THE TIMES, Saturday, Aug. 28, 1819 / CUMBERLAND ASSIZES / CIVIL
CUMBERLAND ASSIZES.
CARLISLE, TUESDAY, AUGUST 24.
CIVIL SIDE.
DOUGLAS v. CHARLTON - WHISKEY DEBT.
MR. SCARLETT stated this to be an action on the part of the plaintiff, a licensed spirit-dealer, at Newcastleton, in Scotland, to recover upwards of 80 l. from the defendant, a farmer on the English side of the border, for goods sold and delivered.
A bill had been given in part payment, which was dishonoured; this bill would prove 30 l. of the debt, and a witness who had been in the plaintiff's shop at the time would prove the rest.
THOMAS SCOTT (the trial was postponed yesterday on account of the non-arrival of this witness, ( who now appeared in the box with a most expressive face. His eyes were reddy, swollen, and unstaid, his cheeks all oozing with fermented heat, while his manner was dogged and shy ), knew the bill, but recollected nothing more.
The rest of the debt might or it might not have been contracted. He dimly remembered that his master had to lift the bill. His Lordship, with the greatest good-nature and unsuspiciousness, supposed that the witness had been travelling all night.
MR. SCARLETT said they must, in consequence of the conduct of this witness, confine the demand to the amount of the bill.
Cross-examined by MR. COURTENAY. ... Are you a Scotchman ?
Yes.
Well, since you are from the land of learning, tell me what aqua means, for we have got such an article charged against us ?
It means whiskey.
( The Latin-taught hearers laughed aloud, and others thought it strange ).
Unexcised whiskey ?
I down know.
Mr. Justice BAYLEY. ... Why, if another word were added, it might signify brandy in this country.
MR. COURTENAY. ... O, my Lord, the word whiskey signifies in Irish, water.
MR. SCARLETT suggested to his Lordship that the witness was in town since 8 yesterday morning, drinking with the other party.
MR. COURTENAY disclaimed the imputation against MR. LAW, the defendant's attorney.
The witness could give no account of himself. Did not know when he arrived in town, and did not know whether he had seen MR. LAW or not.
MR. COURTENAY addressed the Jury. They could perceive from the questions to the witness, what the nature of his defence was to be. The sale was illegal, and the transaction dishonourable. The plaintiff was of an ancient and noble name; but he would show him to have greatly degenerated. It was not merely because the traffic was illegal that the debt was resisted, for Englishmen were distinguished for honour and fair dealing. It was a common saying in this country, that there was honour among thieves. He should prove that the plaintiff himself had acknowledged that the defendant owed him nothing, and that the defendant had suffered great losses by seizures made of the whiskey bought from the plaintiff.
Two witnesses, of the name of NOBLE, could only prove that the defendant took whiskey from the plaintiff in quantities of 10 gallons, and sold it again near Newcastle, and that two seizures made by the excise-officers amounted to a loss of 13 l. Defendant had a farm of 100 l. a-year.
ANDREW ROSS, an excise-officer at Langholm (called for the plaintiff), knew DOUGLAS to be a licensed spirit-dealer of great respectability. He always surveyed his stock of spirits. He might sell any quantity. Whiskey was from 7s 6d to 12s the gallon. Malt-whiskey was dearer than corn-whiskey. No permits were allowed by law to be given for whiskey to be carried into England. No permit was necessary for conveying whiskey to a private family in Scotland.
Here his Lordship ascertained that whiskey could not be legally carried into England, and said there was an end of the case.
MR. SCARLETT said that his Lordship would recollect that there was a class of cases which established, that a foreigner could maintain an action for payment of goods bought from him by persons who smuggled them into this country.
Mr. Justice BAYLEY said, a foreigner could maintain an action if he did not lend himself to the transaction.
MR. SCARLETT said, that his Lordship was not bound by the evidence to believe that DOUGLAS knew who CHARLTON was.
Mr. Justice BAYLEY said, he had a right to believe that DOUGLAS knew his customers.
MR. SCARLETT. ... Then I must be nonsuited - Nonsuit.
http://www.cultrans.com/the-times/1811- ... nd-assizes
Login
Register
FAQ
