In a book of old accounts belonging to the city of Harlem, and extending from April 1439 to April 1440, Koning having discovered at least nine entries of expenses incurred on account of messengers despatched to the Justice-Court of Amsterdam, he concludes that there must have been some conference between the judges of Harlem and Amsterdam on the subject of Coster’s robbery. There is not a word mentioned in the entries on what account the messengers were despatched, but he decides that it must have been on some business connected with this robbery, for the first messenger was despatched on the last day of the Christmas holidays; and the thief, according to the account of Junius, made choice of Christmas-eve as the most likely opportunity for effecting his purpose. To this most logical conclusion there happens to be an objection, which however Mynheer Koning readily disposes of. The first messenger was despatched on the last day of the Christmas holidays 1439, and the accounts terminate in April 1440; but according to the narrative of Cornelius the robbery was committed on Christmas-eve 1441. This trifling discrepancy is however easily accounted for by the fact of the Dutch at that period reckoning the commencement of the year from Easter, and by supposing,--as the date is printed in numerals,--that Junius might have written 1442, instead of 1441, as the time when the two books appeared at Mentz printed with the stolen types, and within a year after the robbery. Notwithstanding this _satisfactory_ explanation there still remains a trifling error to be rectified, and it will doubtless give the clear-headed advocate of Coster very little trouble. Admitting that the accounts are for the year commencing at Easter 1440 and ending at Easter 1441, it is rather difficult to comprehend how they should contain any notice of an event which happened at the Christmas following. The Harlem scribe possibly might have the gift of seeing into futurity as clearly as Mynheer Koning has the gift of seeing into the past. The arguments derived from paper-marks which Koning has advanced in favour of Coster are not worthy of serious notice.