The Northern Daily Times. — 1856-03-13 (Liverpool, Merseyside, England)

CASE.—James Weber, the a Eagle Hotel, Lime-street, w.ls summoned at tho insta  owner of  of the excise, under the tollowhig circumstances. Mr. Broo appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. Bluck for the detendan who did not appear personally. Mr. Cully, an excise officer, proved that five apartments in the defendant's house had been entered for the sale of beer and tobacco, and nothing else. Mr. D. B. Hill, an officer of excise, stated that on the night of the 24th of January, about nine o'clock, he went to defendant's house; he called for and was supplied with beer, and paid for it ; he also obtained a glass of whiskey from the barman, and paid for it; he got sherry from the defendant himself, and paid 6d. for it. All the liquors were served lin at once, and there was no time to have sent out for any. Ho saw eight persons drinking in the house, and wino and spirits were supplied to them. He told Mr. Weber who he was, and that he must ' search the house. He did search, and in the cellar found champagne, port, sherry, whiskey, brandy, and gin, all of which he seized. The defendant was present, and he asked the witness not to say anything of the affair, and he would make him an handsome present, and be gave him an 1.0. U. for £2O, but afterwards he wanted it back, saying he would make it more. The witness, however, refused to give it back. In reply to Mr. Bluck, the witness said : I do not know if the defendant be a foreigner or not ; he looks like an Englishman. Mr. Geo. Barker, supervisor of excise, stated that after the transaction took place, be went to the house of the defendant, who said to the witness, it was a bad job and would rain him. Mr. Block said he did not know the defendant, but a brother attorney had sent a brief and instructions to him in the case, with a request that he would attend to it. The defendant, he understood, was a foreigner, and was under a great error when he did what was described by the officer, whose evidence he could not for a moment dispute. Had he (Mr. Block) been instructed in the case before, he would have advised the defendant to plead guilty some days ago, and memorialise the board in London for a mitigation of penalty, as he acted in ignorance of the law. Tho fact was, the defendant had been sold up since, and if the case against him was now pressed by the Excise, it would come to this: the Crown would get nothing, whilst the unfortunate man would bo obliged to suffer imprisonment. He thought the better plan would be to let a warrant issue, but let it hang over the defendant's head until a communication could be made with the Board in London. Mr. Brook said it had ,been remarked in the defence, that the defendant had been sold np. Now, the fact was he had sold up himself, and put the money in his pocket. Mr. Block said that was not exactly the fact. The landlord had comp in for £9O rent, and other creditors for £220, and all that was left to the defendant was £2O. He (Ur. Bluck) was, however, directed to say that, if the Crown consented to a mitigated penalty of £25, it would be paid. After some conversation between the learned gentlemen at both sides, it was agreed to take a penalty of £l2 lOs in each case, making, in the whole, £37 103, and Mr. Bluck said the amount would be paid.  For some days past there has been a rumour prevalent at the naval and military clubs that Sir Edmund Lyons is to be raised to the peerage. THE MURDER OF Miss