Board Of Excise, Monday, ...
The Times, 1824-07-13T00:00:00

.'cssc rmlt Ip, Wtllo keeps a glass and cinlia-warehouse in Great (QueensLtreet, Uincoln's.-ino.felds, was charged on an infornation w ith keeping a place for the umanufdlcture of glass without ita being entered, by which he w is liable to a penalty of *01. There were I several other cowuts, each clainiiig the same penalty. Alexander MfKnight, an Excise officer, deposed, that on the 31st of .January last, he, with two other officeri, went, in consequetnceof informwation he received, to a house in Chequers.square, St. Luke's, where, on searching, they fouxnd inthe cellir a furnace for maling glass, two crudIles charged withi glass, and a le-ar adjoining the fur-, once partly cltaryed with glass there were two islen and a boy there. Thiey also feund 360 glass bottles, consisting of Macassar oil and scent bottles; there were two brass *nouldsthere, in whicil tilebott!es hal been ca st. WVhile the officers were tilere the defecndant's oiYO ar- rivedt withi a bag loaded with ctillet4 ready to put into the pot. The? whole of these articles, furnace, &c. were cizedrel. James Joliffe, anothser officer, who was wilt the last witness, stated, that after leaving Cite tiers-square hewenlo the defendant's house, in coniny witi an officer iamed Robinson. They insisted oll searching the defendant's hiouse, and in various places they found 1,344 bottles of the sanme cest as those seized in ChequerA- 5q-iare, besides one momtld. They als.) fodad upwards of two tons ot cullet ; they seized the mould auid the bottles btit not the cullet. [he bottles were so manufactured that an entered house would not think it worth their while to serve them, and they were of the de- scription generally manufactured in unentered houses. The defen. dant oered the oPaicers a bribe to refraln from seizing the bottles, wvhict, lhc said, would ruin him. Charles Robinson, another officer, corroborated the above state- ;nents. The Excise entry clerk proved, that the defendanit had no entry for the manufactiure of glass in Chequers.square, or elsewhere, on the 31st of Janluary. The defendant (denied all knowledge of the house in Chequers- square. Ile said a person had bought a qtuantitv of cullet (broken glass) of him, and lhad given his son, a lad of 13 years of age, a few pence to carry it to Chequers-gquarc. He declared that was all the conneiion he had with the concern. The COURT said thev did not consider the deiendant'sconnexion with the house in tChequiers square had been sufficiently proved. MIr. Mlayo, the solicitor to the excise, read a clause ofthe 23d Geo. l1l., chap. 70, which states, that the proof of glass (whiich was seized) having paid duty should lie on ihe owiver and not on the persons seized. l'his the defendant had not comtpied with. The COURT saiti, that it had not been clearly pr2ved that the defendant was the proprietor at' the house in Chequers-sqaare theefore they couldnot convicthiminany penalty; but as he hl not proved theglass had beei duty paid, they condemned the 360 bottles and two moulds found inl 'Chequers-square, and the 1,344 bottles foundl at hi5 shop. _ BOARD OF EXCISE. MONT)AY. .ITTLY 12.