The Sun.
London, England, 1844-05-13 00:00:00

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. COLE.

The information was filed by the Attorney-General
against the defendant, Joseph Cole, for having in his
possession malt coombings roasted and coloured, so as to
imitate tobacco, and for selling the same for the purpose
of being used in the adulteration of tobacco, whereby
the revenue was defrauded.

Mr. Jervis and Mr. Wilde conducted the case for the
Crown, and the defendant appeared in person to defend.
Mr. JERVIS, in stating the case, said that the present
case was one which had rarely, at all events for a very
long time, come before the Court. The defendant was
charged, upon the information, with having in his pos-
session and selling malt coombings, which he had pre-
viously roasted and coloured so as to imitate tobacco, an
act which was in violation of the Act of Parliament,
under which he had, consequently, rendered himself
liable to certain penalties, amounting (as was under-
stood) to 9001. The defendant, it appeared, was a shop-
keeper at Bradford, in Yorkshire, and was in Court to
defend himself in person. He understood it was the in-
tention of the defendant to submit an objection to the
information, on the ground that the article seized did
not fall within the denomination of articles pointed out
by the statute, but he apprehended that, when the ob-
jection should have-been brought forward, the Learned
Baron on the Bench would have no difficulty in at once
intimating to the defendant that his offence came clearly
within the meaning and intention of the Act of Par-
liament. Some years since the laws affecting tobacco
were extremely stringent, but it having been thought
advisable to relax in respect to those laws, an alteration
was made whereby the duty was made payable on the
manufactured :article. Under the 3d and 4th Victoria,
c. IS, the amendment in the law had been effected, but
it was deemed necessary, inasmuch as the pride of tobacco
was only about one penny, whilst the duty was 3s. per
pound, to take care that there should be no imitation of
the article itself, and, therefore, by the 11th section, a
penalty of 100/. was leviable upon all persons who should
roast, colour, or stain any leaves of trees, any leaves of
herbs, or any plants whatever, so as to imitate tobacco.
It would thus be seen that it was unlawful to use
the leaves of any herb or plant for the purpose of
mixing with tobacco, The sole question in the present
case was, whether malt coombings were or were not a
herb or plant. He should contend with much con-
fidence that they were a plant, and that having been
clearly established to the satisfaction of the jury, he ap-
prehended they would have no difficulty in finding a
verdict for the Crown.

Evidence was then called which went to prove that
three seizures had been made of this compound, one at
Bradford, one at Wakefield, and one at Irongate Wharf,
Paddington, It was also stated by the first witness, the
Excise officer, that malt combings are the little shoots
which spring out from the barley during the early pro-
cess,of malting, and grows before the further vegetation
is stopped, to the length of from a quarter to half an
inch. The root or shoot is then taken from the barley
and put into a cylinder like a coffee roaster, and roasted
or dried over the fire, by which means, as in the case of
coffee, a darkened colour, is imparted, so dark as very
closely to resemble tobacco. [A quantity in a raw and
roasted state was produced.] Prior to this proceeding
the grain was steeped i 6 warm water for fifty or sixty
hours, the effect of which was, that in about thirty hours
hours afterwards the shoots would make their appear-
ance. The defendant, continued this witness, called upon
him after the seizure and said that the officers had used
him very ill by taking his property. The defendant in
their conversation had not denied that the article be-
longed to him, but admitted that it was made and used
to " reduce" tobacco.

After other officers had been examined, a witness of
the name of Leo stated that he had acted as agent to
the defendant in the sale of this article to tobacconists.
It was sold at Is. per pound, and prAably might cost
2d. or 2.1 d., inclusive of labour. He had sold a consider-
able quantity of it.
The defendant, when the case for the Crown had
closed, submitted that there was no case to go the jury,
inasmuch as the article which had been seized was not a
plant, and was not contemplated by the Act of Parlia-
ment. The information also charged him with having
barley in his possession ; but there had not been any
evidence to prove that such had been the fact. The truth
was, that he had not had any barley.
Mri Baron GURNEY said he had no hesitation in giv-
ing it as his opinion that a malt combing was a plant.
He had no doubt upon the point. It was a plant, and,
therefore, came within the operation of the Oct of Par-
liament.
The defendant then "addressed the jury, and, after
stating that his attention had been originally called to
the article by a quantity having been offered to him for
sale, proceeded to say that having obtained high opi-
nions upon the question, to the effect that malt coomb-
ings were not contemplated by the statute he had be-
come manufacturer of the article. He still contended
that the 11th section of the Act did not in any way ap-
ply to his case. He complained that the Excise had
offered to compromise the matter for 201.; and now, after
the seizure had been made for three years, he was pur-
sued for penalties amounting to 9001.
Mr. JERVIS, in his reply, said this was the first time
he had heard of a proffered act of leniency on the part
of the Crown being attempted to be turned against it.
The offer of compromise had been made because the
Excise had supposed that the defendant might, in con-
sequence of an ambiguity (which had since been cor-
rected) in the section of the Act of Parliament, have
been-misled. That offer, however, bad been rejected,
and had been compelled to go for,
and the Crown, therefore,
the penalties.
Mr. Baron GURNEY summed up, and observedtn
plant.ee
that
a there could be no doubt of a malt coombingbeing i
Mr. JERVIS here said that the Crown in this
Only went for two penalties of 1001. each.
The jury, after a few minutes consultation, returned a
verdict for the Crowi, with penalties for 2001.
THE ATTORNEYvggIYERAL v. Cox.
This was an information filed by th.; Attorney-Gene-
ral for the recovery of penalties for an infringement of
the statute regulating the manufacture and sale of paper.
p papera l) e r -
m alkt
ewr asa t pßr od t
ouv d
eal 1, a
neart t h e defendant,Hung erf ord
%%hrhaocl issolad
which had not, heeu charged to the.duty, that heihad al-

tered the weight of the parcel as originally marked on
the stamped wrapper, and that he had sent out and sold
paper in considerable quantities without any wrapper
having been placed round the package, all these acts
being violations of the Act of Parliament.
The case was undefended, and _

The jury, therefore, after the case had been proved by
evidence, returned a verdict for the Crown for penalties
amounting to 560/.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.

NEW COURT.

ARSON.—Mary Ann Joblyns, aged 35, and Mary Pet-
tigrew, aged 81, were indicted for feloniously and mali-
ciously setting fire to a dwelling house. The witnesses
proved the facts, which have already been before the
public. A distress had beetiput into the house rented
by the elder prisoner for 421., due for rent to the trustees
of the property. The two prisoners slept in the houso
while the officer was in possession on the 16th of April.
Both prisoners went out, as they said to tea ; the elder
prisoner returned and went up stairs, whore she re-
mained about an hour ; the younger prisoner afterwards
returned and went up stairs also with a candle, and
stayed there about fifteen minutes, after which she left
the house. The officer in possession after this found a
strong suffocating smell in the house, and searched it ;
he then called in some neighbours, and on examination
it was found that the room on the first-floor was on fire.
It was not extensive, and was soon extinguished. Seve-
ral holes were found in the flooring boards, in which
were placed a quantity of matches.
The COMMON SERGEANT said, there was no proof
against Pettigrew, and the jury therefore acquitted her ;
but the prisoner Joblyns was found guilty, and sen-
tenced to be transported for fifteen years. The prisoner,
who is a most respectable-looking woman, was taken
from the dock screaming most piteously to bo allowed
to go home to her children.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
(SATURDAY.)
MANSION-HOUSE.

A person named Elizabeth Williams, a Welsh woman,
was brought up, charged with the offence of inducing
David Morgan, a countryman of her own, to give her
food and lodgings under false pretences.
The complainant said the prisoner, of whom he had
no knowledge, called at his house one day, and asked
him whether his name was David Morgan, and whether
he had not received two letters from Wales within the
last day or two. He replied that the prisoner was
right as to his name, but mistaken as to the letters.
" Oh! (said she) you have an uncle who has been 77
years in India, and has just died at the age of 101, leav-
ing a great many thousands behind him, and you will
come in for your share as a near relative."
The LORD MAYOR—And you took her to diet and
lodge with you upon such a representation ? Com-
plainant—She told me it was all fact.
The LORD MAYOR—And had you any reason to be-
lieve her ? Haire you had an aged uncle iu India ?
Complainant—Not to my knowledge. I never heard
that I had, but then I never heard that I had not.—
(Laughter.) Well, my wife brought down the brandy
bottle, and then she had a drop ; and after a good deal
of talk about the old gentleman, she took a fancy to the
situation, and said she should like to live with us en-
tirely.—(Laughter.)
The LORD MAYOR—And so you took her upon the
strength of the story about the old gentleman ? Com-
plainant—Yes, we took her, and she lived as we did ;
but, as she did not seem inclined to pay, my wife began
to make some inquiry or investigation like, and she found
that she had been round to several other David Mor-
gans, telling some of them that they had uncles and
others that they had aunts in India, and that there was
no end to the money that was coming over.—(Laughter.)
The LORD MAYOR—Did she induce you by any re-
presentation of the kind to give her money? Com-
plainant—No.
The LORD MAYOR—WeII, I am of opinion that you
have not an old uncle in the circumstances she has re-
presented, and that she has told the falsehood for what
she has succeeded in obtaining, a comfortable living,
until she was detected. But I cannot punish her. You
ought not to have been so credulous as to believe a
stranger in a matter so full of improbabilities.--Dis
charged.