Hall marks on gold & silver plate

158
HALL MARKS ON PLATE.
" The Goldsmiths' Company thereupon applied
to the last-men-
tioned person, who examined some of the plate in a cursory way,
and after some time, replied through his solicitor that he was not
prepared to admit that he sold the plate, or that he had ever had
the plate in his possession; but that if the wares in question had been
sold by him, they must be some of certain wares which in 1872 he
either bought or received in exchange from a person whose name he
mentioned, who is dead.
"
The solicitor of the first person applied to was then asked by
letter whether he was prepared by production of his books, or in
some other manner, to substantiate his statement.
"
Whereupon he produced invoices which covered about six hundred
pieces of plate answering the descriptions of the plate which
ib the subject of inquiry, and cheques to order for payments made
for it, all of which cheques appear to have passed through a bank,
and are duly endorsed.
"
The circumstances bore a very suspicious appearance, but the
Goldsmiths' Company were advised that the evidence was not such
as would be deemed sufficient in a court of law, and that they would
not be doing right to continue the proceedings against the person
who apparently had cleared himself under the provisions of the Act
of Parliament.
"They thereupon commenced proceedings against the person
from whom he asserts that he bought the plate in question, and these
proceedings are now pending.
" The defendant has raised a point of law under the Statute of
Limitations, which is set down for argument on demurrer.
"The articles in question purport to be of the time of Queen
Anne, before the duty was imposed, and therefore do not bear the
duty mark."
This case came before the Court of Queen's Bench on November
12, 1880; Robinson, a deputy warden of the Goldsmiths' Company,
being the plaintiff, and Currey the defendant.
This action was brought by the plaintiff to recover penalties
amounting in the aggregate to ;^6,430, from the defendant, a silversmith,
of Great Sutton Street, Clerkenwell for having sold 643
articles of silver bearing a spurious mark, the penalty, for each
offence being i^io. The defendant pleaded first, that he had
bought the articles from a well-known dealer in Islington, and had
resold them in ignorance that the <strong>marks</strong> were forged ;
and secondly,
that the plaintiffs could not maintain the action, as it had not been
brought within the period specified by law 7 & 8 Vict, c. 22, to
amend the laws then in force on the marking of gold and silver
wares in England. The offence was clearly proved, but a point of
law was raised as the cause of action did not arise within two years
before the action was brought. On November 17, the Court, consisting
of Justice Field and Justice Manisty, gave judgment for the