From the Kent Herald, 18 January 1827.

Deptford.

At the Deptford Bench of Justices on Saturday week, Thomas Hughes, a licenced retail brewer, residing at that place, appear to answer to an information, charging him with retailing beer to be consumed on the premises where sold, he not being a licensed victualler, country to the 5th Geo IV. cap. 54, sec. 8, whereby he had subjected himself to a penalty of £100. The defendant pleading Not Guilty, when George Foster Ross, and officer of excise, deposed, that on the 25th of November last, in pursuance of directions from Mr. Robinson, the supervisor, he went to defendants premises, and called for a pot of beer, and that a woman who was behind the counter served him with it, after warming it at his request, and that he remained on the defendants premises, standing near the counter, until he had drank the beer, when he paid sixpence for it and came away. This witness, after being cross-examined by defendant, stated, that there were no seats in the front of the counter, and that the distance from the counter to the door was about a yard and a half. After the above evidence had been given, the defendant stated that the woman who served the witness was his wife, and that he had no knowledge of the offence being in London on the day it's was committed, and therefore prayed for mitigation. The Magistrates, Captain Evelyn and Thomas Shipman, Esq. after conferring together, pronounced the defendant guilty, but in consideration of his undertaking to alter his premises so as to prevent any repetition of an offence, mitigated the penalty to £25. and 1s. costs, the lowest fine the law authorised them to inflict.

It was understood that the attention of the supervisor was drawn to the situation of the defendants premises for the public in the neighbourhood. Besides the above penalty, the defendant was also liable to another fine of £100, for selling the beer in question after six in the evening; but the commissioners of excise humanely directed a prosecution for one penalty only.

After the above case was disposed of, Robert sterling, a common Brewer a Deptford, pleaded Not Guilty to an information, charging him under the 1st and 2nd Geo. IV., cap. 22, sec 1., with beginning to mash a quantity of malt on the 18th of Oct. last, without having made the proper entry thereof in the book delivered unto him by the exercise officer for that purpose, whereby he had forfeited £200. A second count in that information charged him with having caused the said entry to be altered, whereby he had forfeited the further sum of £200. The officer of excise who was to prove the above charges against Mr. Sterling now stood forward, and immediately the book was given him, kissed it vehemently, before Mr. Marchant, the Magistrates Clerk, had time to administer the usual form of oath. It was soon evident that the witness was inebriated, and he appeared to have recently fallen down, as his nose was broken and bloody. The Magistrates remarks that they thought it improper to allow a person in such a condition to be sworn, and asked the supervisor if he had any other witness to support the information, who replied in the negative. The defendant here said, that he had no wish to take advantage of the state of the witness being anxious that his conduct should undergo investigation, and therefore should not object to the case standing over. The Magistrates at first entertained doubt whether they could adjourn the hearing after the defendants plea had been adjourned, but after referring to "Paley on Convictions," adjourned the case for a week, and fined the officer 5s. for being drunk, at the same time directing the Supervisor to report his conduct to the Board of Exercise. As Mr. Sterling is not charged with any fraud on the revenue, it is probable the Commissioners will direct the information against him to be withdrawn, rather than allow the drunken witness to appear again before the justices.

At the same sitting, J. Martham, a wine and brandy merchant, at Deptford, was adjudge to forfeit two gallons and three quarts of Brandy and four gallons of compounds, being in excess of his stock over the quantity for which he had credit in his excise book. The proceedings in this case were ex parte, (by or for one party) the defendant, perhaps, not thinking the quantity of liquid seized worth contending for.