that he was to take the tea to him, as he did not wish to have it brought directly to his house. He was a fresh coloured countrylooking man, about 45. Could not say whether he wore a wig or not. John Bagster proved that he had been employed by Malins and Proctor for two months, to gather sloe and white-thorn leaves: when he first gathered them they were taken to Jones's house, and from thence to Malins' coffee-roasting premises, in Northumberland-alley; he received twopence per pound for gathering them: he saw the manufacturing going on, but did not know much about it: he saw the leaves on sheets of copper, in Goldstone-street. Mr. Bowling, from the Exciseoffice, proved the defendant to be an entered tea-dealer.-This was the case for the Crown. Mr. Jervis made an ingenious speech for the defendant. Verdict for the Crown for the full penalties, amounting to 840%. consequences of inattention upon the part of the public to a statute so important, ordered that the defendant should be summoned before a magistrate, upon no less than 50 informations. The fines allowed by the act in cases of conviction would amount to nearly 1,000l. The greatest interest was naturally excited, and while the case was going forward, the utmost attention was paid to every word that fell from those immediately concerned. Mr. Freshfield, of the house of Kaye, Freshfield, and Co., attended for the Bank; Mr. Andrews was engaged for the defendant. The defendant's Counsel adImitted that his client had done wrong, but said that the offence had been unintentional. Under such a representation it would, he suggested, be as well not to press the fines to their full extent, the public service being likely to be as much advanced by the exercise of the magistrates' privilege, which could diminish pounds to the smallest coin of the realm in this case. He Mr. Freshfield observed, that the object of the Bank was to show the public, that they had a security in the act of Parliament against the practice of impositions of a very serious nature. thought it due to them to state in the office the probable consequences of an implicit reliance, and he trusted that the lesson would prove of general utility. Mr. Andrews urged in the strongest manner, that the infliction of such a punishment upon the crime of inadvertence would be T be unmerciful, and strengthened his argument by saying, that the very reading of the matter on which they were to proceed would occupy two hours. His object, he said, was to save the magistrate trouble. Sir Claudius Hunter requested that his time or attention should not be considered as ill bestowed in the investigation of what he heard was a most flagrant case. He would undertake to attend to every statement that should be made with the most scrupulous care. without a meter's ticket. The rest charged him with having sold and delivered coals without a vender's ticket, countersigned by the meter. Those informations were laid without any view but the benefit of the public. The Bank had proceeded without at all considering the loss they might have sustained by the conduct of the defendant, and being well able to afford the expenses of a prosecution, were determined to maintain it in consideration of the public alone. The case was a most important Mr. Andrews said the infor- one. mations must be read. Sir C. Hunter expressed a hope that there would be no prolongation of time beyond the actual necessity of the case. Mr. Andrews suggested that a penalty might be taken on one information, and an acquittal given upon all the rest. Mr. Freshfield said it was a mistake, if want of liberality to the defendant was presumed by his Counsel. The Bank would prove that the very reverse was the case. Mr. Freshfield and Mr. Andrews then withdrew into a private room, when it was arranged that the defendant should plead guilty upon the whole 50 informations, and that he should abide the decision of the magistrate as to the fines under the lenient hand of the prosecution. Mr. Freshfield then stated that he attended the office on the behalf of the Bank of England, by whose instructions he had lodged the informations. The first accused the defendant with having sold and delivered coals The penalty, in the event of conviction, would amount to nearly 1,000l. Mr. Freshfield then stated, that it was most necessary the public should have full measure and quality in such an article as coal, and it was but justice to the coal trade to prove that the practice he had to complain of was the mere act of the defendant himself, and not common to the trade. It was not his intention to dilate on a subject so well understood. He should but mention a few things that it would be improper to omit. It was found necessary to pass an act in the 47th of the King, to protect the public against what were called in the act, "the frauds of the coal trade." He would not designate the present case by that name, but certainly the public were liable from their carelessness to impositions in the trade of the grossest kind. was regulated by the act, that coals contained in any ship should be sold at the coal-market only, and that they should be publicly exhibited, under penalty of 1007. It was required, It a that as to that the meter should, after he had measured the coals, give to the waggoner a ticket, which ticket, if signed and countersigned, would be a security to the consumer that the article purchased was that to which he was entitled. It was most important to have the quality of the coal also properly attended to, it being known that coal varied from five, six, to eight shillings per chaldron, as quality. The coal merchant would do a most serious injury to the consumer, by putting upon him coal of a quality inferior to the sum at which he had purchased. For the purpose of guarding against such an imposition, the act had directed that the ship should be furnished with a certificate of the quality, which certificate was, upon the landing of the coals, to be examined by the land coal-meter, that he might ascertain whether they were of the quality mentioned in the ticket directed to be delivered by the vender to the purchaser, and the meter was required to countersign the ticket, if he was satisfied that the coals were as described in it. Thus, by regular stages, from the working of the coal-mine up to the sale, the quality was preserved. Mr. Freshfield then stated the contents of the meter's ticket to be sent with coals to the consumer, observing, that it should be signed by one of the principal land coal-meters, and countersigned by the labouring coalmeter attending and delivering them; and that the penalty affixed in the event of not complying with this regulation was 10. It was here that the frauds contem. plated by the legislature began. The vender's ticket was presented on the delivery of the coals to the purchaser, but it was not countersigned. If the provisions of the act were complied with, it was impossible that the public could be defrauded, either as to the quantity or quality of the coals they purchased; but it was his duty to state, that in the case now before the public a meter's ticket accompanied the coals, but it was not countersigned according to the act of parliament, for it contained the name of a person not in existence. He could call a meter, the only one of the name stated in the ticket, who would prove that he had not countersigned the ticket; and there were other circumstances tending to show the grossirregularity of the proceeding. He could also prove that appli cation had been made to the person who should have countersigned, in order to induce him to do so, and that the person had refused, in consequence of not having seen the ship's certificate. In fact, he could, if it was allowed in such a state of the case, prove that the coals were deficient both in quantity and quality. Mr. Andrews suggested the needlessness of proceeding to the test, and observed, that Mr. Freshfield had no right to do so. Sir Claudius Hunter was of opinion that Mr. Freshfield was justified in stating what he had evidence to support. Mr. Freshfield said, he did not intend to go to circumstances of aggravation; he had no wish but to protect the public. The de fendant fendant had declared that his fault was negligence. If that defendant was able to prove that the coals were of the quantity and quality described in the ticket, and sold to the Bank, he should upon the part of the Bank withdraw every information, and be more happy in discharging that duty than the painful one he should probably be obliged to execute. He concluded with stating, that the Magistrate was at liberty to reduce the fine to 1s. if he pleased. The Bank would be satisfied with his decision, confident that the public service would be the first consideration with him. Mr. Andrews having intimated that the defendant would plead guilty, Mr. Freshfield abstained from calling witnesses. Mr. Andrews said he was glad of being spared the duty of detaining the Magistrates long upon this investigation. Mr. Freshfield had mentioned what, he had no doubt, was the motive of the Bank in appearing in this case, namely, for the purpose of proving the control which the statute had over merchants in this trade, and the necessity of calling the public attention to a matter which so powerfully interested them. He (Mr. Andrews) should advise his client to confess himself guilty; and he thought it his duty to add that, in his opinion, the Bank had acted with great liberality in not pressing the fines to the extent allowed by Act of Parliament. It was, however, to be considered, that the offence was not of such a nature as to authorize the infliction of such a punishment, it being the fact that the crime was one of mere omission. True it was, that if the defendant was guilty of taking advantage of the opportu nities which might have presented themselves and supplied a bad material, his offence would be of the most serious kind. If the merchant had himself attended the delivery of the coals, and acted as his own wharfinger, nothing could excuse the neglect that would subject the public to so serious a disadvantage. But the defendant was not his own wharfinger. He was a great dealer, and always intrusted his tickets to his wharfinger, or some other person under him. Sir Claudius Hunter. That surely can be no justification. Mr. Andrews admitted that it was not a justification. He confessed the penalty. But no circumstances of aggravation could be stated in such a case. It was evident that his client had an excellent character, the Bank (so respectable a body) having employed him, if there were no other reason for saying that his character was unimpeachable. It was, Mr. Andrews observed, in the power of the Magistrate to reduce the fine to the smallest possible coin, and considering all the circumstances of the case, and the promise that neither the Bank nor the Public should be subject to similar inconveniences, he trusted to the lenient decision of the Chair. Sir Claudius Hunter said, that he had a few words to say on this important case, to show that the course the Bank had taken was that which was most calculated to serve the public. The Bank had had detected a most palpable and abominable error, to say the least of it; and, if they had proceeded to prove it, perhaps something worse than error would have been found out. It was not enough to say, "I leave my business to my wharfinger, and I therefore am not responsible;" there was no excuse in submitting to the direction of another who acted wrong. Considering all the circumstances of the case, Sir Claudius Hunter thought proper to fine Mr. Johnson 10s. on each information. The whole amount. ed to 25%. |