The Sun.
London, England, 1845-05-03 00:00:00

PRICE OF SUGAR.

The Average Price of Brown or Muscovado Sugar, for the
week ending, April 29, 1845, is 30s. 54d. per cwt., exclusive
of the Duties of Customs paid or payable thereon on the im-
portation thereof into Great Britain
Dividends, Ece., in our newt.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, May 2.

TRIAL AT BAR.-THE GREAT DISTILLERY CASE.

TIIE ATTORNEY. GENERAL V. GEORGE SMITE!,

THE SUMMING UP BY THE CHIEF BARON.

The Learned Judge commented at considerable length on th•
evidence of the different witnesses. He then went on to say that
the question for the jury was not whether a single drop of spirits
had been transmitted from the distillery to the rectifying-house,
but whether there was an opening through which spirits might
hare been conveyed to the other premises, and un-
doubtedly it had been admitted on both sides that
the officers of Excise had tried the experiment to show that
spirits could be passed. That was the point in law, and if they
were satisfied that such a communication exi-ted, so that spirits
would arrive at the rectifying.house in a condition to be used as
spirits, then the Court was decidedly of opinion that they must find
a verdict icr the Crown.

The Learned Solicitor-General had laid some stress upon the
fact Gill had not been called, he having been present at most of
the conversations between Mr. G. Smith and the officers, and
having had the whole management of the distillery. But it was
not fair for him (the Chief Baron) to say that there might be
good reasons for not calling a witness in the position of Gill. He
might have committed himself at some time, either
through inadvertence, or possibly in a state of
inebriety have said something upon which he might be
cross-examined. Yet it was matter which the jury might consider,
why there had been no one whatever called from the distillery who
could speak to the fact that spirits wash, or worts, had not been
passed by means of the pipe in question, and that there had been
called only two persons from the rectifying-house, Mr. White-
head, who was absent from the premises all night, that is,
during the only hours in which such use would be made of the
pipe, if made at all ; and Mr. J. S Smith, who had sworn that no
spirit ever passed, and would probably have sworn that no worts
or wash had passed, if the question had been put to him. But,
after all, this did not bear upon the issue. It was only
important that the jury were satisfied there was sucn a
communication between the two premises that worts, &c. could in
the words of the Act, "be removed or conveyed " from the one
building to the ott•er. According to the facts admitted upon both
sides, it appeared that in the presence of Mr. Smith, the officers passed
700 gallons of spirits through the pipe—merely on the principle of
the syphon—in less than half an hour, and the jury would consider
whether they might be able on another trial, with little
preparation or difficulty, pass, in a very short time, any
quantity they pleased (having their choice of force
or pressure), and then, taking their time, run
sufficient quantities of water, not only through the principal pipe,
but through all the branches, so as to remove every, the slightest
smell or trace of spirit. If the jury from that evidence believed
that the communication was such as that spirits could be removed
without such deterioration as to render it useless, they
would find for the Crown. If, on the other hand, they
disbelieved, or doubted the evidence of facts admitted
on both sides, they would dud for the defendant.
If they found a verdict for the Crown, it was not for the Court or
for the jury to say whether any reduction should be made In the
amomit of the penalties incurred. That would be a question for
quite another tribunal.

- The Foreman then requested his Lordship to inform the jury
what were the exact wards of the issue which they were to try.

The LORD CHIEF BARON inquired of the Solicitor. General whether
he would elect to take a verdict on the second count, and re.
ceiving an answer in the affirmative, the Learned Judge read to
to the jury the second count, which charges the occupying and using
as a distillery a house or houses within a quarter of a mile of a
rectifying.house, there being between the two such a " way, open-
ing, or communication of removing or conveying spirrts, &c., except
by cart, carriage, or waggon, through an open street or road."
The jury then retired at four o'clock, when
Mr. KELLI said, that if the jury found upon any one count the
defendant would claim a verdict upon all the rest.

The CnIEF BsaoN—lndeed you will not, Mr. Kelly. The Soli.
citor. General can enter a none proscqui upon all the other counts,
or he may now withdraw the record.
Ma. KELLv—If the Solicitor-General chose to enter a none pro-
sequi, he must do it now, before tho verdict is returned, otherwise
I shall be entitled to a verdict on the remaining counts.
Mr. MARTIN said the plea was not guilty upon all the counts.
The verdict of guilty upon one count was an acquittal upon the
rest, and we have a right to have the verdict entered so.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL—But if you have a general verdict
upon your plea, it is" guilty of all."
The CHIEF BARON—Mr. Solicitor, that used to be the case.
But, by a recent decision, it is clear that it cannot be so now. In
the old practice there was but one count. Then the practice
was to vary the charge by the introduction of several counts, Here,
all the counts, after the first say, " And in another distillery,"
whereas there is but one.

Mr. KELLY—And all after the first must be bad, as there is no
other distillery.
Mr. Baron ROLFE—I do not think so. The word "other" is
only surplusage, as it were to charge another offence.
Mr. KELLY - But there cannot be two verdicts. That has been
also decided. _ _

The CHIEF lhaoN—Certainly, Mr. Kelly, there cannot be two
verdicts. _ _

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL--I think, even now, I am entitled to a
verdict upon the first count.
The Crime' BARON—Which charges the occupying and working
a distillery within a quarter of a mile of a rectifying.house.
Mr. KELLY—Oh, very well, we will take your verdict upon that,
but that must be upon one count.
The Cu lEF:BARON Do you take it so, Mr. Solicitor ? ( A laugh.)
The SOLICITOR• GENERAL seemed to decline the proposal, and the
discussion, for the present dropped.
The jury retired, after a deliberation of two hours and a
quarter, and returned a
SPECIAL VERDICT.

The Foreman said—We find a verdict for the Crown on the
second count ; and we are desirous of expressing our opinion
that there has been no proof of a fraudulent use hating bees
made of the communication.
After home consultat.on, not heard in Court,
The verdict was entered by agreement for 75,000/.

Mr. KELLY then applied to enter a verdict of Not guilty on the
remaining five counts, which was agreed to.
PAYMENT OF THE JURY.

The Soucrroa-CIaNERAL then applied to the Court to know how
the Special Jury were to be paid ?

The LoILD cuter B4RON ;aid thet in the we, he bettered, of

Mr. F. O'Connor, the jury were allowed for each day, as fora SePa'
rate trial.
Mr. Baron ROLPa said—Fes; that was the case at Lancaster'
The CHIEF BARON said—Then the fees should be paid for eight
days of the trial—that is, eight guineas, besides for the view of ths
premises.—The Court then rose.