of
trespass, arising out of a street collision between a fly and
a waggon, the particulars of which were of no interest what-
ever to the public.

cue
way again
IN RE HARRIS.
COURT OF REVIEW, Feb. 3.
Court. Counsel appeared This
mentioned to-day, by order of the
fiatO9 both sides, and argument was
heard as to whether theissued by the bankrupt against
himself was valid by the terms o thet Act 7th and Bth Vic.,
chap. 196, sec. 41, the insolvent the time of issuing the
point fiat not being a trader. The Courta
im-
portant, and ordered the case to stand oshttlilanext Court
day, when counsel would be further heardeorn thei subject.
GRUNSTOCK IN RE GRUNSTOCK.
The petitioner in this case appeared to complain of a fiat
of bankruptcy which had been issued against him on the 3d
of December last. On the 2d of that month the Court had
annulled a fiat against the same party, and on the following
day, and previous to the order, annulling the fiat having
been signed by the Lord Chancellor, another fiat
was' issued against him by the same solicitor, at
the instance of the same creditors, from whom the
former had issued. Counsel for the petitioners were heard
on three objections against the fiat. Ist. That the bill of
particulars was not sufficient; 2d. That the summons served
on the bankrupt was not endorsed with the name and address
of the attorneys ; and 3d. That there was discrepancy in the
sums of the accounts rendered.
The COURT ordered that the petition should stand over,
with liberty to the bankrupt to bring such action as he
might be advised, and with liberty to apply to the Court