61 
and shuffled and lied in a most extraordinary way.— 
Mr. Thompsong No, no.— Mr. Poole repeated the 
statement, and added that there were scientific liars 
as well as other liars. He contended that there was 
nothing in the evidence to show that the mussels had 
been permanently removed from their natural bed, or 
that they had been appropriated for the purposes of 
sale. He called Samuel. Bailey, fisherman, Thomas 
Shaw, fisherman, and the four defendants, all of whom 
swore that it was impossible to dress the mussels at 
sea, and that the bailiffs had seen them being dressed 
at the mooring without raising an objection.—In such 
rough weather it was impossible to dress them at sea.— 
Bailey added that the witness, Hargraves, had on one 
occasion stated in the presence of Martin and Shaw at 
the mooring that if the mussels were dressed there, 
and made marketable, and the small ones taken back, 
it would be all right. Sometimes the mussels were 
loose in the boat, and at other times they were put in 
bags and used as ballast.—The Chairman: And did 
the officers ever interfere with you for doing this >— 
No, never.—Mr. Sanderson said the question was 
whether the mussels had been removed from the 
fishery within the meaning of the bye-law, and he 
called attention to the judgment in the Appeal Court 
of Justice Wills in the cockling case of Thompson 
v. Burns.—The Chairman: We have carefully 
considered this case, and from the evidence before 
us we don’t consider any breach of the bye-laws 
has taken place. The cases, therefore, will be 
dismissed. ; 
