metropolis, prepared for the purposes of deception in the most noxious manner. He could not be accused of a desire to inflame the minds of the jury by exciting their private feelings, because no end could be gained by such an attempt. He went for positive penalties, and the verdict could be given only according to the limits of legal enactment. He trusted he should be enabled to trace to the possession of the defendant 80 lbs. weight of the commodity he had been describing; and if so, he should entitle the crown to penalties amounting in the whole to 840l., a sum by no means large, when compared with the enormity of the offence.

Thomas Jones deposed, that he knew a person of the name of Proctor, and was employed by him at the latter end of April, 1817, to gather a quantity of black and white thorn leaves. Sloe leaves were the black thorn. He also knew a person of the name of John Malins; he was the son of William Malins, a coffee-roaster, in Northumberland-alley. He did not at first know the purpose for which the leaves were gathered, but afterwards learnt they were to make imitation tea. Witness did not himself gather more than hundred and a half of these leaves; but he employed another person, of the name of John Bagster, to gather them. After the leaves were gathered, they were first taken to his house, and afterwards to Mr. J. Malins', in Goldstone-street. He was to have 2d. per pound for gathering them. In Goldstone-street they were manufactured. They were

a

first boiled, and then the water was squeezed from them in a press. They were afterwards placed over a slow fire upon sheets of copper to dry; while on the copper they were rubbed with the hand to curl them. At the time of boiling there was a little verdigrise put into the water (this applied to green tea only). After the leaves were dried, they were sifted; this was to separate the thorns and stalks from them. After they were sifted, more verdigrise and some Dutch pink powder were added; this made them resemble green tea, and the work was finished. The Dutch pink was a hard substance, and was scraped with a knife; he did not know its component parts. It was shook up with the tea; and, together with the verdigrise, gave the leaves that yellowish green bloom observable genuine tea. They had no particular name for this process, except giving the bloom. The black tea went through a similar course as the green, except the application of Dutch pink; a little verdigrise was put in in the boiling, and to this was added a small quantity of logwood to dye it, and thus the manufacture was complete. The drying operation took place on sheets of iron. Knew the defendant, Edward Palmer, who kept a grocer's shop in Red Lion-street, Whitechapel. He took some of the mixture he had been describing to his shop. The first time he took any was in May, 1817. In the course of that month, or the beginning of June, he took four or five 7-pound parcels. He did not see Mr. Palmer, at the time he took the

on

parcels,

He

parcels, to his recollection. saw him at other times. He was not paid for the mixture on delivery. He received some halfpence at the defendant's shop, for which he had been sent by John Malins. It was not said what this money was for. Did not believe the defendant gave him the halfpence: to the best of his recollection it was a young man in the shop. John Malins sent witness to the defendant for some paper bags, and other paper and string. He then saw him, and received from him the bags and paper. These bags and paper were to put up the imitation tea. He afterwards delivered these bags, filled with the imitation tea, at the defendant's shop. Remembers subsequently taking a quantity of the imitation tea to Mr. Malins', in Russell-street. It was sold to grocers at the west end of the town. When he took it there, it was taken up to the top of the house. Of this first quantity he took none to the defendant. He afterwards carried some more to Russell-street, which was also taken to the top of the house, about one hundred weight and three quarters; from this quantity he carried 53 lb. weight to the house of the defendant's porter, by the desire of Mr. Malins, as the defendant did not wish it to come to his house; it was in paper parcels at 7 lb each.

Cross-examined. He was first employed by Proctor at the latter end of April, 1817; the leaves were then coming out; he was ordered to get as many leaves as he could, and employed Bagster to assist him. Was not told what

the leaves were for till a month after; Proctor told him in the month of June. He was shown the way to make the fabricated tea by Mr. John Malins and Mr. Proctor, and was ordered to assist in the manufacture. Was engaged in this way two months or ten weeks. They made a great many pounds in May. It was common for grocers to sell bags and paper; witness was not told by Mr. Malins what the bags were for, which he got from the defendant. He had no conversation with him on the subject. He could not say how many bags he got: there might be 50. It was in May he took the parcels of tea to the defendant's house; part before and part after he got the bags.

On being re-examined to this point, he said it must have been after he got the bags that he took the parcels; it was a mistake when he said part before and part after. When he carried the parcels, he saw a young man in the shop. Did not know his name. He might be about twenty He was middleof age. years sized, about five feet high. He saw Mr. Palmer afterwards in Northumberland-alley. He did not then tell him he had taken the parcels of imitation tea to his house, or have any conversation with him. It was in August or the latter end of July he took the 56 lb. to the person whom he described as the defendant's porter. He had said that he was not paid for the teaby Mr. Palmer. Thought the halfpence was part payment, but was not certain. The porter lived in Boundarycourt. James Malins told him he was Mr. Palmer's porter, and

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%.

The Bank of England v. John Johnson, Coal-Merchant. — This case, which had been from day to day promised to the public, came on before Sir Claudius Hunter. The defendant was coal-merchant to the Bank, and supplies several extensive establishments in and about the metropolis. The Directors of the Bank having ascertained that the Act of Parljament for the regulation of the delivery of coals had not been complied with by Mr. Johnson, and aware of the possible bad

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 con. cerned.

Mr. Freshfield, of the house of Kaye, Freshfield, and Co., attended for the Bank; Mr. Andrews was engaged for the defendant.

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.

Mr. Andrews said the informations 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 baving sold and delivered coals

one.

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, It 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 100l. It was required, that

a

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 to 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 contemplated 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 gross irregularity of the proceeding. He could also prove that application 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