The Sun.
London, England, 1845-02-06 00:00:00

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

The Speaker, in his state carriage, accompanied by a
number of the Members of this House. also waited uron
IL-T Majesty with the Address agreed upon last evening.
Many of the Members were dressed in uniform.

QUEEN'S BENCH.-(TS DAY.)
(Sittings at Nisi Prius, before Lord DENMAN and a Common
Jury.) •
CHUCK V. BENNETT.
This was an action for false imprisonment, brought by the
plaintiff and his brother, who are brokers, against the defen-
dant, who resides at Limehouse, under the followingcircum-
stances :—The defendant let certain premises adjoining his
own house to Messrs. Robson and Barrow. Those gentlemen
dissolved partnership, and Mr. Barrow assigned the premises
to Mr. Pontifex, of Shoe-lane, who sent a person to take pos-
session of the property and warehouse, The person sent for
this purpose was locked out, and the plaintiff and his brother
came after twelve o'clock at night and kuocked at the gate ;
and upon Mr. Bennett asking who was there, they said that
if they were not let in they would break in the gate. The
defendant called a policeman, and gave them into custody,
from which they were discharged the next day. There was
a good deal of evidence as to who had the right of posses-
sion of the yard.

His I.ortsnir having left it to the jury to say what da-
mages, if any, they would give to the plaintiff, the jury found
a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 40s.

COMMON PLEAS.-(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings at Nisi Prins.)
MANSELL v. PETO AND GRIsSELL.
The plaintiff in this case is the proprietor of the well-
know•n coffee-house and hotel, called " Oliver's," at the Mid-
dlesex end of Westminster-bridge, adjoining Palace-yard,
and this action was brought against the contractors under
the "Woods and Forests, to recover compensation for the in-
jury done to plaintiff's premises by the defendants' excava-
tions for the new Houses of Parliament.
The trial occupied the whole of the morning, and had not
concluded when we went to press.

EXCHEQUER -(THIS DAY.)
(Before the Lord Chief BARON and a Special Jury.)
TRIAL AT BAR.

THE ALLEGED FRAUDS UPON THE REVENUE.

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. SMITH.

As early as nine o'clock all the avenues to this Court were
beset with persons who were anxious to obtain admittance in
consequence of the case of Messrs. Smith, the spirit distillers,
being fixed for trial at bar this day. No case which has
been tried for a considerable time appeared to have excited a
greater degree of general interest.
The Counsel for the Crown were the Solicitor-General, Sir
T. Wilde, Mr. Jervis, and Mr. T. Wilde, jun. ; Mr. Kelly,
Mr. Watson, and Mr. ➢lartin appeared as counsel for the
defendant.

The jury having been sworn,
Mr WILDE said this was an information filed by her
Majesty's Attorney-General against George Smith. The first
count charged the defendants with using a distillery
within a quarter of a mile of a rectifying-house ; the second
count charged him with having a communication between
the two sets of premises, wherby spirits might be conveyed
from the one to the other ; the thiru, with using a distillery
within a quarter of a mile of a rectifying-house, with an under-
ground pipe, by means of which spirits might be conveyed
from the one to the other ; the foarth, with having a distil-
lery within a quarter of a mile of a rectifying-house, and
having a trough to communicate between them ; the fifth
count charged the defendant with using a distillery within
a quarter of a mile of a rectifying-house, the distillery having
been erected before the 6th of April, 1825, but having a com-
munication between the premises, by which spirits might be
conveyed from one to the other. The penalties claimed by
the Crown amounted to 9,0001. To the whole of these counts
the defendant had pleaded not guilty.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL in opening the case for the
Crown said, the magnitude and importance of the ease which
was about to be tried had induced him to ask for the unusual
solemnity of a trial at bar. Not that he anticipated that any
serious difficulty would be found to exist, when the case was
thoroughly understood, but knowing the large stake which
was at issue, and feeling the important consequences to the
defendant of the result of this inquiry, and being aware too
that the defendant had secured the advantage of the greatest
ingenuity and talent, and that they should be able to win
their way to a fair and just result of the investigation
through numerous objections, he had felt it neces-
sary to have the assistance of the united wisdom
which presided in that Court, in order that
they might be able to arrive safely and securely to the con-
clusion which the law required. On the 2d of November last
year a seizure was made upon the premises of Mr. George
Smith, the defendant, of his valuable stock in trade and uten-
sils, and the public ear was immediately filled with com-
plaints of the tyranny and oppression of the Excise ; and
men's minds were filled with amazement at the consequences
which must result from stopping a concern of such enormous
magnitude. He would at once claim his fair share iu the
responsibility of that proceeding. Was it to be said that be-
cause the fraud into which they were about to inquire must
have been carried on, if carried on at all, on a most gigantic
scale, they were to be deterred by the magnitude of the case
from administering the law equally and impartially to all?
lie distinctly_ avowed that the seizure had been conducted
upon his advice and upon his responsibility, and he was de-
sirous to share in all the consequences which might attach to
it, notwithstanding the attempts which had been made to
excite public sympathy on behalf of the defendant. The
Learned Counsel then referred to the application which was
made to that Court in the course of the present term to corn-
pel the Crown to produce particulars of its charges, and for
having since published the affidavits used on that occasion in
order to excite public sympathy in his behalf. He then
proceeded to say, that the defendant had for many
years carried on, to an enormous extent, the business
of a distiller, in Bucks-row, Whitcchapel. The duties
which he had to pay the Government amounted to 1,000/. a day.
He resided in a dwelling-house on the premises with his
brother, Mr. James Scott Smith, who carried on the business
of a rectifier on premises adjoining the distillery. The de-
fendant and his brother were not in partnership, the law
prohibiting a distiller from carrying on the business of a rec-
tifier, and a rectifier from carrying on that of a distiller.
But though such an union as partnership was prohibited by
law they occupied the same premises, and lived in the same
house, many of their workmen were employed in common,
and lie believed the same horses and carts belonged to both.
The jury were aware that, in order to protect the revenue,
persons who dealt in excisable commodities were put under
very strict and stringent regulations, which were perfectly
well known to the trade. Amongst other regulations apply-
ing to this particular case were those of the 6th of George
111., c. 80. By the 30th section it was required that, before
commencing to brew, or make spirits, the brewer or distiller
should furnish to the officer authorised to receive the sane,
an account in writing, setting forth his. name and place of
abode, and giving a true description of - the ve.sels
and utensils intended to be used by him ; and by the
32d section it was required that together with every such
account there should be delivered a drawing or description or
descriptions distinctly showing the course, direction, and con-
struction of all pipes, cocks, or instruments, to be used in the
businees. The Learned Counsel then quoted the 35th sec-