The Sun.
London, England, 1834-01-29 00:00:00

THE KING V. TRINHAII OLD, THE YOUNGER.

This was a prosecution at the instance of the Corpora-
tion of London ag4inst M. Trinham Old, the younger, a
fish salesman at Billingsgate, for selling unwholesome fish,
on the 26th July, 1832. The indictment was tried at
the last sittings in London, and the defendant was found
guilty.

TIIe SOLICITOR-GENERAL Ibis morning moved the
judgment of the Court on the defendant.
➢lr. KELLY, on the part of the defendant, put in several
affidavits in mitigation of punishment, and also giving the
defendant a good character for integrity. The Learned Coun-
sel then addressed the Cuurt on behalf of his client. He (lid
not deny that the circumstances of the ease were fit for
invotigation, but he submitted that, from the high eba-

racter of the defendant, and from his very gre it integ city
in the manner of conducting his business, the utmost that
could be imputed to him was gross negligence in not exa-
mining with sufficient strictness his consignments of fish.
It was proved that he was in the habit of receiving large
consignments from Scotland, and it might happen that oc-
casionally a box of had fish would be in the lot. The de.
fendant and his father had carried on business for thirty
or forty yea's, and out of the large quantities of fi•h they
received daily there had only been two complaints and
those were not enforced. Therefore the utmost that could
he said was that there was a want of proper caution. The
present prosecution, would, however, operate as a stimulus
to greater caution, not only on the part of the defendant,
but on the part of all fish salesmen, and therefore there was
no necessity of visiting the defendant with any severe
punishment. The prosecution was instituted from the
most praiseworthy motives ; hut it should be recollected
that it was instituted at a period of considerable excite-
ment, when the cholera was prevalent, and therefore it
was probable that at any other period no complaint would
have been made. The defendant, like all other salesmen,
experienced great loss during that period, and by the
present prosecution he had already suffered very much.
The Learned Counsel concluded by hoping that the ends
of justice would be answered if the greatest lenity were
shown to him.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL, for the prosecution, stated
that the defendant made it his boast that he had got off
on two former occasions, merely by paying the costs:
even then he did not exercise the caution which experi-
ence should have taught him, but at a period when
it was known bad fish would encourage the spreading of
a dreadful disorder, then but too prevalent, he chose to
expose it for sale. The corporation of London had,
therefore, felt it their duty to bring the case before a jury,
and the defendant was now awaiting the judgment of the
Court.
The RECORDER followed on the same side.
The LORD Cuter JUSTICE asked by whom the indict-
ment was removed into this Court ?

The RECORDER said it was by the defendant.
Their LORDSHIPS having consulted together,
Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE delivered the judgment of the
Court. His Lordship said, be was happy to find that
this was the first prosecution for selling unwholesome
fish, because the Court hoped that the dealers in fish gene.
rally so conducted their business as not to subject them-
selves to such a charge. Same years ago, there was a
prosecution against a baker at Chelsea for mixing alum
with his bread, and be was convicted; there bad been
also a prosecution against a butcher for supplying unwhole-
some meat to some barracks, but this was the first
priolecution for selling unwholesome fish. The Court
were therefore not disposed to deal harshly with this case,
in the hope that this prosecution would have a proper
effect in deterring other persons from offending in future.
It should be recollected, however, that at a period when
the cholera was very prevalent it was dangerous to the
puhle health to sell any unwholesome food, but particu.
lady fish. Under all the circumstances, and in the hope
that others as well as the defendant would be deterred
from a similar offence, the Court were disposed, in con-
sideration of his good character, to deal leniently with
him. The sentence of the Court was, that he pay a fine
of 501. to the King, and to be imprisoned until that fine
be paid.