APPENDIX TO CHRONICLE. 340 



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 

 M'ithdraw 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 

 1^. if he pleased. The Bank 

 would be satisfied with his deci- 

 sion, confident that the public 

 service would be the first consi- 

 deration 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 de- 

 taining 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 prov- 

 ing 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 him- 

 self 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 



