The Sun.
London, England, 1860-04-21 00:00:00

TOM SAYERS.

The utmost excitement and enthusiasm were
caused in the City to-day by the visit of the
Clinmniou to the Steck Exchange, at the invi-
-1 .".
him 100 guineas. As soon as his arrival became
known an immense crowd assembled. In return
for the present Tom made a suitable speech, ex-
pressing a wish that he had had " another ten
minutes with Heenan." .

POLIPT: TY 7 ETT,I,, EN(' This Day.)

F 0 IV- STREET.

SELLING SPIRITS WITHOUT A LICENSE.—WiIIiam Bugg
was charged with defrauding the Excise, by selling spirits,
he only possessing a beer license, by which he had incurred
a penalty of £5O.

Mr. Welsby appeared on the part of the Excise, and Mr.
Sleigh defended.
Mr. Welsby said the defendant carried on business as a
beer retailer, at 18, Tonbridge street, St. Pancras, and from
what had come to the knowledge of the Board of Inland
Revenue, the present proceedings had been adopted.
William Henry Taylor said—l am a plumber and painter,
residing at 29, Sandwich-street. Oa Sunday, the 26th of
February, I was standing at the bar with about twelve
others, and on gin being called for it was supplied. A man
named huggins also had some. I paid 4d. for what I had.
Cross-examined—l have been in the habit of having gin
at the house. I have known the defendant about twelve
months, and have been on friendly terms. I have always
had gin in the house when I asked for it. I don't know
who gave the information. I can't say it was Huggins. I
have had a quarrel with the defendant about money he
sued me for. It was after I had been sued that the infor-
mation was laid. I never arranged with Huggins
to institute the present proceedings. I did not
any that Huggins was going to make any
complaint. Iknew nothing about it until the excisemen came
to my house. The people who were at the bar on the day
mentioned were usually there on Sundays. A person of
the name of Lawrence, as well as myself and Huggins,
I were there.

John Huggins said—l am a bricklayer. I reside at 21,
Long's-yard, Lambs• conduit-street. I was at Bugg's house
on the Sunday morning in question in company with the
last witness. I had some beer and gin. Bugg served me.
I paid a penny for the glass of gin.
Cross-examined—l had never been in the house but

wice previous to the day mentioned. I has; not been in

the habit of going there for the last twelve months to meet
Taylor. Taylor and myself take business together and
share the profit. The defendant is a carpenter. I have
done work with him. I know he has sued Taylor for money.
I never had any conversation with Taylor about laying the
present information. I cannot say how many persons were in
front of the bar on the Sunday. There might be two or three,
certainly not a dozen. I paid for three glasses of gin. Tay-

for paid for some stout and gin.
Re-examined by Mr. Welsby—l never had any quarrel
with Bugg. I never knew that an information had been
laid against him until I was summoned.
James Lawrence—l live in Kenton-street,' Brunswick-
square, any am a carpenter. I know Bugg's shop. I was
there on three different Sundays. I have been there twice
when I saw Taylor. I have had gin there. Bugg served
me. He poured the gin from a bottle. I thought Bugg
was doing us a favour by letting us have a little drop of gin.
I paid 4d. for what we had. It was sold at ld. a glass.
Some other witnesses being about to be called,
Mr. Sleigh said it would be useless for him to struggle
against the evidence. He suggested to his client to plead
guilty to the minor counts charged in the summons, by
which the magistrate had the power to enter a fine for a
quarter of the amount of penalty.
The defendant said it was untrue to say he had gin on his
premises for sale. He certainly had a little gin in a bottle
for private use, nothing more. The present proceedings
had been instituted against him by Taylor through spite,
as he (defendant) had sued him for the sum of £2l. The
two men who had supported his evidence were in his
(Taylor's) employ.
Mr. Henry said he did not think that the witnesses had
come forward to state that which was not true. If the
defendant had any_witnesses to call he had better do se
directly.
Mr. Sleigh urged his client to plead guilty, as he had ad-
vised. He thought the Board of Inland Revenue would
nst exact the whole of the penalty, but he would have to
satisfy them that the offence would not be repeated. He
also advised him to give up another objectionable practice
that was carried on in his house, viz. ratting.
The defendant adopted the suggestion of his counsel, and
the magistrate inflicted on him the full penalty of £5O, but
told him he could memorialise the board for a reduction.
Mr. Henry said judgment must be entered up for the

full penalty of £ao; the defendant could then memorialise
the Inland Revenue Department. He thought, from the
evidence, it appeared that gin was on the promises for the
purpose of sale.
Mr. Welsby said he did not object to the course pursued
by Mr. Sleigh. He felt it was but right to say that the
information upon which the Inland Revenue had acted did
not, either directly or indirectly, come from the men who
had given evidence.