The Statesman.
London, England, 1820-07-03 00:00:00

777 E EDI7'OR O TAE ST.ITESMAN.
Sit—ln the report of the King's Levee, dated the
7tie ult., it is stated, that an Address of Cundolene
and I *lttig r: abti ‘tt teas prciwn:ed to leis 31ajesty from
the °rani:eines of Ireland: I am therefore anxious to
inqulr,•, through the needinen of your excellent Paper,
at what !period these °ranee gentry. olio some Y' a"
ax.o wt•re the terror of many parts of Ireland, were cuu-
stitutrd le;.ral association, which I apprehend they
un•ztit to be, hr order to entitle them to approach the
Throne nide au Address.
It is highly probable, that a cons'ederable portion of
guar Readers may be unacquainted with the acts
cote iiii jilted by the thraosae faction in the sister island :
such :.a wish for information on that head, I beg to
refer them to a narrative commenced in TM' lArerpoot
• Mere, t.tt the 20th of An4ast, and confltided on the
13th of (October bat, the authenticity of whirl, is said ,
to I,e ieneptestionable, and Cie mere perusal sufficient
to make hunusuity shudder.
I am, Sir, your humble servant,
July 1, IS:M.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

I.JURT OF KING'S BENCH. WI

JULY 1.

TUE KING V. THE lENANITENTE OP SENT.

This wari ;in indictment against the county of Kent,
for not repairing a public bridge in the neighbourhood
of Deptford. A mss•' of evidence was called on the
part of the prosecution, to shew the liability of the
a•ountt : and an equal number of witnesses were ex-
amined to show that the county were exempt from the
rt hen,

'1 he Jury. however, after a long inquiry, found tie
defendants guilty.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER. SAITIIDAV. Jtw I.

RADIC.‘I, CoFFFE.
Tlit ATTORPtit•ollif KRAL ". WILLI.A.9I G. LEirts.

This was an information Wed by the Attorney-I:e-
-re:al against the defendant, fur having in his poetics-
si.n. and offering for sale. a quautity of scorched reos
in imitation of, and to bit used as a sultstituie fur collie
tv cocoa. 'there were Its counts in the infiinstatina,
alleg:ng the oflence differently : and the penalty sintriit
to be recovered was NO'.
The SoLILITOR-CFNFRAL stated the facts of the Case'
to the Jury. The infoimation was filed under the
irctivii of the 41st of by whiell it was enact-

v that if any scorched or roasted pear, or tither
Jill. nrerred or manufactured in imitation of, or.:o
.r,s qui:iv, coffee or cocoa, or to serve as a IlllttSti-
t-7te for coffee or cocoa, should be made or kept for
ssl-.. or should he exposed for sale, or found in the
cao.otly.or posses,ion of any dealer or dealers in coffee
r cocoa, any person or persons so manufacturing such
comni.miity, hating the same in their possession. or
ex?teliug for sale or selling the sonic, bream- liahle to
pay to the King a penalty of one hundred pounds.--
ff r policy of this enactment. the Learned Counsel
was must nc.niftn. as it was calculated not alone
t: protect the resenne from fraud, by preventing the
s,:lotitution of an inferior article for one which was
jtaYe to pay an excise duty to the crown; but also to
gnard the public against the impositions of persons
M•' o, by the exercise of their ingenuity, were in the
habit of adulterating genuine articles of foreign growth
with compositions 'of a different description, not Ull-
frequrntly of a deleterious quality, and at all times of
iatio:tely less a slue. The defendant was a person of
natne of William tit-I...ahead Lewis, and, at the
time of committing the oireme imputed to him, was
the editor and proprietor of a newliaper called The
ifcsovier, published at Coventry. lu this newspaper
Le thought proper to publish an advertisement to the
following e.'ect Ku, iseahle articles. An excel-
lent substitute for taxed Care may be made by roast-
ing white peas. and afternards grinding them in a cof-
f-e-ntill. A small quantity of mustard added to the
groin will tend to improve the flavour. This substi- I
We will b.- found in every respe. t as good as real
1.4:1 te." The advertisement concluded with au inti-
mation that the editor was io-eptring a quantity of this I
i.enstoorlity for the public benefit, and that it would
b. on sa'e at his house, at a price nut cxeeeding Is.
per lb. This advertisement was published at the lat-
te: try! of S..pt., and at th- beginning of the ensuing
tuonth a person employed by the officers of excise pur-
r:Josed at the defendant's house a small quantity of the
on which he had announced as " a substitute
t.lr entree." This sale he (the Solicitor-Oeneral) lob-
toit•ed ma; an infringement of the Act to which he bad
referred ; awl if the Jury were satisfied of that fact,
they would find a verdict fur the Crown.
1 he evidence for the Crown being closed.
Mr. Lewis addressed the Jury iu Ids own behalf.
To sly that it was an offence to sell a substitute for an
rK;.i 44• Able commodity was absurd, The decoction of
-..1,..1nfras was commonly sold as a substitute fur tea, and
et this was not objected to by the Excise. Herbs
wet,: sold as a substitute for tertniceo, and the samids.ses.

mark w:♦ applicable. Hr had sold (curdled ru-
not, he 'legged it to be understood, is coffee, hut as a
,utritiotee for coffee. In what did the difference of
arn CC/111141r ? There was no difference recogni-
:Able by any rational mind : and he ventured to believe
tbit the twelve intelligent men to whom be add►essed
l.uu.alf would come to the same conclusion.

The Sol4ol' o,t-OEN KRAL basing replied,
Mr. Baron Hums/ins, in sot iiiii ing up the evidence,
gave it as his opinion, that by the section of the Act
under te..ich this infortnation had been tiled, any per-
-414m, wheher dealers in coffee and cocoa or not, having
in their i.ussessinu, or selling, or offrring for sale, a
powder in imitation of, or to be used as a substitute for
coffee, wlustaver might be the name by which it was de-

%esibed, rendered. themselves liable to an information
by the Attornereral, and *to the payment of the
penalty fixed byte
The Jury, after his lordship had stated the law of
the ease, and recepitilited the evidence, foetid a der-,
diet for the Crown for one penalty of 100/.
, • -,--opo--
tiECONDAILitry OFFICE, CoLaray-Seitsi.
P -
I:a.~KI~ITa r. SYMONDS.
This was a writ of inquiry to assess damages in a
csie where judgenent•had Won suffered to go by de-
fault. Mr. WatJ,4lo,"aaniftteted theprosecotion.
4, savored• that sir defendaut, who is .a Jew iner.i
chime* a- Mos* irantnaly charged the plaintiff, who I