Some London Advertisements and Information
Posted: Thu Aug 30, 2012 1:42 pm
H.W. CURRY
21, Great Sutton Street, Clerkenwell, London EC
H.W. Curry - London - 1880
Henry William Curry acquired the business of Augustus George Piesse, following the death of the later in 1867. In 1880 Curry fell foul of Goldsmiths' Hall and appeared in court on a charge of counterfeiting of the hallmarks of the company. A report of the trial appeared in the Watchmaker, Jeweller and Silversmith on the 6th December 1880:
ROBINSON (GOLDSMITHS' COMPANY) V. CURRY
(Tried in the Queen's Bench Division on November 12th, before Mr. Justice Field and Mr. Justice Manisty)
This was an action to recover penalties by the plaintiff, a member, and on behalf, of the Goldsmiths' Company, against the defendant, a silversmith, for the alleged counterfeiting of the Hall marks of the company. The defendant pleaded, amongst other things, a statute of limitations, and also that the plaintiff was not a "person aggrieved" within the meaning of the Act relied on. To these pleas the plaintiff demurred, and the argument of the demurrer was heard today. Mr. Wills, Q.C., with whom was Mr. Coxon, supported the demurrer. The question to be decided turned upon the language of the Act 7 and 8, William IV., chapter 22, which was passed for the more effectual prevention of fraud in the manufacture and marking of plate. Section 5 of the Act provided that every dealer in gold and silver wares who should sell, exchange, or keep for sale, or have in his possession any gold or silver ware which, had been altered or added to, the alteration or addition not having been assayed or marked, should for every such offence forfeit a certain prescribed penalty ; and it was enacted that the penalties might be recovered by any of the several goldsmiths' companies of London, or of a number of other cities and towns which were named. The learned counsel contended that the penalties could be recovered by any one of the companies, even though, the counterfeiting did not take place in the town, and was not the mark of the company by whom the action was brought. If it were otherwise, the London Hall mark might be imitated and the sale take place, without penalty, in Sheffield. Then as to the limitation of two years relied on in the plea, it only related to a " common informer," which, the company suing was not. If it were otherwise, counterfeited articles might be kept back for over two years, and then sold with impunity. Mr. Justice Field inquired whether the articles the subject of the action were portions of the Queen Anne's silver of which they had read so much lately. Mr. Wills replied that such was the case. Sir John Holker, Q.C. (with whom was Mr. Crumpe), contended that the plea was good, and was a bar to the action. Rightly or wrongly, the statutes limited the rigbt to sue for penalties to two years from the committal of the offence alleged, and the plaintiff could not succeed, not being "a party aggrieved," because if the articles in question had been brought to the Goldsmiths' Company to be assayed, they would not have been marked, and therefore no fee would have become payable. The Goldsmiths' Company stood in the same position as an " informer," and statutes of Elizabeth and of Henry VIII. barred the bringing of actions for penalties by informers after the lapse of one year, a limit which was extended by the Act relied on by the defendant to two years.
After a lengthened legal argument.
The Court reserved judgment.
Judgment was delivered on the 17th ult. by Mr. Justice Field. Having stated the facts of the case and the Acts referred to in the argument, his lordship said he was clearly of opinion that the plaintiff, as representing the Goldsmiths' Company of London, was a person aggrieved within the meaning of the statutes, but that the action was barred by tbe limitation provided by the statutes.
Mr. Justice Manisty concurred.
Judgment was accordingly given for the defendant.
The trial does not appear to have Henry Curry much harm, he continued in business at 21, Great Sutton Street until about 1890, when the premises were taken over by Charles Stuart Harris junior. However, in 1891, Charles Stuart Harris junior was declared bankrupt and following that event, removed to 7, Meredith Street, Clerkenwell, and also to the additional premises of 11, President Street, Goswell Street, Clerkenwell, where his partner was noted as being no less than Henry William Curry, their business being styled as C.S. Harris & Co. (not to be confused with his father's firm of C.S. Harris & Sons Ltd.).
The partnership between Charles Stuart Harris junior and Henry William Curry was dissolved on the 24th June 1896 (London Gazette)
William Henry Curry entered marks at the London Assay Office on the 1st January 1868 (an oblong punch with clipped corners H.W.C with pellets) , 13th March 1869 (a triple lobed punch H.W.C with pellets), and on the 23rd March 1882 (2 x triple lobed punches H.W.C with pellets, and HWC without pellets.
Trev.
21, Great Sutton Street, Clerkenwell, London EC
H.W. Curry - London - 1880
Henry William Curry acquired the business of Augustus George Piesse, following the death of the later in 1867. In 1880 Curry fell foul of Goldsmiths' Hall and appeared in court on a charge of counterfeiting of the hallmarks of the company. A report of the trial appeared in the Watchmaker, Jeweller and Silversmith on the 6th December 1880:
ROBINSON (GOLDSMITHS' COMPANY) V. CURRY
(Tried in the Queen's Bench Division on November 12th, before Mr. Justice Field and Mr. Justice Manisty)
This was an action to recover penalties by the plaintiff, a member, and on behalf, of the Goldsmiths' Company, against the defendant, a silversmith, for the alleged counterfeiting of the Hall marks of the company. The defendant pleaded, amongst other things, a statute of limitations, and also that the plaintiff was not a "person aggrieved" within the meaning of the Act relied on. To these pleas the plaintiff demurred, and the argument of the demurrer was heard today. Mr. Wills, Q.C., with whom was Mr. Coxon, supported the demurrer. The question to be decided turned upon the language of the Act 7 and 8, William IV., chapter 22, which was passed for the more effectual prevention of fraud in the manufacture and marking of plate. Section 5 of the Act provided that every dealer in gold and silver wares who should sell, exchange, or keep for sale, or have in his possession any gold or silver ware which, had been altered or added to, the alteration or addition not having been assayed or marked, should for every such offence forfeit a certain prescribed penalty ; and it was enacted that the penalties might be recovered by any of the several goldsmiths' companies of London, or of a number of other cities and towns which were named. The learned counsel contended that the penalties could be recovered by any one of the companies, even though, the counterfeiting did not take place in the town, and was not the mark of the company by whom the action was brought. If it were otherwise, the London Hall mark might be imitated and the sale take place, without penalty, in Sheffield. Then as to the limitation of two years relied on in the plea, it only related to a " common informer," which, the company suing was not. If it were otherwise, counterfeited articles might be kept back for over two years, and then sold with impunity. Mr. Justice Field inquired whether the articles the subject of the action were portions of the Queen Anne's silver of which they had read so much lately. Mr. Wills replied that such was the case. Sir John Holker, Q.C. (with whom was Mr. Crumpe), contended that the plea was good, and was a bar to the action. Rightly or wrongly, the statutes limited the rigbt to sue for penalties to two years from the committal of the offence alleged, and the plaintiff could not succeed, not being "a party aggrieved," because if the articles in question had been brought to the Goldsmiths' Company to be assayed, they would not have been marked, and therefore no fee would have become payable. The Goldsmiths' Company stood in the same position as an " informer," and statutes of Elizabeth and of Henry VIII. barred the bringing of actions for penalties by informers after the lapse of one year, a limit which was extended by the Act relied on by the defendant to two years.
After a lengthened legal argument.
The Court reserved judgment.
Judgment was delivered on the 17th ult. by Mr. Justice Field. Having stated the facts of the case and the Acts referred to in the argument, his lordship said he was clearly of opinion that the plaintiff, as representing the Goldsmiths' Company of London, was a person aggrieved within the meaning of the statutes, but that the action was barred by tbe limitation provided by the statutes.
Mr. Justice Manisty concurred.
Judgment was accordingly given for the defendant.
The trial does not appear to have Henry Curry much harm, he continued in business at 21, Great Sutton Street until about 1890, when the premises were taken over by Charles Stuart Harris junior. However, in 1891, Charles Stuart Harris junior was declared bankrupt and following that event, removed to 7, Meredith Street, Clerkenwell, and also to the additional premises of 11, President Street, Goswell Street, Clerkenwell, where his partner was noted as being no less than Henry William Curry, their business being styled as C.S. Harris & Co. (not to be confused with his father's firm of C.S. Harris & Sons Ltd.).
The partnership between Charles Stuart Harris junior and Henry William Curry was dissolved on the 24th June 1896 (London Gazette)
William Henry Curry entered marks at the London Assay Office on the 1st January 1868 (an oblong punch with clipped corners H.W.C with pellets) , 13th March 1869 (a triple lobed punch H.W.C with pellets), and on the 23rd March 1882 (2 x triple lobed punches H.W.C with pellets, and HWC without pellets.
Trev.