Carlisle Patriot, 28 Jan 1826 - Magistrates' Office, Penrith

[petra.mi...@doctors.org.uk]

Saturday 28 Jan 1826   (p. 3, col. 2)

 

IMPORTANT TO TRADESMEN.

 

Magistrates' Office, Penrith, Jan. 24, 1826.—A case was heard and determined this day, of considerable importance to the fair and settled tradesman, whose interests are so frequently and unjustly injured by the system of mock-auctions.

 

Daniel MYERS was brought before the sitting magistrates, Sir P. MUSGRAVE, Bart. W. HEBSON, and Thomas SCOTT, Esqrs. on an information laid the preceding day, charging him with being a hawker, trader, or petty chapman, going from town to town, he not being duly licensed. This MYERS, it cannot be forgotten, is the same person who so lately stocked our city with lots of knick-knackery, under the name of plated goods and jewellery. The artifices which this man made use of to evade the hawker's and pedlar's act, (and which it is apprehended has but too often succeeded,) was to concert with an auctioneer, who was an inhabitant of the town where the goods were to be exposed to sale, the plan of distributing hand-bills describing the goods as those of some shop-keeper, or for the benefit of creditors, (none of whom had any existence,) and that they were consigned to the auctioneer for sale, who took special care to hold himself out as the ostensible owner. Accordingly, when MYERS had to answer the information, he pretended the goods were not his, and that he was only acting as an assistant; but the following brief outline of the evidence will shew how futile such defence was:—

 

John COMERFORD sworn.—Is an auctioneer at Carlisle. Was never employed by defendant to sell any plated goods or jewellery for him; but was employed by a Maurice MYERS, in Birmingham, who kept a shop there: and this Daniel MYERS came to assist witness at the sale. Maurice MYERS had called upon him previously, and commissioned him to sell such goods;—afterwards, he said that he wrote to him to do so, but had not the letters with him: then Daniel MYERS made his appearance, and said he had come to assist him. The bills were printed from a copy sent by Maurice MYERS. He did not account to Daniel MYERS for the money received at the sale. His clerk took the money, and afterwards he took from it the sum he was entitled to for his services: then he accompanied the clerk to FORSTERs' Bank, and they got drafts, and remitted them to Birmingham. This was done by the orders which witness had  received from Maurice MYERS; Daniel MYERS did not meddle with the money, or receive any part of it. The goods left, after the sale, were packed up by Daniel MYERS; but witness directed them to Maurice MYERS, Birmingham, and his men took them to WELSH's warehouse, accompanied by defendant. He could not say they were sent to Birmingham.

 

Aaron HAILE sworn.—Is an auctioneer at Penrith. Could not tell when he first saw MYERS. It was within a month, but could not say whether a week or a fortnight ago. He thought he came to his house, and called for a glass of gin. Had some talk with him about a sale, but whether about the sale in the George Inn could not say. This he repeatedly affirmed. Witness got the bills printed, by witness's direction, from a copy printed at Carlisle. [The copy from the printer's file being produced, he admitted that was the bill which he and the printer altered for Penrith; but when asked how he became possessed of it, he displayed great prevarication and disingenuousness. First it came by post—(there was no post-mark nor even address upon it)—no, it came under cover—no, he got it, and would not tell how. Sir P. MUSGRAVE here cautioned the witness respecting the line of conduct he pursued, and assured him it did him no credit and his cause no good.] He went to the carrier's warehouse, and enquired for goods for MYERS, and paid carriage for them by the direction of MYERS. This witness now began to change his tone, and acknowledged, after much equivocation, that he was employed by MYERS to sell the goods at the George Inn, and had sold two glass decanters among others; he was also accountable to the defendant for the receipts of the sale.—The conduct of this witness was insufferably insulting; he was repeatedly reprimanded by the magistrates for his evasive replies.

 

Joseph WILKINSON was next sworn.—He is the agent at Penrith for John HARGREAVES, carrier, and proved that the defendant had applied at the warehouse several times for a box he expected from Birmingham, addressed, MYERS.

 

Thos. TUNSTALL sworn.—He is a porter at HARGREAVES's warehouse. Remembers a box coming by the Kendal waggon, addressed "D. MYERS." He delivered this box at the sale-room, by order of Aaron HAILE, who paid him for the carriage. The defendant was present when it was delivered.

 

Two or three other witnesses were examined, but the facts they proved were immaterial.

 

The case for the prosecution being closed, the defendant having no witnesses to call, gave his defence by asserting that the goods were not his, that he did not sell them, nor expose them to sale, and was not therefore a hawker, as the information charged him. He was in the room, and amongst the goods, it was true,—but this was his fancy—he liked to see the ladies and gentlemen who came to purchase, and this induced him to stay and assist the auctioneer. Indeed, he was so much pleased with them, that he intended to open a large establishment in that line, in Penrith, that he might have the pleasure of seeing them as his customers. He was a stranger here, but the ladies of Penrith had pleased him mightily. After some questions from Sir P. MUSGRAVE, the defendant became more rational. The goods, he knew, were Maurice MYERS's, of Birmingham. (The bills said they were sold for the benefit of creditors.) He was brother to Maurice MYERS, and lived with him when at home. Maurice MYERS manufactured the plated goods and jewellery, and caused all the others to be manufactured. (The bills puffed off the plated goods as Sheffield plate.) His brother kept a jeweller's shop, and put out goods to manufacture. The defendant here laboured hard to convince the magistrates that his brother was the manufacturer of all these goods, as he caused them to be manufactured, by giving the orders to various petty artificers. In this stage of his defence, the room was cleared, and after a short deliberation, the Magistrates fully convicted him in the penalty of £10.

 

We understand this is just the beginning of the prosecution. The prosecutors are determined to proceed against him under the statute 50 Geo. III., cap. 41, which imposes a penalty of £50 for every day of sale. Such decisive steps are loudly called for, to put a stop to this mischievous system, which works so much injury to the regular tradesman, as well as to the public at large, who never fail to discover the cheat when too late; and that their cheap purchases are unfit either for ornament or use, as we dare say too many of our worthy citizens can testify.—(Correspondent.)