PETERSFIELD.
PETTY SESSIONS, TUESDAY— Present : Hon. J. J. Carnegie, Sir J. Clarke Jervoise, Bart., M.P., Sir W. W. Knighton, Bart., J. Bonham Carter, Esq., and J. Waddington, Esq.
The jury lists for the several parishes within the division were verified and passed with the exception of Privett and Sheet. In these cases, as the overseers did not appear, summonses were ordered to be issued to compel their attendance, and the cases were adjourned to Friday.
— IMPORTANT CASE TO BREWERS.— Lucas v. Crassweller, This was an information under the excise laws. Complainant is the supervisor of excise for the Petersfield district, and defendant is a brewer at Petersfield. The prosecution was conducted by Mr. Weddle, collector of H M Inland Revenue, Portsmouth; Mr. H. Ford (Portsea) appeared for defendant. The case occupied a considerable length of time, but the facts were briefly these: By the 1 and 2 George 4th, cap. 22, sec. 1, every licensed brewer is required to give to the excise 24 hours’ notice of his intention to brew on any particular day. On the 16th August last Mr. Lucas visited defendant’s brewery for the purpose of surveying it, and found about 20 bushels of malt in the process of being mashed, whereas there was no entry made by defendant of his intention to brew on that day. Complainant therefore reported the case to the Board of Inland Revenue, and received instructions to institute the present proceedings It appeared, however, from the evidence that the whole case rested entirely upon a careless blunder committed by one of defendant’s workmen, William Gammon, who has been in defendant's employ for 18 years, and has charge of the brewery, and who usually fills in the “entry papers.” Although the law only requires 24 hours’ notice to be given, Gammon has been in the habit of giving the Excise two days’ notice, and on Thursday the 14th August, he made the usual entry, intending to brew on the following Thursday, but he inadvertently inserted the “15th” instead of the ‟16th.” This fact having been clearly proved in evidence, the Chairman, after consulting with the other magistrates, stated that there must of necessity be a conviction, inasmuch as defendant had clearly omitted to do a certain act which the law imperatively required should be done. The full penalty imposed by the Act was £200, but they (the magistrates) had the power of reducing it to one fourth, and as they were quite satisfied defendant had no intention whatever to defraud the revenue, they would mitigate to the full extent of their power, namely, £50, and they would also cheerfully sign a memorial to the Board of Inland Revenue for a further reduction — Mr. Weddle said the proceedings had not been taken in a vindictive spirit but simply in discharge of a duty; he bore testimony to Mr. Crassweller’s high respectability as a tradesmen of long standing in the town, and said that if a memorial to the Board were prepared and signed, he would feel much pleasure in forwarding it with his strongest recommendation. A memorial was forthwith drawn up and signed by all the magistrates, in which it was suggested that the penalty should be reduced to £5.
— NUISANCES REMOVAL.—Mr. Durman, Inspector of nuisances, informed the magistrates that the nuisance at the George Inn, of which he complained against Mr. Henty at the last Bench, had been satisfactorily abated; but that Mr. Maxwell, whose case was also adjourned from last Bench, had not completed the removal of the nuisance on his premises in the Spain, and an order was made for its removal within seven days, under a penalty of 10s, for every day beyond that time. (See also 11-Sep-1866)