The Sun.
London, England, 1844-02-05 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Feb. 3.
(Before Lord ABLVGER and a Special Jury.)
ILLICIT DISTILLATION—THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. PHIL-

LIPO AND OTHERS.
The Attorney-General, Mr. Jervis, and Mr. Wylde, ap-
peared for the Crown ; Mr. Cockburn and Mr. M. Smith
conducted the case for the defendants.
This was an information by the Attorney-Genera; against
the defendants, for the recovery of penalties for having in
their premises a private still for the purpose of illicit distjlia-
tion, and having spirits on their premises on which no duties
had been paid to the Excise.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL stated the case to the jury.
The defendants occupy a lone farm-house at Swanton
Abbott, near Norwich, Norfolk. The house is situated at a
considerable distance from any other habitation, and is in
every respect a spot where illicit distillation might be car-
ried on with considerable success. From information which
had been received in June last year, by the officers of the
Excise, a search warrant was obtained, and three officers
proceeded to execute it. One entered at the front of the
house whilst the others remained at the back. ,A. not
actually at work, but having the appearance of hav:e been
recently used, was discovered. The top of the stilla d the
worm, however, could not be found. One barrel, holdint; 25
gallons, containing spirits, was buried in the floor;
smaller barrel, the importation of which into this country,
containing spirits, is prohibited by law, and excellently
adapted for the purpose of smuggling, from its small size,
containing no more than three gallons, which has obtained
for it the soubriquet of " half anchor," as it may be slung, with
a cask of corresponding size, across the back of a horse or
the shoulders of a man, was found by the officers. A sample
drawer, possibly used to draw the spirits from the cask buried
in the floor, was found ; also three branding irons having these
letters cut in them were found, H. G., C. 8., and S. 8., which
the Learned Counsel stated were no doubt intended
to be brandy-casks, containing " Hollands Gin," " Cognac
Brandy," and " Spirits of Brandy," as casks having
these letters were found. The defence which would be set up was
that the implements found were used for the purpose of
brewing ; but the very fact of an hydrometer being found on
the premises was conclusive evidence of the fact with which
the defendants were charged, namely, that that utensil was
never used in brewing ale or porter. The Learned
Gentleman here minutely described the whole process of
distillation and brewing. The defendant and his sons were,
confused when the officer entered, and gave evasive answers'
to the questions put to them, stating that the implements
were used for brewing malt ; that the wort was used for
feeding pigs ; and that the cask in the floor contained poison
for washing sheep, and was placed there to prevent accident.
The officer, however, utterly regardless of the consequences,
tasted the contents of the cask, but the poison had no deadly
effect, as the officer was then in Court to speak to the facts
which he had related to the jury.
Robert Hudson, an Excise officer, corroborated the state-
ment of the Attorney-General.
'Witnesses were called to prove the sale of molasses to the
son of-the defendant, that they were mixed with chaff; and
used for feeding cattle, the soil of the farm being exceedingly
poor.
Two witnesses in the employment of the defendant stated
that the cask which contained home-brewed ale was buried
in their preserves, because the defendant had no cellar, the
sample-drawer being used to draw it up ; that they never saw
any symptoms of distilling on the premises ; that the copperwas
used to boil potatoes ; that one of the branding irons ex-
pressed the initials of the mother of the defendant, Sarah
Garland (S. G.), and that an impression from it was made
on the " half-anchor;" that some coloured ingredient, sup-
posed to be used for the purpose of colouring ruin and brandy,.
was in reality treacle and water, which was made for some
children.
Mr. COCKBURN then addressed the jury for the defendant,
and the Attorney-General having replied,
Lord ABINGER minutely summed up the evidence, and the
jury returned a verdict for the Crown.—We understand the
penalties amount to 6001.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
(SATURDAY.)
MANSION-HOUSE. - -

The young man who was on Saturday week brought
before the Lord Mayor on a charge of forgery, was
brought up for re-examination. It will be recollected
that on Saturday last it was sworn that the signature
purporting to be that of the firm of Howard, Grand, and
Co., was not the handwriting of Mr. Grand, who was the
only person that signed for the house.
Mr. Mullens, of the firm of Bush and Co., attended
for the prosecution, and Mr. Clarkson defended the pri-

soner.
Mr. Clarkson then said, that although he was not in
a condition to prove that the writing of the endorsement
was by Mr. Grand, he could most satisfactorily show
that it was written by Mr. Gilbert, the clerk of Messrs.
Howard, Grand, and Co., upon Mr. Grand's authority.
Mr. Laurence, a clerk of Messrs. Willis, Percival, and
Co., bankers, was examined, and upon a letter being
shown him by Mr. Clarkson, purporting to be written
by Mr. Grand, authorising Mr. Gilbert, the clerk of the
firm, to endorse the bill in question, the witness said he
believed the signature to the letter to be that of Mr. Grand.
It was then proved by Mr. Addison that the signature
to the acceptance was in the handwriting of Mr. Gilbert.
This witness said that the defendant had resided in
apartments in his house, and sometimes went by the
name of William Powers, and sometimes William
Nicholls.
Mr. Clarkson called upon his Lordship to discharge
the prisoner, as it was evident the charge of uttering a
forged acceptance fell to the ground.
Mr. Mullens submitted that the prisoner ought to be
remanded, since the circumstances of the case were very
suspicious, at any rate that he should find bail.
The LORD MAYOR said the circumstances were no
doubt suspicious, but he did not think he should be
justified in remanding the prisoner, nor did he think it
right to call upon him to find bail. The case was there-
fore dismissed.