The Sun.
London, England, 1866-02-23 00:00:00

Novel Charge under the Gunpowder Act.

At the Mansion-house yesterday Messrs. Rosen-
thal and Osmond, highly respectable foreign mer-
chants, carrying on business in Fenchurch-street,
attended before Alderman Lusk, who sat for the
Lord Mayor, to answer a summons issued against
them at the instance of the Birmingham Gun-proofing
Company, which charged them with having, con-
trary to the provisions of the statute passed in that
behalf, unlawfully disposed of 100 rifle barrels which
did not bear the proof-mark of the company, whereby
they had incurred penalties to the amount of £2,000.
Mr. Metcalfe, the barrister, instructed by Mr.
Allan, law clerk to the Birmingham Gun-proofing
Company, appeared in support of the summons.
Mr. Poland, barrister, appeared for the defendants.
Mr. Metcalfe, in opening the case for the prosecu-
tion, explained that the proceeding was instituted
under the provisions of an act of Parliament of the
18th and 19th Vic., which enacted that any person
who should dispose of a gun-barrel which did not
bear the mark which denoted that it had been sub-
jected to the usual proof, either by the London or
Birmingham Proofing Company, or in the case of a
gun of foreign manufacture, bearing the proof-mark
of the country where it was manufactured the mark
was not registered, should be liable to a penalty of
£2O for every barrel so disposed of. He said that it
was no doubt one of the objects of the Legislature,
by passing this act, to prevent defective gun-bar-
rels from being sold, whereby very serious mischief
might be done to the persons who used such weapons,
and the company for whom he appeared having re-
ceived information that a large number of gun-bar-
rels which had never been submitted to proof, and
which did not bear the mark required by the act of
Parliament, had been offered for sale by the de-
fendants, felt it their duty to institute the present
proceeding against them.
Evidence was then adduced in support of the
charge, and the case appeared to be one of a very
simple character. The principal witness was Mr.
Dudgeon, a commission merchant, carrying on busi-
ness in St. Helen's-place, and from his testimony it
appeared that, acting under instructions from the
complainants, he went to the offices of Messrs. Ro-
senthal and Co., and inquired if they had some
muskets for sale, and he was informed that they
had, and that the number to be disposed of was
11,000. It was said at the time that they had been
originally manufactured in Austria for the use of
the belligerents in America, and had cost 525. each,
and an attempt was to have been made to run the
blockade with them. ' This, however, could not be
done, and at the conclusion of the war in Ame-
rica they were sent in cases containing 100 rifles
1 each to Hamburg, and the defendants offered them
to Mr. Dudgeon for 7s. fid. each. He asked that
one might be sent to his counting-house as a
sample, and he eventually agreed to purchase five
of the cases, and paid £37 103. for them. Mr. Port-
lock, one of the assistant proof-masters of the
Birmingham Proofing Company, then took possession
of them and examined them, and ascertained that
they did not bear the proof-mark of either the Bir-
mingham or the London Proofing Company ; but in
cross-examination he admitted that there was a mark
of a double-headed eagle on the barrels, but he said
he was not aware that this was the Austrian proof-
mark. In the course of the proceedings one of the
gun-barrels was produced, and it was admitted to
bear the London proof. mark, which of course de-
noted that it had been tested, and was found to be
what is called proof.
Evidence was then given that no foreign proof-
mark had been registered in this country, except that
of Belgium, and this closed the case for the prose-
cution.
Mr. Poland, in his address to the court in behalf
of the defendants, said that although an endeavour
had been made to invest this case with an air of
mystery by statements that had appeared in some of
the papers, it really was one of a very simple charac-
ter, and if his clients had committed any breach of
the law, it had occurred solely through their entire
ignorance of the fact that such a statute as the one
referred to was in existence. The facts were these.
A very large number of these rifles had been origi-
nally manufactured for the use of the Austrian army
at the time of the war with France, but in conse-
quence of an improved weapon being obtained they
were thrown aside, and were subsequently purchased
for the use of the Confederate armies in America.
Finding that they could not be transported to that
country, and the war having come to an end, a large
number were consigned to a merchant at Hamburg,
in cases containing 20 each, to be disposed of, and
he requested the defendants, who were general mer-
chants, to endeavour to dispose of them in this coun-
try. With that view advertisements were inserted
in the London and Birmingham newspapers, and
everything was done in the most open manner, and
the defendants had not the most remote idea that
they were committing any offence. With regard to
the quality and strength of the barrels, he was in-
structed that the double-headed eagle that appeared
on them was the Austrian Government proof-
mark ; and to show that there was no danger to
be apprehended by any person using them, one of
the barrels which had been produced had been tested
and found to be proof ; and on the part of the de-
fendants he was instructed to express their willing-
ness that the whole of the hundred barrels should
be subjected to the same test. Under these circum-
stances, he said, he trusted the alderman would con-
sider that although the defendants might have trans-
gressed the strict letter of the law, the purposes of
justice would be fully answered by the infliction of
a nominal penalty.
Mr. Metcalfe said that on the part of the com-
pany, who had no other object than to protect the
public, he was not instructed to press for the inflic-
tion of a heavy penalty. He at the same time said
that it would be understood, after the statement that
had been made by Mr. Poland, that the whole of
the remaining gun-barrels should be tested.
Alderman Lusk said it was perfectly clear from
the evidence that the defendants had infringed the
law. The act of Parliament under which the pro-
ceedings had been taken was, in his opinion, a very
salutary one, for its object was to prevent worthless
weapons from being disposed of which were likely
to burst and cause serious mischief to those who
made use of them. At the same time, the proceed-
ings that had been taken were novel, and he hoped
they would operate as a warning ; and under all the
circumstances he considered that a fine of one shil-
ling upon each of the barrels, one hundred in num-
ber, would be a sufficient punishment for the offence
that had been committed.

UNSUITABLE.—It is very odd that Mr. Bright
should select the occasion of the opening of Parliament to
talk about its clothes.—Fun.