The Statesman.
London, England, 1821-02-17 00:00:00

court OP

FRIDAY, Fs'. I&

M.MM..,...

TIIR 11111111 P. 1111111111 T MINT.
This-was an inforwmtion tiled by the ATTORMIT-
Oen &Las.. to recover two pigskin of 1001. each from,
the Dafendant ; the one being for making an imitation
of cadge for sale, and the other fur having sold the
preparation.
The SOLICITOR-01011114L staled the case to the
Jury. By an Act passed in the 434 year of the late
reign, for the repo** of protecting the dealers in
coffee, and the pabHe by whom it was consumed from
sparkles imitative*, it was made penal for any perm/a
to manufacture for sale, or to sell any burnt, scorched.
or roasted peas, or other grain, or vegetable substance,
for the patron of imitating coffee, or cotoa. The
dealers in coffee pay a duty on its importation, and
also pay for a license to deal in it; it was therefore
the public interest that they should be protected
against persons dealing in spurious articles, who paid
neither duty no'r license; but still more ens the publiol
interest concerned in having so great an article of
food kept free from adulteration, and solely for the*
important purposes the Act in question had been
passed. It would be proved is evidence that the
Defendant bad set np a mausfaetory, at which he
roasted large quantities of rye, sod made a ;omelet
from it, which resembled coffee, which subjected. him
under the Act to one penalty ; and it would be proved
that be *old a quantity of the article am manufactured,
which sobjeetet him to the other penalty. The article
so manufactured hail bees seised from the Defendant
and condemned, without his offering any animater,
the law being so clear that any effectual resistance
was impossible. The Learned Oentleanan thee tilled
oituesses to prove the fact.
Mr. Bud. addressed the Jury for the Defendant.
The Learned Counsel said, that hd not the Jury
heard something of this matter out of doors, they
must he surprised to hear that any man should be
brought into Court for haviiimnsade a powder not as
an imitation of coffee ; end diet so man should be
allowed to make his breakfast of any thing like coffee,
unless lie purchased that expensive article. It was
very much the saum.as if it were sought to recover •
penalty from a man who eonld not afford to drink
wine, because he presumed to regale himself with
porter. The Learned lientlemso concluded after
some further observation!, by calling the Defendant's

son.
Thomas Hunt. son to the Defendant, swore that his
father never called the breakfast powder, coffee, and
that I.e desired the witness never to call it so.
The SOLICITOR-OZ\ ZRAL spoke to the evidence.,
The Learned lientletnan toe the other Rifle bad com-
plained of the hardship of not allowing the Defendant
to continue the manufacture of his substitute for coffee,
hut it appeared from the evidence, that was not at-
tempted to be contradicted, that although the Defen-
dant had professed to set up his manufactory• on mo-
tives of patriotism and benevolence, and for the good
of the poor, that Le actually took the moderate profit
of MU per cent. as the reward of his virtues. As
to the law of the case, it was so clear, that verdicts
had Leen found on it by Car. 7, by Juries before
whom similar questions had been brought, withoat
any contrary verdict having been *nod. Gat dim
were nut to page whether the law was pod Or bad,
but art upon it as it stood. Still it was very evillest
that the law was wise and good, and that if it did nit
interfere in the first instance to prevent the manufac-
ture, the public must be imposed on, as it was in evi-
dence that the adulterations could only be discovered
by chewical process.
Baron tistenow charged the Jary, that the law in
this case vas clear; and if they believed the facts, of
which there could be no doubt, they must fad a verdict
for the Crown.
The Jury ituniedixtely found a verdict fur the Crows
on both counts.—Penalties 2001.