The Sun.
London, England, 1826-12-04 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT. OF COMMON .PLEAS, DEet 2.
RIRPONSIBILITY OF BANKKIIPM7P.HUBERT +IIQKEAU.
This was an action by an- attorney, to recover thestini.of 1961.
due for his professional. services..:—Plaintiff nonsuited....

COURT OF. EXCEIRQUER.,--I.),Ec. 2.,
ATTORNEY-QENERAL V.
Mr. MALTox stated the inforniation. The first and second
counta charged the defendant William Allan, a common brewer at
Horsham, in the county of Sussek- with having sent out a quan-
tity of beer to a person of the name of John Bell Chambers, with
a certificate, but without waking au entry in his book as by the
Statute required, whereby he forfeited a penalty ; and on the 9th
ofJauuary, 1824, with having sent nine barrels of strong beer, to
the Same man, making an entry only of three barrels of small
beer, whereby he forfeited another. penalty. There, were other
charges of a similar nature ; and that he had mixed beer impro-

periy,
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL appeared for the Crown. The
common-brewer, was only allowed to have two sorts of beer,
strong, and table-beer ;on the former the duty was 10s., and on
the latter 2s. per barrel, and by mixing the two sorts of beer, the
common-brewer paid the duty 'on the small, but charged his
customers for the strong beer, and thus defrauded the revenue,'
the fair dealer, and the public. The defendant would be
proved to have been guilty of a series of such offences,
as well as of having made numerous false and erased entries in his
books and counter books. On one occasion, too, be hail refused
' to allow the proper officer to inspect his books, and had pushed
him out of the yard, by which he had forfeited a penalty of 2001.
The Learned Counsel had no doubt that the Jury would be satis-
fied of the guilt of the defendant.
Charles Revolts, an excise officer, knew the defendant ; he was
a common brewer at Horsham, for the sale of beer; bad seen
certificates of his frequently; had been in the brewery at the
time defendant was present, acting as master of the brewery ; had
never had any communication with the defendant on the subject
of his brewing there ; had called on him desiring to see the cer-
tificate of the beer defendant had sent out; this certainly had
something to do with the subject; told defendant that he wanted
to inspect the certificate book. • This was on the 28d day of
March, 1826. Defendant seemed very much agitated,
knowing witness, and said,—" what do you want ?—what
are you going to do with me?" Witness said he wanted to in-
spect the book. Defendant desired to see his authority. Wit-
ness %hewed his commission, and gave his name. Asked again
for the book. Defendant at first said he had not got it ; and
afterwards said he did not choose to chew it every body. Wit-
ness said, " You have seen my commission." Defendant said,
-" You Alan not see it," and ordered witness off the premises.
Left the premises in about ten minutes after this. Went
again un the same day in company with Michael Short,
another Excise Officer ; as they approached the brewery,
they saw defendant walking in front of the brewery, who went
into it, and shut the dour after him, which be refused to open.
Witness spoke to him through the window, desiring to see the
certificate book, which defendant persisted in refusing to produce.
Held up a paper, saying, " Look at it—look at it," which wit-
ness took to be an excise paper. Knew a person of the name of
Jacob' Hoare, a publican, who was supplied with beer by de-
fendant. Surveyed Hoare'e stock on the 15th of March ;
desired to see his certificates of beer sent in, and the
one new produced was shown. It was a certificate purporting
to be from Wm. Allan. Examined the present certificate with
defendant's certificate book, which agreed in every respect, and
it was a certificate of four barrels of X beer (meaning strong),
duty 10s. per barrel. Had been on the premises of James `!'rower,
at Billinghurst, a brewer; this was on the 6th of March last.—
Saw the casks at Hoare's of the above beer ; they were four
which made six barrels. The casks were full. On this occa-
sion, there were about seven empty hogeheade taken away from
Hoare's. Afterwards surveyed the four hogsheads which he saw
taken off the waggon. Received from Hoare the bill of parcels
of this beer, which charged Hoare with the quantity, six barrels.
Witness then seized and sealed up the beer. On another occa-
sion, saw a hogshead of beer taken off defendant's waggon,
and rolled into Trower'e cellar; surveyed this beer in
a (lay or two afterwards, and found it to be strong. Was at
Hoare's another time, which was on the 15th' of February last;
at that time found seven hogsheads of beer. There was thensa
certificate for four barrels, which, on a comparison With defen•
(lint's book, witness found to agree. 'Witness, an the 15th of
March, ordered the berviints of defendant to tend to Hoare four
hogsheads of beer, who replied that they had sent that quantity
to- Hoare on that day.
Cross-examined by Mr. .11i nvts.—Defendant occasionally re•
sided at his farm, nine miles and a half from Horsham, and
wituessbelieyed that he generally lived there; the house there always
went by the name of the defendant's. When witness first asked to
see the certificate, it was at the time of the Assizes, on the 21st
of March, and not the 281. At this time witness had never sur-
veyed defendant's stock, and was an entire stranger to him.
When witness called to see the hook, defendant first said the-
officer had it. Did not know that Harper (another
exciseman) had the book at that time. Did know
that Harper had told defendant not to let any body
have the book, When witness returned the second
time to demand the production of the certificate, did not see him
du any act of mastership beyond locking himself up in the brewery.
Defendant did not push witness out of the yard ; did not know that
defendant's house was very full on the 21st of March, or that the
Judge at the Assize" was then lodging there ; all the beer at,Hoarc'e
Was ire hogsheads. It was always Ming for brewers to send out their
hogsheads full ; they did not send Out a barrel only in a hogshead ;'
never knew Hoare to receive th=e • smaller quantity in the larger
measure. The guage of beer was taken by striking on the cask;
and not by dipping' into it. Witness found on the 6th of March,
that a quantity of beer had been sent to him without any certificate.
All the certificates that witness had seen, were made by Alfred
Allan, though for William Allan. Had no doubt that all the wag.;
gone belonging to the brewery, in March last, had the name of
William Allan. on them.
Mr. Jaime admitted that three penalties, to the amount of
2001. each, had now been proved.'
The Learned JUDGE thought they had quite clearly.
Mr. JARVIS hoped the Crown would now be satisfied.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL was instructed to say, the Crown
would be satisfied with four penalties, hut not lege.
Mr. Jaavis said his client was extremely poor, and had no leaf;
than 12 children;
Mr. SOLICITOR•GENERAL could ItIOW no comparison, and
therefore, to proceed, called •
William Henry Snow, an Excise Examiner, who 'proved the
forfeiture of another penalty, with respect to beer sent to a per
son of the name of Chambers.
Verdict for the Crown, to secure four penalties.

SHERIFFS COURT, MIDDLESEX, DEC. Q.

COMM, DKLAFIKI.D,'AND CO. V.T. KATHARINK DOCK COMPANY.

The claimants were the proprietors of a lease of the Leith Hoy
public house; in Pillory-lane, St. Katharine's, of which thirteen
years are unexpired, with a contingent renewal for twelve years,
to which they alleged themselves entitled.
Evidence was called to prove that the public-house would, if
put up to auction, produce about 8001. ; but, upon cross-exand-
nation, it was elicited that such 'valuation proceeded upon the pre-
su►uption that it was a free house.—Verd►ct for 4401.