348 ANNUAL REGISTER, 1818. 



that the meter should, after he 

 had measured the coals, give to 

 the waggoner a ticket, which 

 ticket, if signed and counter- 

 signed, would be a security to 

 the consumer that the article 

 purchased was that to which he 

 was entitled. It was most im- 

 portant 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 pur- 

 chased. For the purpose of 

 guarding against such an impo- 

 sition, 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 con- 

 tents 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 counter- 

 signed by the labouring coal- 

 meter 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 parlia- 

 ment, 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 circum- 

 stances tending to show the gross 

 irregularity of the proceeding. 

 He could also prove that appli- 

 cation had been made to the 

 person who should have counter- 

 signed, 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 

 Heedlessness 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 



