The Sun.
London, England, 1827-06-25 00:00:00

THY KING V. YIELD.

In this ease the defendant, who is the keeper of a pub-
lic-house, called the King George the Fourth, was charged
with having by the like offence incurred the like penalty.
An officer of the Excise proved the finding of a bottle
of colouring matter, such as was used to colour porter, in
the defendant's cellar. His wife declared that it was used
to give ale a colour and taste that would please the eye
and palate of his customers as well as himself. He de-
clared that he used it chiefly to colour rum. It was made
chiefly from molasses. When the witness seized it the
defendant was excessively angry, and called it a robbery.
The defendant in this case had, it appeared, been a
publican only since January last. He pleaded his inexpe-
rience, and declared that he believed at the time that he
was allowed to improve the colour and taste of his ale, by
the use of any ingredients not of a pernicious nature.

arriglitaildnititificthet,--WflterbtlMlVECTlTat"tliaarFOTlTe
was not subject to the same regulations as that of porter in
these respects. But they should be made to know, that
they were bound to sell any beverage pretended to be of
malt and hops only, pure as tl.ey got it from the brewers.
Penalty, 101. _ _

The Solicitor for the Excise admonished the defendant
to be more cautious for the future.

A number of publicans have, we understand, been de-
tected recently in the use of compositions of a similar nature
more or less deleterious. They are mostly the less expe_
rienced of the body, and their justification is the depraved
cockney taste which can only judge of the strength of ale by
its having an exceedingly high colour and immediately af-
fecting the head.

ARCHES' COURT.-JUNE 23.
MILLER V. DUDDY AND RUGG.

This was a suit for perturbation in a pew in the deanery
church of Hunton, in the County of Kent, during divine
service, promoted by John Miller, one of the parishioners,
against Mr. Duddy, one of the churchwardens, and John
Rugg, the bailiff on part of the Court Lodge estate, the pro-
perty of a Mr. Turner, who purchase it from Lord Spencer.
It appeareo that Rugg resided in the parish only during two
years, as the bailiff of Mr. Turner, but was not rated as a
parishioner. The family of Mr. Miller resided in the pa-
rish a length of time, and possessed freehold property in it.
Mr. Miller and his family were put in possession of the
pew allotted to him the Sunday following, and continued in
it the two succeeding Sundays, and Rugg was accommo-
dated with an adjacent pew, although no parishioner. The
third Sunday, Rugg and one of the churchwardens turned
Mr. Miller and his family out of the pew, and Rugg was
put in it, on the ground that he occcupied a pew before the
new seating on part of the site on which was erected the
pew allotted to Mr. Miller, before the vestry. For this dis-
turbance or perturbation the present suit was instituted, and
the cause now came on for hearing.
The Advocates having been heard on both sides at length,
Sir JOHN NicHou. proceeded to give judgment.—This
Court was of opinion that Mr. Miller was illegally dis-
turbed by the defendants, after being properly placed in
the pew, and the judgment of the Court was, that George
Duddy and John Rugg be monished not to disturb John
Miller in future, who is to be restored to the quiet posses-
sion of the pew which had been allotted to him in the first
instance.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, JUNE 23.
Robert Sinintonds was opposed by Mr. HEATIA, on be-
half of Messrs. Turner and Montague.
The Learned Gentleman would commence by stating
the facts of the case, which were rather singular. In
1822, the insolvent, who is a bricklayer, purchased ce-
ment and other articles of his clients to the amount of 101.
13s. 10 -d., and soon after absconded from his then resi-
dence, and could not be found until 1826, when a sum-
mary process was issued against him in the Palace Court,
which action was removed by the insolvent into the Court
of King's Bench, where he drove the plaintiffs to trial, and
the defence set up was, that he (the insolvent) was not the
party who ordered the goods, amounting, therefore, to a
plea of nil debit. It happened, however, that the insolvent
was recognised in Court by one of the clerks of the oppos-
ing creditors (the then plaintiffs), and being pointed out,
the attorney for the defence admitted that hewas his client.
The Lord Chief Justice then put the issue upon proof of
debt, when, owing to the absence of a carman, the whole
amount sued for could not be proved to have been delivered
to the insolvent; the Jury, therefore, found for the plain-
tiffs—damages 4/. Is. 6d. only, instead of 10/. 13s. 103-d.
After the issue had been tried, the insolvent moved the
Court and obtained a rule nisi, for his (Mr. Heath's)
clients to show cause why they should not pay his costs, in-
asmuch as the plaintiffs had only recovered a partial
amount, but he never appeared to support it. Hence it
was that the opposing creditors, from first to last, had
been vexatiously driven to expences to a very considerable
amount. Under these circumstances, the Learned Coun-
sel submitted that the insolvent had brought himself tvithin
the operation of that clause of the act which punished a
m.n, not for getting into debt, but for setting up a defence
which was both frivolous and vexatious.

The attorney for the opposing creditors, and other wit-
nesses, were then examined, and their testimony fully con-
ficmed the Learned Gentleman's statement.
The insolvent, who was undefended, said that he had
been at great expense in his defence.
Commissioner HARRIC—Yes, it has cost you more than
would have paid the just debt.
The COURT then examined him as to the disposal of his
property (scaffolding, &c.), when it appeared that he had
made over his effects to a man of the name of Gardner.
COMlTlibliefler HARRIS was of opinion that, inde-
pendently of the preliminary objection, there had been a
manifest making away of property he therefore remanded

the prisoner to.produce Gardner, and then coma up to re-
ceive the JudgMent of the Court.
In the matter of Thomas Mott, an insolvent. This in-
solvent was before the Court early in the last month, and
after a king examination, the Court considered that the debt
alleged to be due to Goodman (the person formerly tried
with Garlick, the postman, at the Old Bailey) was a ficti-
dots one, and therefore dismissed his petition.
Since that time the insolvent had applied to the Court
to be allowed to file a new petition, as the former opposing
creditors (Mr. Fricker and others) had lodged a detainer
against him, whereupon the Court granted a rule to show
cause, to be served upon the opposing creditors.
Mr. WOODRUFFE showed cause against the rule,• arid
contended that the Court ought not to allow the insolvent
to petition again without ordering him to pay the costs of
the oprisition to the opposing creditors, as the debt upon
which he tficti petitioned was altogether fictitious.
The insolvent obtained leave to petition the Court de
novo.
Wm. Holyoake, late of the Kent and Essex coffee-
homey Whitechapel, was opposed by Mr. POLLOCK, on
behalf Of k r. Vaux and others, executors of a defunct cre-
ditor, and 6), Mr. Nrenous, for Messrs. B. and B.
Southall.
To a question by the Court, the insolvent said that he
had lately taken a bake-Office at Hilgay, in Norfolk.
COURT.—A bake-office! What it that? Insolvent.—
A place to bake bread in—a bakehouse.—(Laughter.)
The insolvent was then remanded until he can obtain
the consent of three-fourths of his creditors, in number
and value, to his being heard upon his petition.