The Sun.
London, England, 1844-11-12 00:00:00

IN RE JAMES CLIFFORD.

This insolvent's discharge was opposed by Mr. Nicholls,
o❑ the ground of having fraudulently made away with a
large amount of property, consisting of furniture, horses,
carriages, &c.
It appeared from the evidence of one of the officers of
the Sheriff of Middlesex that, upon going to levy an ex-
ecution upon the insolvent's premises, in Great Maryle-
bone, all the rooms were locked, and a large and fero-
cious dog tied close to the stable door, so as to render it
impossible for any one to enter. He was told that all
the property was claimed under a bill of sale, executed
in favour of the insolvent's brother, and he was threatened
with personal violence if he did not immediately leave
the house. _ _ _

A proposal was made, on the part of the insolvent, by
his brother, who consented to give up a certain portion of
the property, to which he was entitled under the bill of
sale, for the benefit of the creditors.
The COURT consented to let the case stand over until
to-morrow, to try if such an arrangement could be, ef-
fected.

During the sitting of the Court this morning petitions
of Robert Harris, James Law, William Gamman Clark,
Henry Richard Wells, Frederick Hopkins, and James
Nicholson, were heard, and the insolvents ordered to be
discharged forthwith.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
(YESTERDAY.) "
MANSION-HO USE.

Yesterday the new Lord Mayor commenced the
Justice-room proceedings of the Mayoralty.
After the cases of several pickpockets, who were
charged with having pursued their calling in the
streets on Lord Mayor's-day were disposed of, a case
of smuggling, which caused a great deal of interest,
came before his Lordship and Sir George Carroll.

n old, and apparently very infirm-- man, named
Knowles, was brought up in custody, upon an
inforina,.4ton charging him, under the 3d and 4th
William IN,
4:-t6fhtit3, sec. 40, with having carried
7th of November, three gallons
,
and conveyed, on. '
and seven pints of brandy, upon which the
duty had not been paidNavin.asked the
prisoner whether 140 pleaded Guilty or ot Guilty ?
Mr. Goodman (the chief clerk) q*
The prisoner replied, Guilty.
The prisoner was then informed that he was firil'd
in the penalty of 1001., and that the law did not give
to the magistrates any power of mitigating the fine.
Knowles having been removed from the bar, 1
Edmund John Phillips, a licensed victualler, re-1
siding at No. 41, King-street, Snow-hill, was charged
upon an information, founded upon a section of the
same Act, for having assisted in carrying and con-
veying three gallons and seven pints of foreign brandy.
Mr. Podbury, from the office of the Solicitor of
Customs, attended for the prosecution ; and Mr.
Hobler appeared for troheavdiesfen(dcanuts,tol'
very extensive business.
man
ncerin)
Lobby Atkinson h-ohoisusea
stated that about seven o'clock in the evening of the
7th of November, as he was watching the house of
the prisoner, he observed Henry Knowles (the last
prisoner) carrying into the premises, wrapped up in
an old cloak, what appeared to be a long bottle, the
handle of which be held. Knowles went to the
back parlour, at the door of which Phillips ;
was standing, and both of them went into
the parlour together with the bottle or jar.li
Witnesss observed what occurred through folding
doors, which were not quite closed. Knowles soon
afterwards came out without anything, and proceeded
in the direction of Smithfield, followed by Pattison,
s, brother officer, and witness, after watching at the
door, went into the house and asked for the landlord,
who came down stairs in a few minutes. Witness
said he was an officer of the Customs, and that. he
(prisoner) had been receiving contraband goods, and
asked him whether he had the article in that room
(the parlour into which Knowles had been seen to
go with the landlord)? The prisoner replied that
there was nothing there but two small bottles of
gin—nothing whatever else. Witness told Pattison,
who had returned, having missed Knowles, to look in.
the corner of the room, and then Pattison drew from
under the seat a sealed jar. The prisoner, upon being
asked who had sealed the jar, did not answer, but
appeared much confused ; and when asked whether
he had permits for the goods, replied that his
permits had been some days ago given to the
Excise-office. Witness then cut off the seal and
kept it, and he found that the contents of the
jar was brandy. He then said to the prisoner, "Now,
I'll give you .a chance, or wait any time you think
proper, if you bring proof' that this came legally into
your possession, and that you have sealed it yourself."
To that the prisoner returned no answer, and he ac-
cordingly seized the brandy and brought it away.
Witness continued—" I laid the case before the Board,
and received directions. Subsequently, on appre=
bending Knowles in Sun-street, Bishopsgate, I found
upon him some contraband tobacco, and a seal which
corresponded with the impression upon the jar. He
then told me"----

Mr. Hobler—Now, you know the rules of evidence
well enough to be convinced that what he told you is
not evidence, and cannot be heard.
Witness—l went, after I took the seal tram
Knowles, to apprehend Phillips.
Mr. Hobler—Why did you not take Mr. Phillips
into custody when you seized the brandy ? Witness
—I waited to receive the directions of the Commis-
sioners.

Mr. Hobler—You arrested Mr. Phillips on the 9th
instant, in his own house? Witness—l did. •
Mr. Hobler—ls not Mr. Phillips well known as a
respectable publican ? Witness—He is well known
to me as a receiver of contraband goods.
Mr. Hobler condemned, in indignant terms, such
a mode of answering his questions, calculated and in-
tended as it was to prejudice the case.
The witness said the prisoner was well known as
the keeper of a public-house, and repeated that thew
prisoner was known to him in the character just de-
scribed by him.
Mr. Hobler submitted to the Lord May or and Sir
George Carroll that there was no case against his
client. The Act alluded to persons carrying or con-
veying contraband goods, and to persons assisting in
carrying or conveying contraband goods but no proof
whatever had been given that Mr. Phillips had been
so engaged, nor had anything been stated to show that
contraband brandy had been passed from the person
stated to have entered the house to the landlord of it.
Mr. Podbury—l intend to call Knowles as a wit-
ness, Mr. Hobler.

Mr. Holler—Even then you will have no case, for
Mr. Phillips never assisted in carrying or conveying
the goods.
Mr. Podbury-1111 show that the prisoner's conduct

was in direct violation of the Act of Parliament. We
have had numerous legal opinions upon the subject.
Cobby Atkinson Davis, in continuation, deposed that
the article contained in the jar was French brandy,
and liable to seizure. He never lost sight of the door
from the moment Knowles went in, and there was no
bottle or jar on the premises so large as that which
Knowles had taken in.

Edward Pattison (Custom-house officer) in every
respect confirmed the testimony of his brother officer,
and added that Davis said to the prisoner, "If you
show me the seal the brandy was sealed with I'll give
you the brandy," and that the prisoner observed to
Davis, " You are going to take away part of my
stock."

`Thomas Corhall (from the Queen's warehouse)
produced a sample from the jar, the contents of which
were liable to a duty of 41. 9s. 2d., and were 13 under
proof, the usual publican sale strength.
Henry Knowles (the man who had pleaded guilty)
was then examined. He was, in consequence of ill.
ness, obliged to give his evidence sitting. He knew
the prisoner, and had taken brandy to him. The last
time he took brandy to the prisoner was on Thursday
or Friday evening. Thursday he believed it ALM
lie took it in a stone bottle, which was called a four
gallon bottle, and was sealed with the seal produced,
which had been afterwards found is his possession by
the officer. He gave the jar into the possession of the
prisoner in front of the bar, and they went into the
hack parlour with the jar. The prisoner had ordered
the brandy, and witness received 3/. for it from the
prisoner. Witness was not a licensed dealer, but sold
on commission.
Mr. Podbury—Did you receive directions from the
prisoner to take the brandy to him ? Knowles—l did.
Mr. Podbury—Have you taken brandy to him be-
fore ? Knowles—Yes.
Cross-examined by Mr. Hobler—l was here just
now a party accused. I pleaded guilty. The brandy
about which I pleaded guilty is the same that I took
to Mr. Phillips. The magistrates fined me M.
Mr. Hobler—Did you not know, at the time you
pleaded guilty, that you were going to give evidence
in this case ? Knowles—Certainly not;, I had no
idea of being called as a witness. The officer saw
me, and what could I say ?
Mr. Hobler then vigorously urged his former ob-
jection, and argued upon the expectation which
Knowles might have entertained of escaping the
dilemma in which he was placed, by criminating a man
so extensively engaged in business. He deprecated
the course pursued by the Custom-house officer, in
going into the house of Mr. Phillips two days after
the seizure was made, and taking him to a prison
without warrant or other authority, especially when
there was not the slightest ground for saying that he
had assisted in carrying or conveying the brandy.
Mr. Podbury submitted that the information had
been fully borne out by the evidence. The words of
the Act were " carrying or conveying, or assisting in
carrying or conveying, or concerned in," &c. &c.
The conduct of Knowles showed plainly that the pri-
soner was concerned, and most unequivocally con-
cerned. There were plenty of legal decisions to prove
that parties removed at great distances from the place
of seizure came under the meaning of the Act. As
for the officer principally engaged in the matter, he
had acted with his accustomed judgment and precau-
tion. Having some doubt upon the power he was
at liberty to exercise, he applied to the Board of
Customs for directions, and, having received direc-
tions, he at once proceeded to execute them. By the
52d section of tlie Act the officer might take a man
at any time within six months from the violation of it.
The LORD MAYOR—Sir George Carroll agrees
with me in the opinion that the case has been fully
proved, and we convict him in the penalty of 100/.
Mr. Hobler called the attention of the bench to the
fact that, without the evidence of Knowles, the case
could not have been proved, and submitted that that
formed some ground for mitigation.
Sir G. CARROLL—The case is a very strong one
against the prisoner. He is a publican, and Knowles
swears that he brought the brandy to him at his desire.
The LORD MAYOR—There is abundant evidence
of concealment, too. The case is completely sub-
stantiated.
Sir G. CARROLL—Phillips is a publican, and a man
of substance, and there can be nothing stated in palia-
tion of his conduct. He is not in poverty, as the
other may be.
The LORD MAYOR—He must pay the penalty.
The prisoner immediately afterwards gave a cheque
upon a banking-house in Lombard-street for the 100/.