65 UA-58907690-1
65
on
a
fair
business,
even
if
inclined
to
do
so,
as
the
Advertising
and
Placarding
Gin-shop-keepers,
and
Wholesale
Dealers,
by
their
wonderfully
cheap
prices
and
pompous
assertions,
are
sure
to
attract
that
description
of
persons
as
purchasers,
who
form
the
principal
means
of
enabling
them
to
adul-
terate
with
the
least
possible
risk
of
detection,
that
is
to
say,
such
as
buy
only
small
quantities
at
a
time,
and
with
whom
quality
is
quite
a
secondary
consideration,
so
long
as
the
price
is
low.
With
respect
to
the
measures
adopted
to
evade
discovery
from
the
Excise
Officers,
the
evidence
in
the
trial
alluded
to,
at
the
commencement
of
this
Treatise,*
will
best
explain
some
of
the
artifices
*
From
the
Times
Journal
of
December
1,
1826.
In
the
Court
of
Exchequer,
November
30,
1826.
The
Attorney-
General
versus
Oldfield.
The
information
consisted
of
four
counts,
the
first
for
procuring
a
permit,
under
pretence
of
transferring
a
certain
quantity
of
Wine
to
a
Mr.
Buckby
it
would
appear
by
the
evidence,
that
Mr.
Buckby
was
not
the
purchaser
of
any
such
quantity
of
Wine,
and
that
the
permit
had
not
been
returned
to
the
Excise
Office.
The
second
count
was
of
a
similar
nature
:
in
this,
the
supposed
purchaser
was
Mrs.
Oldfield,
the
mother
of
the
defendant.
The
third
count
arose
out
of
the
preceding
ones
:
it
complained
of
these
permits
not
being
returned
to
the
Excise
Office.
The
fourth
count
alleged
the
adulteration
of
certain
Wines,
the
mixing
of
Cape
with
Sherry/
and
selling
the
mixture
as
pure
Sherry.
The
first
witnesses
which
the
Attorney-General
called,
were
several
persons,
connected
with the
Excise,
who
proved
that
two
permits,
in
the
names
of
Buckby
and
Mrs.
Oldfield,
were
obtained,
and
never
returned
to
the
Excise
Office.
Mr.
Buckby,
examined
by
the
Attorney-General.
He
(Mr.
B.)