Star.
London, England, 1811-02-22 00:00:00

arrived in the hence at the same moment with the
rrosecutor, and that, on the prosecutor's presenting
the gun against Philips, he then, to save himself,
knocked Em down.
Several other witnesses were examined, who in part
' corro'oorated the story of the prosecutor, particularly
:is to marks of violence appearing on his own person,
and on the doors of his garden and dwelling-house.
A person of the name of Richards, who was the
Parish Officer; proved that he had been called into
the house by the Sheriff's Officers to keep the peace
for them ; that he did not observe any outrage or
rudeness on the part of the Sheriff's Officers, but that
the contrary was the fact—Copland was rather vio-1
lent, and was using the Officers ill. Copland, too
when he (the officer) was thus called in by the She.
riffs Officers, did not point out to him any marks of
breaking into his house or gardens.
Mrs. Copland proved that her husband was in a
very exhausted state when she, alarmed by his cries.
of murder, came down stair., and found him lying
on his back, and two of the Officers beating him.—
One of them attempted to strike her, but the stroke
was prevented by Siddons, one of the followers, hold-
ing out his arm to prevent it. There were several
towels covered with her husband's blood, from his
eye, the sight of which she was, at one time, convin-
ced he must have lost. She now knew Feathers, who,
on the day on which the execution was followed up,
came into the house of the prosecutor, and demanded
the keys of the back parlour, which being refused,
he broke it open with his foot, saying that he had a
key at the bottom of his boot.
Mr. GARROW, for the Defend ints, undertook to
give a complete answer to the case on the part of the
prosecution ; but his proof not answering to his in-
structions, except in so far as Mr. Draper was con-
cerned, he was obliged to abandon the defence as to
all the Defendants except him.
Mr. TOPPING said, as against Mr. Draper he had
not meant to press for a verdict. He was glad that he,
as a professional man, had not been guilty of any such
proceeding as that now charged ; and, as he was a
professional man, he thought it but justice to him to
say so.
Lord Elam:snot:Gm said, as the evidence stood,
there could be no doubt as to the guilt of four of the '
Defendants, Withers, Phillips, Siddons, and Duke.
Of the remaining two, Feathers was proved to have
taken a part in the trespass at eleven o'clock, in the
day, by breaking .open a back parlour door; he must
therefore be esteemed as privy to the original trespass.
As to Draper, he was never seen to have been present;
and even if he had been the person seen to drop from
the pigeon-house, such would not have been enough
to implicate him.
The Jury immediately found Mr. Draper, Not
Guilty ; and the ether five Defendants, Guilty.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, FEBRUARY 19.
STALE BILER.THIS KING B. BARCLAY.

The Sommott-Gensaat. stated that this was an
information against Barclay and Perkins, for receiving
into their possession a quantity of Stale Beer, contrary
to the provisions of the Act of Parliament. It had been
the custom among some brewers to mix stale beer with
the new, in order to give it the taste, colour, and fla-
vour of old beer—aad the Legislature, wi:h a view to
preserve this article of general consumption in as pure
a state as possible, had imposed a penalty upun the
brewer for having stale beer in his possession. He
disclaimed any idea of imputing to the defendants any
intention of adulterating their beer, or acting impro-
perly in any way. But as this beer had, in fact, been
found upon their premises, it was absolutely necessary
to enforce the law ; for if they were to be passed over,,
others might be encouraged to mix their porter with
their stale beer, or some caber noxious ingredient.
The man who drove the cart with the beer in ques-
tion, and the Excise Officer that discovered it, were
called and proved, that the beer bad been 'taken to
Messrs. Barclay and Perkins's premises, and that it
was stale. _ _ _ .

Mr. Serjeant VAUSHAN for the defendant, cross-
examined the carman, from whose testimony it ap-
peared, that he had driven the beer from the manu-
factory of Mr. Matthew, at Clerkenwell, this man
then having a patent for preserving yeast. In order
to get the yeast in sufficient quantity, Mr. M. had,
agreed a ith six of the most eminent brewers, to send
him the yeast in its fresh state. The whole was pal
into a vat, and in short, by pressure, the solid sub-
stance was separated from the fluid, and a cake of
yeast was formed, which preserved all its properties,
however long it might be kept. It had been the re-
gular practice to take back the beer thus separated
while still fresh—though in the case in question, it
had by some accident been suffered to remain till it
became stale..
The Learned Serjeant, after stating that no imputa-
tion had been, from any quarter, cast upon the inten-
tions of the defendants, maintained that the present
case did net at all tome within the Act of Parliament.
That Act had passed to destroy the practices of cer-
tain persons called Beer Doctors, who, by liquids ex. I
[ratted from poisonous plants, such as coculus indicus
—deadly night shade, &c. gave a ire colour and a
good taste to beer. Nothing like this had ever been
imputed to the defendants, and indeed it would have
been the greatest absurdity in the world, in.persons of
their extensive trade, to have recourse to such prac-
tices. The beer in question was all from malt and
hops, like the rest of their beer—and as to its being
stale, brewers must mix the old and new at times, in
order to gratify the taste of their customers. The Act
permitted brewers to take back stale beer if disliked by
their customers—and why not receive it from this
manufactory ?
The*LORII CHIEF BARON stated that there were two
distinct penalties in the Act—one, for having in pos-
session the noxious ingredients mentioned by the
Learned Serjeant, and another for receiving and keep-
ing stale beer. He was sore no improper use was ever
intended to be made of the beer in question ; and even
though coculus indicus, or any other noxious ingre-
dient, had been found on the premises of Barclay and
Perkins, he would have drank their beer without any
scruple, because he might be certain that no improper
use was to be made of them, since, to persons who
stood in their eminence, their charactee was of much
more importance than any paltry advantage from this,
nractice. But the act, in his opinion, had been vio-.
idted. It permitted brewers to take back stale beer
which ciid not please their customers—a proof that
they were not permitted to take it back under any
other circumstances. The Legislature had no such