The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1833-09-27 00:00:00

meat, that they are perfectly aware of the efforts still made by
interested persons to depreciate the PATENT BRANDY; and to
prevent the entire removal from the public mind of that inju-
rious delusion, which, however weakened, still exists in a qua-
lified degree. It is mainly with a view, therefore, to destroy
the last remnant of this prejudice, that J. 'l'. BETTS and Co.
recall the attention of all classes to the consideration of the de-
cided approval given by the faculty to their PATENT BRANDY.

EXTRACTS FROM THE TESTIMONIALS.
" Your Brandy is free from uucombined acid and astringent
matter, which exists inure 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 Forel:tin,' 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 concincieg 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
Norcal's boasted preference given to E. H. Desvignes's Brandy,
and should HE ever require a "placard" or "long WINDED
ADVERTISEMENT," the following is recommended as particu-
larly adapted to the purpose; and should his real opinion of J. T.
BETTS and Co.'s BRANDY be desired, the curious may be grati-
fied by perusing his repeated applications to become their Agent,
Sub-agent, or Traveller. His amusing Letters on the subject
lay at the Office,
66, Vine-pllce, Lord-street.
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 Taddv, Mr. Robinson, and Mr. Martin were counsel
for the Detendint.
It appeared that a Monsieur Despres 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-
, 'less, took an active part for one or two months in furthering
the interests of the concern, and negotiated with a Mr. Love-
day ft* 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. Ecidence 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 from rum to distillation from potatoes,
and afterwards to distillation from whiskey; 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 lie
had not.
The Lord Chief Justice was of opinion that there was not
sufficient evidence to support the counts on a special contract
for a share in the business ; but 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 £.OO.