The Sun.
London, England, 1826-11-30 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH.—(Tiffs DAY.)
SITTINGS AFTER TRINITY TERM.
Air. Justice LITTLEDAI.E. sat on the Bench, (the Lord Chief
Jusfice not being as yet sufficiently recovered to, attend) and dis-
posit' of several causes, none of which was attended with any pub-
lic interest.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER—(Tuts DAY.)
(IN NISI PRIUS.)
THF. KING V. TUCKER.

This was an information,at the suit of the ArroattEv-Gr NY a At.
for;receiving spirits without a permit, at several different times.
The penalty for that offence was 5001.. The defendant, a licensed
victualler at the Crown and Sceptre, North-street, Exeter, did
not defend the cause; it was therefore only necessary to prove the
offence, and the Jury of course returned a verdict for the Crown,
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL only pressed for the penalty of the
first offence, which is 50/. The offence was proved by Thomas
Bishop, the man who sold him the smuggled spirits.

ATTORNEY-411tNERA I. V. THOMAS COTTERELL.

Mr. CLARKE stated to the Jury that they would have no trouble
in this case, because the defendant submitted to a verdict for the
Crown.—Verdict for the Crown.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL Y. CLEMENT CONEY.

Mr. Mystauouse appeared for the defendant, and submitted to
a verdict for the Crown on the 2d, 4th, and 7th cpunts.—Verdict
for the Crown accordingly.

ADULTERATED WINES.
ATTOKNEy-GENERAL V. OLIMIELD.

Mr. .WALTON stated that the information had been filed against
Frederick Oldfield, of No. 58, Pall Mall, in which he was char-
ged with having used the Excise Permit fin. other purposes than
tee remove the wine it had been granted for ; alao that be had used
it in such a way, that his stock of Cape wine could not be ewer-
tained ; that this had been done at different times ; that being a
dealer in wines, he had mixed thew, contrary to the statute ; and
that he had not made the proper entries.
_ _

. .
Mr. Avroaxst•-GxNEaat. stated that this was a ease which
he had thought it his duty to bring into the Court, for the purpose
of public example, and he hoped, if it were made out, the Jury
would mark it with the heaviest verdict. In the Exchequer, parties
were brought to prevent the King's subjects from being poisoned
by having sold to them different sorts of leaves mixed in tea, and
dirt for pepper ; so was it for them to be puundied for the adulte-
ration of wines. This was such a ease, and only the second that
had ever occurred of the kind. Whether it would turn out that the
adulteration had been made with deleterious artielei or net, would
not be material; he understood, however, that the mode of doctoring
the Cape wine into something like fine old Sherry, Madeira, Port,
and Champagne wines, was by mixing with a quantity of Cape wine
bitter almonds, 411,. of oyster shell powder, and three quarts of
other almonds, for giving flavour, and if this case was made out to
the satisfaction of the Jury, the Learned Attorney hoped it would
be marked with :a penalty equivalent to the disgrace attending
such an adulteration, and that world secure both the Crown and
the public against the repetition of au act so pernicious.
Joseph Major was keeper of the Excise entries. He produced
the entries of Frederick Oldfield, which commenced in the month
of April, 1822. Witness had furnished the defendant with two
blue books, in which to enter the wines sold and sent out from.
his stock; one for quantities. of three gallons, and the other
for large quantities. The quantities upwards required peimits,
On being sent out, but the small quantities did not, indent when
going into a trader's stock.
Cross-examined.--Never knew any thing further of these
books, they were bound to be returned to the Excise Office by
law. Did not know when defendant went to gaol.
James Snitch, a -Surveyor•General of the Excise.—ne duty
on wines was paid on being imported. There were surveys made
after wines went into the trader's hands. A lesser quantity than
three gallons did not require a *mit. The books last witness men-.
tioned required to lie be-verified by a declaration that they contained
a true statement of the wines. Two permits had been granted to the
defendant, one of the 20th June, 1823, and an entry made fur
110 gallons of Cape white wine; these 110. gallons were to be
taken • front hi. Oldfield, to J. Oldfield, in Norton-
street,—the other permit was for.
.288 galls. to Frederick Buck
ton, on the 27th June, 1823. •

John Coates, a permit writer, proved the delivery of the per.
mit of the 20th of June, which had never been returned, as by
law It ought to have been if the trade had not used it.

Frederick Farrence, another permit writer, proved the granting
of the permit in los,. which had never be4ni returned.
William Buckton, anti-attrition manufacturer, deposed, that on
different occasions he purchased some small quantities of Cape
wine from the defendant, but that he bought none on the 27th
• of „Nue,- •isats, whatever.
•J. Trika'wee a winis•merehant. in 1 • and .1823, in South-
anipton-row ; knew the defendant ; in those years defendant lived
in Berry-street and Norton-street, ; he belonged to some play
houses, or gambling-houses, or -something of that kind. IVitness
used to send. wine to the gatubling4muses of defendant. Had
known the defenthint for many years; never sold him any Cape,
always Sherry and Madeira. About the end of the year 1821,
defendant said to witness that he had a mind to go into the wine-
trade, as the gambling-trade was then pretty well over. At the
request..ol the defendant, witness joined him in the concern, and it
was called the Westminster Wine Company ; the business was to be
curried on at No. hi or hi, Pall-mall. Defendant bought the wines,
and he supplied the money to this concern; Port, Sherry, Cape, Lis-
bon, Mountain, and other sorts, were sent iota the concern. Re-
collected 14 pipes of Cape being brought in at once. The de—
fendant alone was the Westminster Wine Company. This
large quantity of Cape was for • mixing with other wines; the
defendant bought a large vat (to hold about 750 gallons), in which
to mix wines ; remembered the mixing of wines is his presence ;
'as near as be could say, the first time was in December, 1822. In
June,. 1823, the mixing., again took place. The misiug. was by
wines, some Cape and some others put into the vat ; could not say
the proportions, but thought it was in proportion of u pipe of
Cape to a hogshead of Sherry. The Cape was first put into the
lees of the Sherry, and then drawn off into the vat into which the
Sherry had been previously put...
Mr. Jxavts objected to the question,---what other articles were
put into the vat?
Mr. ATEORNEY-OENIR AT. submitted that he was entitled to
put the question.'

- Mr. l3►kON GAaaow would caution the Jury against finding
a penalty against the defendant for putting any thing pernicious to
the health into*, wines, as that was not the present charge,
but it might he important for the Attorney-General to put the
question with some other view, and if the Crown pressed it, the
Court would have to allow it. '

The examination of witnesses was resumed. There was oyster-
shell powder, bitter almond flavour, extracted by distillation, and
chalk-powder, put into the mixture. Witness produced else bills
of parcels for the above articled, which he himself had bought and
got from a druggist. A great many small quantities of wines were
sent out without being entered in the small book; by this
means
sherry could be sent out, -under a permit, instead of Cape,
without the exeise-offieers being able to detect the fraud.—
no large quantity of wine had been sent out on the 27th of June,
ISM agreeable to the permit of that day. The mixtures were
made with the knowledge of the defendant. Witness used to go
to Oldfield (who was then a prisoner in the King's Bench) to con-
verse with him about the mixtures that were to be made. Wit-
ness reported to bins what was going on. Defendant was at
home when the vat was brought to Pall-Mall. lie went to
prison in February, 1822. There had been mixtures before he
went to prison.
The cube was going on when we left the Court.