Hall marks on gold & silver plate

152
HALL MARKS ON PLATE.
of manufacture, but that the parts bearing the <strong>marks</strong> were "inserted"
or "brought on." A working silversmith proved that by
direction of the prisoners he had made and sent to them two silver
bowls for spoons; that they were afterwards returned to him with
handles attached to be gilt, and when he burnished them he perceived
the old <strong>Hall</strong>-<strong>marks</strong> ; that the bowls and stems or handles
were generally made together. The defence was that the facts
proved did not amount to a transposition, but were an addition, and
as such were not a felony, but came under the fifth section of the
Act, which imposed a pecuniary penalty for the offence.
It was suggested that the spoon and ladle were made by using
old silver skewers, with the old <strong>Hall</strong>-mark, for the stems, and adding
to them bowls and figures at the "
top called apostles," in order
to give them the appearance of old plate, and that this was an addi-
tion. It was admitted by the prisoners' counsel to be a fraud in
contravention of the Act, but not a felony under the second section.
The jury found that it was not a transposition but an addition, and
the prisoners were discharged. The judge remarked however: "It
appears to me very much to be questioned, at least, whether the description
of transposition in the one section is not precisely the same
as the description of addition in the other section."
1876. D. L. G., a dealer carrying on business in London, was
convicted at the Central Criminal Court in August, 1876, of feloniously
altering and transferring a certain mark of a die used by the
Goldsmiths' Company under the following circumstances. A customer
found displayed in the prisoner's shop a coffee-pot. <strong>Hall</strong>marked
and bearing the letter m of the year 1747, there being appended
to it a label with the words " 120 years old." This he purchased
for \Q). He also purchased a small silver ewer bearing the
Goldsmiths' letter for 1744.
It being discovered that these articles were of recent manufacture,
the Goldsmiths' Company issued a writ against the prisoner to
recover penalties under sect. 3 of the Act 7 & 8 Victoria (1844); in
regard to which, under another section, a dealer could, however, be
protected if within twenty-one days he gave up the name of the person
from whom he bought the article. He at first stated that he
had bought it m the way of trade, and did not know from whom,
but he afterwards gave the name of a working electro-plater, who
was thereupon arrested, and on the prisoner's evidence, being committed
for trial, pleaded guilty. Judgment was postponed, and his
evidence taken against the principal offender, from which it appeared
that he had transferred to the coffee-pot and ewer certain
o^d <strong>marks</strong> from pieces of silver brought to him by the prisoner for
that purpose, the prisoner agreeing to purchase those articles if the
witness would put the old <strong>marks</strong> upon them. The offenders were
thereupon sentenced, the dealer to six months' and the electro-plater
to two months imprisonment, in both cases with hard labour.
A few hints may be acceptable to the collector in his investigation
of antique plate.