Star.
London, England, 1818-06-12 00:00:00

weeks before the seizure

the drugs

himself into the cupboard in his own bed-room. They
were removed because the other room was cleared.
Being examined by the Commissioners, witness said
that there were no other drugs in the bag but those
produced, and they were sometimes used in breweries.
He had been told to destvoy the bag and drugs, and
it was his own neglect that he had not done so. He
had never used any of the drugs in his life, nor did
he know the names of them. On his oath he never
used a drag of any kind. If the drugs now pro-
duced were deuce which had been taken from his pre-
mises, they were the same as.those which came from
the fire. In the very room in which the drugs re-
mained exposed to public view in the fire-place for
two years and a half, Mr. Lawrie, an excise officer,
came to hang some bells, and might have examined
them if he had pleased.
William Taylor, formerly a collecting clerk in the
employment of the defendant, proved that he had seen
some paper parcels lying about the room in question.
The defendant was ordered to pay the fines of £2O
upon the first count, £2OO upon the third, and £2OO
upon the seventh count in the indictment.

THL RING V. RICHARD BOWMAN'.

The defendant was also a brewer, living in Wap-
ping-street, Wapping, and was charged with having
in has possession a drug which was called multum,
and a quantity of copperas.
The articles were produced by Thomas Gates, an
Bruise officer, who had, after a search, found them
on the defendant's premises.
Charles Angus, a chymist, proved that the multum
was an extract of quassia : it was both sweet and bit-
ter, and answered the purpose of both malt and hops :
it contained nothing deleterious. The copperas was
a green copperas, and was a poisonous drug, some-,
times used as a vomit: it was used in breweries to
make a good brown head to the beer. An ounce of
it Would be sufficient for a butt, such was its power-
ful effect.

Mr. Legs, on the part of the defendant, represented
that he had nine children to support, and recom-
k mended him to the mercy of the Court.
One of the Commissioners inquired what age the
children were, and gave as a reason for asking that
question, that a person who had been convicted of an
offence against the Excise Laws, had stated that he
hr.d 14 children, and in consequence received a milder
punishment: it afterwards appeared, that this was
nothiag but a fabrication, and the person being asked
how he could tell such an untruth, replied, " Why, I
had 14 children, but a providential sickness carried
them all off." Ever since that time, he had been care-
ful in believing such representations.
The defendant asserted that his children were all
alive and healthy.—The Court sentenced the defen-
dant to pay a fine of £2OO.

THE KENO V. CROWN DANB!E.

The charge against this defendant, also a brewer,
was for having in his possession 71bs. of molasses.
William Skinner, an Officer of Excise, stated, that
on the 28th of October, 1817, he went to the pre•
miser of the defendant, situated in Crosby -row,
Snow's-fields, in the parish of St. Mary Magdalen.
On his road there he saw a boy of the name of Abra-
ham Gregory, servant to the defendant, go into the
shop of Mr. Walter, a grocer in Blackman-stree., in
the Borough, and bring out a can of molasses. Wit-
ness followed him, but he contrived to get into the
Ibrew-house, and shut the door before witness came
up, owing to a halfpenny hatch which stopped him.
This he had done twice before. Witness rang the
bell, and knocked at the door, but to no purpose;
and as he was endeavouring to get over the palings,
one of the men belonging to the brew-house cried
out, 14, Take care of the dogs." Witness, however,
ultimately obtained admittance, and after some con-
tention got possessipn of the can of molasses, which
he found locked up in a cupboard.
The defendant was sentenced to pay a fine of £2O.