The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1833-09-24 00:00:00

EXTRACTS FROM THE TESTIMONIALS.

" Your Brand}, is free from uncombined acid and astringent
matter, which exists more or less in most of the Brandies im-
ported from France.
" JOHN THOMAS COOPER,
" To Mr. Betts." Lecturer on Chemistry."

" I am bound to say, and do assert it with confidence; that
for purity of spirit this cannot be surpassed, and that your Pa-
tent Brandy is also quite free from those acids which, though
minute in quantity, always contaminate the foreign spirit.
" JOSEPH HUME,

"J. T. Betts, Esq." Chemist to his Majesty."
" I do not hesitate to express my conviction that your Patent
Brandy is fully as free from every thing injurious to health
and contains as pure a spirit, as the best varieties of foreign
Brandy. EDWARD TURNER,
Professor of Chemistry in the University of London."
" John T. Betts, Esq."
J. T. Betts and Co. and their Agents continuing to receive
the most flattering testimonials from Medical Gentlemen of the
first Eminence, contained in notes of recommendation given to
their Patients and directed to J.T.B. and Co., or their Agents,
earnestly requesting they will supply "Betts's Patent Brandy as
more wholesome than the Foreign," respectfully invite to the test.
such of the Profession as have hitherto neglected this important
investigation.
In conclusion, though it has been deemed expedient to caution
the Public against the many spurious imitations which abound
both in town and country, and though the names of J. T. Betts
and Co.'s Distillery, and the designation of their Brandy have
been pirated to impose upon the credulous, the result has even-
tually been so favourable to the interests of the genuine Esta-
blishment, by cony inciu g the wavering, that such delusive pre-
tenders are destitute of merit and strangers to uniformity in
quality even below mediocrity,—that all who are in any degree
inclined to accredit their specious professions, are urged to make
early trial, J. T. B. and Co. feeling► confident the disappoint-
ment attending the experiment will (as it has always done) re-
store their connexion to future and undivided confidence.

_._The following extract may serve as a full answer to James
N ort: al' s boasted preference given to E. H. Descignes's Brandy,
and should HE ever require a "placard" or "long WINDED
ADVERTISEMENT," the following is recommended as particu-
larly adapted to the purpose :
From the Times of Friday, 21st June, 1833.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, THURSDAY JUNE 20.
(Before a common jury.)
DESANGES V. DESVIGNES. . -

This was an action for a Breach of Contract, and also for
Work and labour.
Mr. Serjeant Wilde conducted the Plaintiff's case; Mr.
Serjeant Toddy, Mr. Robinson, and Mr. Martin were counsel
for the Defendant.
It appeared that a Monsieur Desprhs having set up a Brandy
Distillery in the neighbourhood of Golden-square, which he
carried on in partnership- with the defendant, the plaintiff, who
had previously been a diamond merchant, in consideration of
a promise from Mr. Desvignes to obtain a share in the busi-
ness, took an active part for one or two months in furthcring
the interests of the concern, and negotiated with a Mr. Love-
day for the purchase of certain premises, in whiCh the business
has ever since been carried on. No specific contract, however,
was made with him as to the share he was to have in the con-
cern; but the defendant subsequently promised to compensate
him for his services.
.Veidetzce was adduced on the part of the
defendant, to show that the speculation had turned out an un-
profitable one, notwithstanding a change of experiment had been
tried,
,first from distillation front rum to distillation from potatoes,
and afterwards to distillation from whiske!! ; and that, therefore,
the plaintiff had lost nothing by not having. had a share in it,
even if he had contracted for one, ' which it was contended he
had not.
The Lord Chief Justice was of opinion that there was not
sufficient evidence to support the count* on a special contract
for a share in the business; hut that the, plaintiff was entitled
to recover, on the common count for work and labour, some
'remuneration for the services he had rendered to the defendant.
The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages £lOO.