Details of a trial held at the Guildhall in early October 1822, involving William Eaton (Grimwade 3105-6).
Guildhall
The sweeping of goldsmiths and jewellers' workshops, containing small particles of various valuable metals, it is the practice to collect together, and melt the metallic contents into what is technically called a skillet, which differs from what is called an ingot only in shape. This is subsequently sold to the refiners. A young man of very respectable appearance, who gave his name William Eaton, and on whose behalf a solicitor attended, was charged by Mr. Brown, of the firm of Brown and Brind, refiners, No.30, Wood Street, Cheapside, for an attempted fraud in a sale of one of these skillets.
The prisoner, he stated, had frequently brought them metal for sale. On the 28th September he came as usual with a skillet, for them to make what is termed a parting assay of it, to know its value. This was generally done by taking off a small piece from one of the corners, from the assay of which the whole mass was valued. It happened, however, in this instance, that the piece for the assay was cut out of one of the sides, and contained so trifling a portion of valuable metal, as not to be worth more than 20d. an ounce. When the prisoner called to know the result he expressed much surprise at the small value set upon the contents of the skillet, and said he understood it to be worth at least 25s. an ounce. This led to a more minute inspection of the skillet, which was found to be made up for the express purpose of deception. The interior of the mass was of little or no value; it was generally coated with metal somewhat more valuable, and at the corners from whence the part to be assayed is usually taken, pieces containing particles of gold were neatly soldered on, and had the assay been made from one of these corners, the whole skillet would have been valued at 25s. an ounce.
Messrs. Brown and Co. had been deceived in this way several times before, and they believed in metal purchased from the prisoner. They had however no part of this to produce, and in the present instance no money had been paid.
Mr. Betts, Jun. of Long-acre, produced part of a similar skillet, which had been purchased at their house from the prisoner, and for which he had received the estimated value. The money had, however, been paid not by him, but by his brother, who was at present a great distance from town.
As this transaction took place out of the city, the Alderman, even had the evidence been present, could not have taken cognizance of it. The prisoner was therefore discharged, with a recommendation from the Alderman that he should be taken directly before a Magistrate of the county. This was at first proposed to do, but as the necessary evidence against him in Mr. Bett's case could not be conveniently procured for some weeks, he was ultimately permitted to go at large.
It would appear that William Eaton was a very lucky man. He was to go on to become one of the most prolific silversmiths in the country, but I wonder how his life would have turned out had he been found guilty of this offence?
Trev.