The Statesman.
London, England, 1820-07-10 00:00:00

EMAIL OF EXCifSE, Jr,.,- S.

VILE SONIIPTICAI lord or 11a1.11).—ThoWas Gray,
a baker, was charged upon itsfurtnation with havi,sg
had in hi* possession a quantity of foul salt, w iris
had been uol.su fully unshipped, and had noli all the
duty : there were several counts In the information,
charging the defendant with having incurred penal-
ties to the amount of 1901., to which he pleads d
Not (Willy.
C. 11. Lord, an u,Lr. r of Exeise, stated, that in June
he, in cunspany with a brother splicer, went to the ',hop
of the defendant, who is A respectable haker in Great
St. Andrew's-street, Holborn, and went down into the
cellar to the salt bin, Isiah they found to contain ex-
ceedingly foul salt, Whirls had been used fur curing
provisions. The salt at the top, forms firly a foot deep,
as much saturated with -animal matter, but at the
hatioin nut at, had; it was merely a mixture of foul
anti cleats. They separated Moths. , the foul salt,
att,l they also seized 2t:iitbs. whirl, was a tnivvre of
foul and genuine salt. lq the wbo)e, bad and 4904.1
mixed together, they took away -1181bs. The defend-
ant declared must solemnly that he hail bought the
salt in the r,•gular way of 3iessrs. Johnson, Turk,
and Bridges, of the Mahlon IS and he pro-
:loved some documents svliiih he said he had with the
salt seised as ountrahaud. lie contended that the
mixture appearance of the ..r itie had a; isen from the
carelessness of his men in leaving the bin open ; and
to convince the witness that it naps nut impossible, be
took two dirty sacks and, auk them oser the same
salt, anal appealed to !situ vispx, whether that slid not
look as dirty as any of thpj.wllieh they hall seised
There certainly was sousethlug spialugous in the dirty
appearatsce of the two, but the smell was evidently
Cross-examined by the defendant.—They .4i4 not
intentionally mix any of the salt; they sepainad the
strata of foul salt front the, pure by means of the
ftetid smell of the juice of meat in the former.
Thomas (later went with the last witness to tbeshop
of the defendant, who spoke very litres. otiais fano-
cence ; and having shaken some dirt over, a 'simple of
clean salt, and put it to the %tithes, and Lis hrother
officer, whether it was not like that which they had
seized ? The witness took several pieces of meat out
of the foul salt, and put it to the defendant whether
any thing of that kith' was likely to stave fallen from
potatoe sacks? The smell of the meat was quite suf-
ficient. The defendant repliel that the meat must,
have got ia from the men having eaten their victuals
over the bin in a very uncleanly manner. From mo-
tives of consideration fur Use defendant they wished
to make the seizure as 'privately as possible, lest an
alarm might be given in the neighbourhood that they
were seizing the doctor. The witness left the shop,
thinking that his brother officer was sufficient to con-
duct the seizure, and planted himself a few doors off.
Ile soon found that advantage was taken of his ab-
sence, for he detected oue of the defendant's men gild,
ing away with a sack of salt on his back, which he
had got off with under the pretence of carrying it to
the cart.
Two generals of Excise proved that the salt had
been used in curing pork.
Mr. T. Tuck, of the firm of Tuck and Co., salt-manu-
facturers, Earl-street, Blackfriars, deposed that the
salt, a sample of which he examined, was no; the same
salt to which the documents put in by the defendant
related ; part of the salt. which had been contaminated
by the admixture with the foul salt might have been
some of that bought of the firm.
The defendant, in his defence, said, that fur saute
time previous to the salt being seized he was absent in
the country from his business, and a man came intu'the
shop and offered to his wife a small quantity of salt
(2811 k.), which he said had beets spoiled in appearance
only, at a very low price. Mrs. army, being ignorant
that site wits offending against the Excise laws, bought
it, anti had it shot into the bin with the pure salt; the
defendant declared that all this was dime without his
knowledge, and that the bibs. of salt had been impro-
perly mixed by the offices with the remainder, which
was pare; and that the whole was a trap foe the pe-
nalties, into which he had fallen. He called
G. Johnson, who was servant to the defendant, and
who corroborated his statement as to the 2811 m. of
I brine. 'I be othreri, be said, mixed the salt annp-
cessarily.
On his cross-examination, be admitted that salt, of

such a description, was unwholesome and unfit to be
used in staking bread, fur which purpose only the
purest salt ought to be wird.
'I he Coeur ordered the whole of the salt stio be
brought before them. Tbt Parks were mat open and
examine:l try 31r. Tuck, who I Mimed the greater patt
of it to consist of foul provision salt, mark as Led blres
tried in curing pork, &c. The remainder was an ad,
tuktetre of fuel and pure salt. He did not It
possiSle that so large a quastity could be op busselly
itisitregnasod by 2Slbs. of foul salt. . •
The Unaril, jutLitaent, ot serve.;.thut it
h.,.1 I,.rn I,lvg 41Ilee Joel .e ,t that any miEttre, hot-