346 ANNUAL REGISTER, 181S. 



that he was to take the tea to him, 

 as he did not wish to have it 

 brought directly to his house. 

 He was afresh coloured country- 

 looking 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 re- 

 ceived 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 Excise- 

 office, 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, Coat-Merchant. — This 

 case, which had been from 

 day to day promised to the 

 public, came on before Sir 

 Claudius Hunter. The defend- 

 ant was coal-merchant to the 

 Bank, and supplies several ex- 

 tensive establishments in and 

 about the metropolis. The 

 Directors of the Bank having 

 ascertained that the Act of Par- 

 liament 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 1,000/. The greatest 

 interest was naturally excited, 

 and while the nse 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. 



The defendant's Counsel ad- 

 mitted 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. 



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. He 

 thought it due to them to state 

 in the office the probable conse- 

 quences of an implicit reliance, 

 and he trusted that the lesson 

 would prove of general utility. 



Mr. Andrews urged in the 

 strongest manner, that the inflic- 

 tion of such a punishment upon 

 the crime of inadvertence would 



be 



