New Britain herald., 1916-05-30

shall or is duly bound (to) ever pray. Dated at Pennington this 11th day of May 1778.
 SAMUEL SMITH.
 On the reverse side of the petition was the following testim onial: We the subscribers, inhabitants of the society of New Britain in Farm ington would inform that the Within Samuel Smith has appeared friendly to this and the United States and we always esteemed him to be we'll af- ,fected to the laws of this state and we never knew and believe that this is the first he was ever prosecuted and believe that if the within mem- orial should be granted it would not prescribe the law, etc.
 TIMOTHY MARELS (Merrils)
 ZEBULO GOODRICH.
 BENJAMIN ADKINS,
 THOMAS STEADMAN,
 ELIJAH FRANCIS,
 J. LEE, JR.,
 ABEL CLARK
 ELIJAH HINSDALE,
 LOT STANLEY,
 MILES ANDREW,
 LEVI ANDREWS,
 RODERICK CADWELL,
 TIMOTHY STANLEY,
 STEPHEN HOTCHKIS.
 ELNATHAN SMITH,
 GILES HOOKER,
 JOHN RICHARDS,
 ELIJAH SMITH,
 LEVI TODD,
 JOSEPH SMITH
 EZRA BELONG,
 SAMLL WHALES.
 ROBERT WOODRUFF,
 JOHN CLARK,
 DAN CLARK,
 DAVID LUSK
 ELIJAH GOODRICH,
 DAVID GOODRICH.
 The price of metheglin or eggs is not stated in the law and whether the price at which either was sold was excessive or otherwise could only be determined by. a comparison of the prices for other articles The amount of the fine imposed on MT. Smith is the same as the amount which he had received for the metheg- lin from which I infer that the court considered one shilling per dozen for eggs was not excessive, while the sale of metheglin at eight shillings per gallon was unreasonable and conse- quently a violation of the law. l will remember when 1t was not uncommon to make and use metheglin but it is hardly known at the present time. I do not remem Der a single instance of it's manufacture or use within the last forty years It is a very mild and pleasant drink, composed of honey and water fermented by the addition of a little yeast. It is intoxicating only when taken in a considerable 1 r. Smith did not state more precisely the 1 date when his sale was made, or given l any statement as to the date of his 1 conviction. If the sale was made in | the latter half of August, 1777. he could not have been legally convicted. 1 as there was then no law of thy kind 1 for regulating the prices of goods. If the sale was before the repeal of the law in August, 1777, he should have been tried under the law of December 1776, which had no clause relating to forfeiture of rights. He certainly could not have been legally convicted under a law passed in IT'S for any act committed in 177. Tn those days the courts were not very strict as to legalities, if they believed that a per- son ought to be punished Mr. Smith in his petition, attempts to justify his price for metheglin by the stated price for brandy in the law of 177S, but it should be noted that he could not 1 have so justified himself by the prices stated In any former law. It should also be noted that there is no direct reference to the right to vote. either in MT. Smiths petition or in that clause of the law which relates to dis abilities A careful study of the pe- -ition shows conclusively that it was based entirely the law of ITS. It is possible that MT. Smith was tried l and convicted in 1777 and. on learn ng of the disabilities for conviction l n the new law, supposed that they were applicable to his case and so pre- pared and presented his memOriaI: l put 1t is more probable that he was lot tried until after the passage of the act of February 177S, under which he ] vas illegally convicted. A conviction lnder the law worked a forfeiture of certain rights, whether the conviction vas legal or not, Tn any event it was small crime for so great a Den ,lty and the legislature very properly granted his petition and ordered "that 1e be restored to all the liberties, priv