Unless there were two of the same name Grimwade’s conjecture that the John Fisher who is named as the son of William Fisher was John Spicer Fisher is incorrect. John Spicer Fisher’s father was named as Timothy on his christening record at St Sepulchre, Holborn in 1769. John Spicer Fisher was also resident in Holborn Bridge not Whitechapel or Mile End in the period when the maker’s marks referred to in the biography were being entered.
No trace has been found of the Indentures signed in 1792 for John son of William Fisher, silversmith, to be the apprentice of George Hazard recorded in the biography but the suggestion that the father and son would have entered a maker’s mark together in 1793 so soon after the Indentures were signed appears odd.
Unfortunately the records available do not permit a more accurate identification of this person.
FISHER, John (Grimwade p.509)
Moderators: MCB, buckler, silverly
Re: FISHER, John (Grimwade p.509)
A couple of newspaper snippets from July 1796 that may help identify John Fisher:
Public Office, Bow Street
Before R. Ford Esq.
Late on Wednesday evening last, John Fisher, a silversmith, was brought before the above Magistrate, and charged, on the oath of Fendall Rushforth, on suspicion of having feloniously forged and counterfeited the Stamp of the Goldsmiths Company, together with that of the King's Duty. In consequence of an information, a Warrant was granted to search the house of the Prisoner, where there were found the various illegal stamping instruments: and a quanity of plate being produced, proved to have had the mark of the Goldsmiths Company impressed on them with those Stamps, the Prisoner was committed.
Public Office, Bow Street
Before R. Ford Esq.
On Saturday last Edward Fisher was brought before the above Magistrate, for re-examination, charged with having forged and counterfeited the Stamp of the Goldsmiths Company, and likewise the King's Duty Stamp. The implements were found in the Prisoner's house in Spital-fields, by Carpmeal, the Officer, where he carried on the business of a working Silversmith. He was fully committed to take his trial.
The above snippets no doubt relate to the Old Bailey trial of John Fisher held on the 14th September 1796
John Fisher was indicted for forging and counterfeiting the stamp of the Goldsmiths Company , the 27th of June . (The indictment was opened by Mr. Trebeck, and the case by Mr. Fielding).
It appeared in evidence that at the prosecutor, John Wilkes , had bought tea spoons of the prisoner with a false stamp, but not being able to swear that the spoons produced were the same that he bought of the prisoner, he was acquitted.
Tried by the second Middlesex Jury, before Mr. Justice Rooke.
Source: Old Bailey Online T17960914-7
Although the name 'Edward' stated in second snippet may produce several scenarios, it is likely, to me, to just be an error by the newspaper.
Public Office, Bow Street
Before R. Ford Esq.
Late on Wednesday evening last, John Fisher, a silversmith, was brought before the above Magistrate, and charged, on the oath of Fendall Rushforth, on suspicion of having feloniously forged and counterfeited the Stamp of the Goldsmiths Company, together with that of the King's Duty. In consequence of an information, a Warrant was granted to search the house of the Prisoner, where there were found the various illegal stamping instruments: and a quanity of plate being produced, proved to have had the mark of the Goldsmiths Company impressed on them with those Stamps, the Prisoner was committed.
Public Office, Bow Street
Before R. Ford Esq.
On Saturday last Edward Fisher was brought before the above Magistrate, for re-examination, charged with having forged and counterfeited the Stamp of the Goldsmiths Company, and likewise the King's Duty Stamp. The implements were found in the Prisoner's house in Spital-fields, by Carpmeal, the Officer, where he carried on the business of a working Silversmith. He was fully committed to take his trial.
The above snippets no doubt relate to the Old Bailey trial of John Fisher held on the 14th September 1796
John Fisher was indicted for forging and counterfeiting the stamp of the Goldsmiths Company , the 27th of June . (The indictment was opened by Mr. Trebeck, and the case by Mr. Fielding).
It appeared in evidence that at the prosecutor, John Wilkes , had bought tea spoons of the prisoner with a false stamp, but not being able to swear that the spoons produced were the same that he bought of the prisoner, he was acquitted.
Tried by the second Middlesex Jury, before Mr. Justice Rooke.
Source: Old Bailey Online T17960914-7
Although the name 'Edward' stated in second snippet may produce several scenarios, it is likely, to me, to just be an error by the newspaper.
Re: FISHER, John (Grimwade p.509)
Isn't it odd that having the spurious stamps and articles marked with the spurious stamps at his place of business wasn't sufficient to convict 'of having feloniously forged and counterfeited the Stamp of the Goldsmiths Company, together with that of the King's Duty.'? Sounds like a deal was struck outside the courtroom.
Re: FISHER, John (Grimwade p.509)
It would have been helpful to explain the outcome of the trial to have the full transcript of it, the online information providing only a summary, but this points to the fact that the plaintiff Wilkes failed to swear that Fisher had sold him the spoons with the spurious marks and on that basis the trial ended with an acquittal.
It is likely that the discovery of Fisher having counterfeit punches still on the premises which he had already used to falsely mark other silver items was considered by the Court to be a separate issue from the one Wilkes brought before them and presumably, if there was potential illegality on the basis of these facts, another trial would have been needed to deal with these matters.
The Old Bailey website doesn’t provide easy access as to whether Fisher faced a later trial brought by another party. If there wasn’t another trial the lenient view may perhaps have been taken that the less costly destruction of the punches and offending silver items was a sufficient outcome.
Mike
It is likely that the discovery of Fisher having counterfeit punches still on the premises which he had already used to falsely mark other silver items was considered by the Court to be a separate issue from the one Wilkes brought before them and presumably, if there was potential illegality on the basis of these facts, another trial would have been needed to deal with these matters.
The Old Bailey website doesn’t provide easy access as to whether Fisher faced a later trial brought by another party. If there wasn’t another trial the lenient view may perhaps have been taken that the less costly destruction of the punches and offending silver items was a sufficient outcome.
Mike