The fraud of counterfeiting ground coffee by means of pigeon's beans and pease, is another subject which, not long ago, arrested the attention of the public: and from the numerous convictions of grocers prosecuted for the offence, it is evident that this practice has been carried on for a long time, and to a considerable extent.

The following statement exhibits some of the prosecutions, instituted by the Solicitor of the Excise, against persons convicted of the fraud of manufacturing spurious, and adulterating genuine coffee.

Alexander Brady, a grocer, (See p. 182) prosecuted and convicted of selling sham-coffee, said, "I have sold it for twenty years." Some of the persons prosecuted by the Solicitor of the Excise for this fraud, we might, at first sight, be inclined to believe, were inconscious that the adulterating of genuine coffee with spurious substances was illegal; but this ignorance affords no excuse, as the Act of the 43 Geo. III. cap. 129, explicitly states: "If after the first day of September, 1803, any burnt, scorched, or roasted pease, beans, or other grain, or vegetable substance or substances prepared or manufactured for the purpose of being in imitation of or in any respect to resemble coffee or cocoa, or to serve as a substitute for coffee or cocoa, or alleged or pretended by the possessor or vender thereof so to be, shall be made, or kept for sale, or shall be offered or exposed to sale, or shall be found in the custody or possession of any dealer or dealers in or seller or sellers of coffee, or if any burnt, scorched, or roasted pease, beans, or other grain, or vegetable substance or substances not being coffee, shall be called by the preparer, manufacturer, possessor, or vender thereof, by the name of English or British coffee, or any other name of coffee, or by the name of American cocoa, or English or British cocoa, or any other name of cocoa, the same respectively shall be forfeited, together with the packages containing the same, and shall and may be seized by any officer or officers of Excise; and the person or persons preparing, manufacturing, or selling the same, or having the same in his, her, or their custody or possession, or the dealer or dealers in or seller or sellers of coffee or cocoa, in whose custody the same shall be found, shall forfeit and lose the sum of one hundred pounds."

The Attorney-General against William Malins.—This was an information filed by the Attorney-General against the defendant, charging him, he being a dealer in coffee, with having in his possession a large quantity of imitation coffee, made from scorched pease and beans, resembling coffee, and intended to be sold as such, contrary to the statute of the 43d of the King, whereby he became liable to pay a fine of 100l.

J. Lawes deposed that he had lived servant with the defendant; he constantly roasted pease and beans, and ground them into powder. When so ground, the powder very much resembled coffee. Sometimes the sweepings of the coffee were thrown in among the pease and beans. Witness carried out this powder to several grocers in different parts of the town.

Thomas Jones lived with the defendant. His occupation was roasting and grinding pease and beans. They looked, when ground, the same as coffee. Witness had seen Mr. John Malins sweep up the refuse coffee, and mix it with the pease and beans. He had taken out this mixture to grocers.

J. Richardson, an excise-officer, deposed, that, in December 1817, he went to the premises of the defendant, and there seized four sacks, five tubs, and nine pounds in paper, of a powder made to resemble coffee. The quantity ground was 1,567 pounds; it had all the appearance of coffee; and a little coffee being mixed with it, any common person might be deceived. He also seized two sacks, containing 279 pounds of whole pease and beans roasted. Among the latter were some grains of coffee. The witness here produced samples of the articles seized.

John Lawes deposed, that the articles exhibited were such as he was in the habit of manufacturing while in Mr. Malins' employment.

The jury found a verdict for the Crown.—Penalty 100l.

The King against Chaloner.—Mr. Chaloner, a dealer in tea and coffee, was charged on the oaths of Charles Henry Lord and John Pearson, both Excise officers, with having in his possession, on the 17th of March, nine pounds of spurious coffee, consisting of burnt pease, beans, and gravel or sand, and a portion of coffee, and with selling some of the same; also with having in his possession seventeen pounds of vegetable powder, and an article imitating coffee, which contained not a particle of genuine coffee.

The defendant was convicted in the penalty of 90l.

The King against Peether.—This was an information against Mr. Thomas Peether, tea and coffee dealer, charging him with having in his possession a quantity of imitation coffee (or vegetable powder) on the 25th of April last.

The case being proved by the evidence of several witnesses, the defendant was convicted in the penalty of 50l.

The King against Topping.—This was an information against Mr. John Lewis Topping, a dealer in tea and coffee, charging him with having thirty-seven pounds of vegetable powder in his possession. The article seized was produced to the commissioners of the Excise.

The defendant was convicted in the penalty of 50l.

The King against Samuel Hallett.—The defendant, Hallett, a grocer and dealer in tea and coffee, was charged with having seven pounds of imitation coffee in his possession.

Charles Henry Lord, an officer of the Excise, being sworn, stated, that he and Spencer, an officer, went, on the 28th of February last, to the shop of the defendant, and asked for an ounce of coffee, at three halfpence per ounce. He received the same, and having paid for it, left the shop. He examined the article, and found it was part coffee, and part imitation coffee, or what the defendant called vegetable powder, which is nothing more nor less than burnt pease and beans ground in a mill.

Spencer, the officer of the Excise, corroborated the above evidence, and stated, that the sham-coffee seized at the defendant's house was shown to Mr. Joseph Hubbard, grocer, and tea and coffee dealer, in High-street, in the Borough of Southwark.

Mr. Hubbard being sworn, stated, that he had examined the sham-coffee seized by the officers in the defendant's shop. The one ounce purchased by Lord, he knew to be nothing else than black pigeon's beans; there was no coffee amongst it.

The defendant was convicted in the penalty of 50l.

The King against Fox.—Mr. Edward Fox, grocer, and dealer in tea and coffee, was charged with having a large quantity of sham-coffee in his possession, and with selling the same for genuine coffee.

Henry Spencer, an officer of the Excise, stated, that on the 21st of February he and Lord, another officer, went to the defendant's shop and purchased an ounce of coffee, for which he paid three halfpence. They examined it, and he was satisfied it was not genuine coffee; they purchased another ounce (which he produced to the commissioners of the Excise, who examined it); they were convinced it consisted partly of coffee and beans and pease.

The defendant, in his defence said, that the poor people wanted a low-price article; and by mixing the vegetable powder and coffee together, he was able to sell it at three halfpence an ounce; he had sold it for years; he did it as a matter of accommodation to the poor, who could not give a higher price; he did not sell it for genuine coffee.

Commissioner.—"Then you have been defrauding the public for many years, and injuring the revenue by your illicit practices: the poor have an equal right to be supplied with as genuine an article as the rich."

He was convicted in the penalty of 50l.

The King against Brady.—The defendant, Mr. Alexander Brady, grocer, and dealer in tea and coffee, was charged with having, on the 28th of February last, in his possession eighteen pounds of sham-coffee, and selling the same for genuine coffee.

Lord and Pearson, Excise officers, stated, that they purchased an ounce of coffee of the defendant, on the 28th of February, and upon examining it they discovered that it was made up of pease and beans, ground with a small quantity of coffee. They also found eighteen pounds of vegetable powder mixed with coffee, in a state prepared for sale, wrapped in papers.

One of the commissioners tasted some of the eighteen pounds of sham-coffee produced by the officers, and declared that it was a most infamous stuff, and unfit for human food.

Defendant.—"Why, I have sold it for twenty years."

Commissioner.—"Then you have been for twenty years acting most dishonestly, defrauding the revenue; and the health of the poor must have suffered very much by taking such an unwholesome article. Your having dealt in this article so long aggravates your case; you have for twenty years been selling burnt beans and pease for genuine coffee.—You are convicted in the penalty of 50l."

The King against Bowser.—The excise officers stated, that on the 28th of February they went to his shop: he was a grocer, dealer in tea and coffee; they seized seven pounds and a half of vegetable powder, which contained very little coffee, if any; and also a quarter of a pound of coffee mixed with vegetable powder.

The defendant pleaded guilty to the charge, and prayed the court to mitigate the penalty. He was convicted in the penalty of 50l.

The King against Thomas Owen.—The defendant, an extensive dealer in tea and coffee, appeared to an information charging him with having in his possession, and selling, a quantity of deleterious ingredients, and mixing them with coffee.

Charles Henry Lord deposed, that on the 26th of February, he found, at the shop of the defendant, nineteen pounds of a composition consisting of beans and pease ground, and prepared so as to imitate coffee. He also discovered two pounds and a half of a mixture of coffee and vegetable powder. On the same day he proceeded to another shop of the defendant, and he there found five pounds more of the same stuff.

Samples of the composition, in its mixed and unmixed state, were produced.

Mr. Lawes addressed the commissioners on behalf of the defendant, in mitigation of punishment; for he did not mean to deny the offence. His client was a very young man, and had been most unfortunate in business. He was not aware until lately of the existence of any law by which it could be punished.

The Commissioners observed, that they had a double duty to perform, namely, to protect the revenue from fraud, and to prevent the public from being imposed upon and injured by ingredients served to them instead of the food they intended to purchase. The fraud upon the revenue was, in the estimation of the court, the least part of the offence. Under all the circumstances, however, the court was inclined to be lenient to the defendant.

He was convicted in the penalty of 50l. for each quantity of sham-coffee.

Mr. Greely and Mr. William Dando were fined 20l. each; and Mr. Hirling and Mr. Terry were fined 90l. each for selling spurious coffee.

The adulteration of ground coffee, with pease and beans, is beyond the reach of chemical analysis; but it may, perhaps, not be amiss on this occasion to give to our readers a piece of advice given by a retired grocer to a friend, at no distant period:—"Never, my good fellow," he said, "purchase from a grocer any thing which passes through his mill. You know not what you get instead of the article you expect to receive—coffee, pepper, and all-spice, are all mixed with substances which detract from their own natural qualities."—Persons keeping mills of their own can at all times prevent these impositions.