The Sun.
London, England, 1858-03-26 00:00:00

k- • •
• t
t
••••! tc-• -
'l'.:?A•%4
Ge - •
•• -
r kO,ll • *
'• ,
/4, "
- . .
.4.
- &OP
•
fi I
1,1,11tb --4,.o:4'vy'" \ _ ;_ • gr, • 1
• Mir
.40' -04.-411110-41,
• I ' k•-• • • 2."- •t'r r . .44 r • 4k)., •
_tlt*r
- - -
"`• t 4 f"
„,

U
r/~~.

4•w

LPRIus 4D. STAMPED 5

Commissioners of Inland' Revenue' for having in
her possession five gallons of illicit spirits, upon
which no duty had been paid, and for which offence
she was liable to a penalty of 1001.
A clerk from the office of the solicitors to the
Inland Revenue attended to support the informa-
tion ; and Mr. Solomon appeared for the defendant.'
From the evidence adduced it appeared that
from information received by them, two officers of
Excise called at the house of the defendant on the
15th of last month, and, having represented them-
selves to be officers, asked her if she had not some
illicit spirits on her premises. She at once ac-
knowledged that she had some spirits, which she
had purchased from a female as French brandy,
and desired her servant to unlock the cupboard
where it was. In this cupboard the officers found,
in stone and glass bottles, five gallons of stuff s
what resembling the colour of brandy, which they
described as illicit spirit, 33.9 under proof, and
which they took it on them to swear had not paid
the duty.
In cross-examination one of the officers admitted
that he had made some inquiries of the defendant
respecting her property; but both denied that they
knew anything about the woman who. sold the p
spirit, as they called it, to the defendant. They
positively denied that they were aware that one of
the women was the wife or daughter of a revenue
officer.

Mr. Solomon said he did not believe that a more
impudent conspiracy than the present to fix on his
client—a poor old lady 80 years of age—an offence
for which she was liable to be mulcted in heavy
penslties, could have been entered. into. The real
facts of the case were these. His client, who at
her advanced age was excessively weak and
nervous, had actually been coerced to purchase
the stuff, s sample of which had bean produced,
and which the officers took on themslves to call
"spirits," from two females for 50s. One of

I the females from whom the purchase was made,
! he, Mr. Solomon, was informed by a police-sergeant
was either the wife or daughter of an Excise officer,
and that circumstance would account for the fact of
the information that had reached the officers who
had given evidence in the case, and the detection
that followed. Under the circumstances, he should
apply to his worship for a postponement of the
case, to give the opportunity of bringing forward
the two women i ,inestiou, as he understood they
were to be found, anti properly exposing the con-
spiracy.

- The clerk from the Inland-office could not see
what could be gained by an adjournment. The fAct
of the spirits being found on the premises of the
defendant could not be denied, and the offence was
therefore clearly established. Besides, be under-
stood it was a man, and not a woman, who had
given the information, and the officers could have
no interest in the matter, as they got no portion
of the penalty.
_ _

Mr. Solomon was very glad the law was altered
in this particular. Before closing the case be
should like his worship to hear the testimony of
the defendant's servant.

Eliza Fruin, the servant of the defendant, was
here sworn, and deposed that two females had
called three or four times on her mistress and
pressed her to purchase some brandy, which they
said they had brought from France ' • and on the
Friday before the Monday on which the officers
came they called the last time, when they said they
had brought the brandy with them, and as they
must not take it away, declared her mistress should
have it at 10s. a gallon, and she paid them V. 10s.
for it,

Mr. Elliott felt bound to convict in the lowest
penalty of 25/. ; and Mr. Solomon expressed bis
determination of memorialising the Board of In-
land Revenue for a mitigation of the penalty.

THAMES.—Hannah Withers, aged 13, was
charged with stealing a silver watch value 3/. from
Mrs. Petrie, matron of an institution for the
maintenance and education of destitute girls at
Barnet. The prisoner ran away, with two other
girls, and pawned the watch in • the Commercial-
road East.

The magistrate commented very severely on the
conduct of pawnbrokers in receiving goods from
children without making inquiries.
Mrs. Petrie said the girl was disqualified for re-
admission into the institution at Barnet, and asked
Mr. Selfe if he could send her to a reformatory.
Mr. Selfe said his desk was full of applications
for admission into reformatories, but he regretted
to say there was not ono in the county of Middlesex.

TILE LIBEL ON THE EMPEROR OF THE

FRENCH.

The Polish bookseller, named Stanislaus Thor-
zewski, who stands charged with publishing the
pamphlet, Lettre au Parlement et a la Presse, in-
c!ting to the assassination of the Emperor of the
French, was brought up yesterday at the Police-
court, Bow-street, before Mr. Jardine, for final
examination and committal. The case appears to
have excited considerable interest amongst the
foreign refugees, the court being crowded with
persons of that class.

Mr. Bodkin, on the part of the Crown, intimated
that at the close of the proceedings a correct trans
lation of the entire pamphlet would be produced,
in order that it should be added to the depositions.
Mr. Leverson, the prisoner's attorney, said that
one of the authors of the pamphlet, M. Talanclier,
had expressly requested him to state that he (the
author) had no desire to screen himself behind the
mere seller, but was willing, and even desirous, to
take his place as defendant in the case. He was
now present for that purpose.
Mr. Bodkin said tha any such application must
be made to the Solicitor for the Treasury.
Mr. Leverson then said that he hoped to be able
to convince the magistrate that the case should
end here, and that this was not a "scandalous
and malicious libel." In inquiring what was
a "false, inaliciou,., scandalous, and seditious
libel," a curious difficulty arose, that nowhere
could it be found that the law defined "what a
libel is." It was said to be, and ought to be, a prin-
ciple of law, that no one should be condemned on
ex post facto laws, yet that was constantly done by
the judges, who, on the preteece of declaring the
existing laws, really established new ones. It was
said that this was not wri,ten law, but common
law, which meant just what the judge chose to call
law for the occasion. So long as common law con-
tinued to disgrace our jurisprudence its basis should
be the consideration of what rule of conduct will
promote the well-being of society. He said that
the decisions on which the prosecution would pro-
bably rely were similar in character to the cases of
witchcraft that disgraced our history. The learned
but scarcely honest Lord Eilenborough had laid it
down that whatever tended to wound the feeling 3
of the person referred to was a libel. Now, the best
proof of the wound to a person's feelings was the
circumstance that he took the trouble to prosecute,
so that it amounted to this, that a libel was any-
thing that a person chose to think one. In Rex
v. Cobbett, Lord E lenborough said : "It has been
observed that it is the right of a British subject to
exhibit the folly or imbecility of the members of
the Government ; but if in so doing individual
feelings are wounded, there the line of interdiction
begins and the offence becomes the subject of penal
visitation." He was surprised that Punch was not
prosecuted when he lately represented the Premier
in an undignified position. In Rex v. Tuchiu, 3
Holt's Reports, 424, it was held—" If men are not
to be called to account for possessing the people
with an ill opinion of the Government, no Govern-
ment can exist." In Rex v. Watson, "an entry by
a corporation on their books, that a person against ;
whom damages for a malicious prosecution had been
awarded, was actuated by public motives, was held
to be a libel, and adverse reflections on the verdict
passed by a jury wereheld to be libellous." At a time
when there were many capital offences, and slavery
was legal, it was held to be a libel to assert that the
laws of the realm were contrary to the laws of
God. In Rex v. Winterbottom it was held to be a
libel to say that Pitt's National Debt juggleedidigne,
not
reduce the debt. In the case of Mr. .win. siry
in Scotland, the following words were hell to be
libellous :—" The time is now come when we are
to assemble round the flag of liberty, to support
aywetickfeewd
it
Intishtaryt waned aare
compliantplunged irntaorliaamweanrt.b, y
persons would now doubt the truth
Frenchof t
Republic.
These as applied to the war with the
t occurred,
and examples proved that the lawwsi man
o
was
occurred,e
tured by the judges for each occasion a
and that it was in the same position as the law of
witchcraft.
Mr. Jardine—Suppose it is so, can I alter it ?

Mr. Leverson—S-uppose a person were charged
with witchcraft and brought before you, 'would you
commit him
MI
shalldr. Jarine—When that case is brought before
me know how to deal with it. This is not
that ewe.
Mr. Leverson said that magistrates would not
usually commit unless they bad a probable belief
that a jury would convict.
Mr; Jardine--I think you misunderstand
.d4l7ti
i
position here. If all thatwp
Dg law, it "9' •