Star. — London, England, 1810-12-07 00:00:00

LAI" NITLLIGENCB.. cotaT or KING'S BENCII, DLCEMBER S. DUBOST .14 BEREsTORD, If TFICYLL, addressing the Jury, said, k tvontd be o ff. , :esiar) • for him to consume some time in the detail 'the very singular transaction which gave rise to present action, by which,the plaintiff had suffered nly a violent and outrageous invasion of his pro .t c- y, bet the total demolition of it. For an injury t his kind, the plaintiff now came to ask redrees re paration at the hands of a British Jury; and he as sur e he would not ask it with less success because was a foreigner, and an artist of celebrity in his e n country, now, by the calamitous state of the rest ' t he world, driven to seek protection in 'this land of ray. Even in the country of which the plaintiff a : a native, though now hostile to us, it could not denied, that the arts had been protected, and par iiiarly that art in which the plaintiff excelled—the of painting. These the plaintiff had executed a ork, for which he had received the highest honours his profession ; and, having brought his perform- Ice to this country, disposed of it to advaqtage to Gentleman of well known taste, and justly esteem for his encouragement of the fine arts. Jt was possiL to cast their eyes around in that Cou r t, - d t ot to see the interest created among the first aracters in the country, by a question in which the ne arts were concerned; and all, who were at all cenainted with the habits and propensities of the her order of our men of rank and affluence, must me, that among them the fine arts could never .sat protectors. After the plaintiff had been some e resident in this country, he framed an exhibition various pictures. indifferent branches of the art, .anted by himself, to be strewn to the Public at Pall fall. ale of these was the representation of a much nicd story, with which we must all have been ac ,,,iiated in our youth, tanned by the French 46 La . :ile et la Bete," or, as it may be expressed in our lan gage, the story of 66 Beauty and .Me Bead." The , er i t o f this composition was admitted by every per- , who had seen it to be very gre at. No man, in- . d, could doubt its merit, w hen told it had been ecutsil by Mr. Dubost. One of the figures of this iece was of great beauty, and the Other, as might be ?posed, the reverse ; and ;the whole Was executed a most masterly manner. The exhibition had gone with great success for some weeks, when the trans eien, to which the Learned Counsel must im,medi aly tall the attention of the Airy, took place. It as now necessary, however, that he should. give ne account of the Gentleman who was, the defeat. it in the present case, who was no' less a 4 person 'a the son of the Archbishop 'of. 'l'tam;.and, the :atned Counsel was sorry to say, himself in holy ders. On the 20th of June last,. about 11 o'clock the forenoon, the defendant came to the place of hibition, only the plaintiff and one or two , Others ing present, and while a person was procuring Inge for him, a loud cry was heard of 64 GoOd ..! he is cutting and tearing the picture to pieces." 'n running to the place where the picture in ques el :wad, there was this reverend Vandal, (of whose 'tires for such an act, unless he had imbibed in that , ar.try which gave him birth something of which we eld have no conception,) seen engaged - with his if= in defacing the picture, and cutti ng it in pieces. n the person coming up to him, he turned about, th the knife in his hand, threatened to serve in the e manner he was doing the picture, any person should endeavour to prevent him. The business not done in a moment—he was engaged in it for f an hour; Mr. Dubost interposed, saying, if he d done any thing amiss, or which could have offen . the Gentleman, he was responsible for his con ct, and amenable to the law ; but, as a foreigner, hoped lie was entitled to be protected from out le. He did not himself forget the respect he ed to the laws, but having the police in view, patched a messenger to procure assistance. The crest police office was at Marlborough -street, and lore a constable could be brought from thence, e Reverend Gentleman had withdrawn. As to the hie of the picture so destroyed by the defendant, it as estimated by the defendant himself at £looo. knew he could not give this in evidence, but he ' , mild bring eminent painters and patrons of the fine 'ts who had seen this picture, and who would state to be of great value and merit. We all know that some works of the Flemish and other ancient :hools great prices"were often &ea. Even for mo rn works of Art, for instance, for a painting by the resident of the Royal Academy, in the last Exhibi )i), a very large price had 'been given, and for a 'awing in water colours, the sum of £BOO. From is the aury might fOrm;it pretty just criterion of what .e plaintiff, who was a painter of the first eminence, 'as entitled to for the destruction of the picture in Tnere'was, however, in this case another .tesicn by which_ they mig ht _ judge of the loss sus . coed by t h e present plaintiff. The picture in ques cn Was at the time in the couise of being exhibited , y the plaintiff. Before it' was publicly known with Lit morsels of beauty this small collection was or fimented (he assured his Learned Friend he did not 'hide to the picture of Benny. end the Beast alone) 1:e receipts had been comparatively small, amounting £2 or S a day, but.when the collection came to' ' known, the infltie was so great as to amount to ten r twelve guineas per diem, so as to promise him the "sPe€t, by the exhibition, of realising for me. He s h ou ld no w name no specific ' sum, bit Sould leave it ,to the discretion of the Jury. The laintiff was a foreigner, .ant Artist of celebrity and .reat merit, a n d t h e Jury wonld not fail to mark the o ntrast, that the defendant Was a man, - Irons his/fro trion, who, a b ove a ll ot h ers , oug h t to h ave a b sta i n , t rem so outrageous a violation of private property. tie did not ask exorbitant but InOderate'dalniZes• Francis Beusquet stated, that he Was standin at he door leading I: • to the Exhibition-MOM, being am. engaged to keep the door .of the Eihilatioa next 1 " It, when the defendant rushed past him like a flash et Lghtning. The witness was struck with the eir fernstaace, ti • this being so un lik e t h e con d uct o f Gen fork Ingeneral ; even the Prince and the Duke of having inquired of him the way to the roont-- e minutes after the *feed' had rushed in, an alarm et • . an t as given,. in consequence of which witn ess keret t o . an,epening in therillery - above, which corn- Z i r it t e ed . with : the plaintiff's . Exhibition room. By jag tile job was done, and two frames were I y against the wall without the pictures. There a ce wine father persons at the opening above, where the witness was stand:lq t end At defendant called up to them not to be afraid, but for this rascal who painted the picture, he ought to be The wit ness could not hear the remainder bf the sentence.— did not see the defendant cut the picture, nor did he see him with a knife in his hand. Cross-examined by the Atrualicy-GcNERAL. Said there were not many visitors et first, but a great many afterwards. Q. Was this not an odd strange sort of a picture A. It was a beautiful picture. Q. Yes, it was the picture of the Beauty and the Beast ; was it very like ? A. Ido not know what likeness you mean. Q. Upon your oath was not the Beast meant to be a likeness of Mr. Hope ? A. I have heard a whis pering in the room that the Beast was like Mr. Hope. Q. And that the Beauty was Mrs. Hope ? A. No, they said it was not like. Q. Did you ever see the picture the plaintiff drew of Mrs. Hope, and fot which he received 400 guineas? A. Yes, I have seen it. Q. And although he has not been so happy in the portrait of the' Beauty as he was in that he formerly painted of Mrs. Hope, still the Beauty is painted in the same dress as that worn by ,Mrs. Hope in her por trait ?—Yes, though I cannot Say it is exactly the ame. The witness was then asked, if he did not know that there was a remarkable room in Mr. Hope's house called the Star Room, and if there was not such a ceiling to the room is which Beauty and the Beast were represented to be ? But to these questions he could give no answer, not being aware that the facts were so. Q. Which did Mr. Dubost himself think most like, Beauty to Mrs. Hope, or the Beast to Mr. Hope ? A. He never saki. Q. This Beast was hideous and offensive Op the eye, was it not ? A. No, Ido not think it was. - Q. Then probably some persons could not distin guish which was the Beast ? A. I cannot answer that, a Beauty is handsomer than a Beast. Q. Yes. This is so in the abstract; but I asked you if this is the case in the picture ? A. The Beauty is the handsomer of the two. Q. Then the Beast is not very ugly ? A. He is very good natured. O. Is he painted naked ? is he without clothes ? A.l-le has hair. Q. Has he any other clothes but what a bear wears? and is he uglier of handsomer than a bear ? A. I can not say that.' ' ' Q. There was not then a pin's difference between them ?—A. Different' Beasts have different appear-, antes, and this beak is handsomer than a bear. Q. Was he not adorned with long hairy ears A. Yes. • - • Q. Was there not before him a chest with money and jewels, and is he not offering them to her, if she ivies accept of him ?—A. Yes ; that is the subject of the story. • Q. And is she not wringing her hands in agony, that she should be exposed to such a Beast ?--A. Yes, she is distresFed. Q. At hem exposed to such a beast as the picture represents Mr. Hope to be, who, to induce her, offers her riches ?—A. That is the subject of the story. The examination went on to shew that the subscrip tion book for an engraving to he executed from the picture, always lay on the table of the Exhibition room. The witness could not say by whom the name of Sir H. Englefield (which was a forgery) was writ. ten in that book. The witness himself often wrote down the names of subscribers, according to their de. sire, without knowing them. Q. Have you not told persons who visited the Ex. hibiton that the figures were like Mr. and Mrs. Hope ? A. Perhaps I may have said that I was told the one figure was like Mr. Hope. Q. Have you not said that it was meant by the plaintiff to represent Mr. Hope ? A. Ido not re member; I may have said that it was like Mr. Hope, but not that it was Mr. Dubost's intention that it should be like. Q. That, then, he never told you ? A. That is another thing ; he told me it was Beauty and the Beak, that somebody had told him the beast was like Mr. Hope, but that it was not his intention in begin ning the picture to represent Mr. Hope. The picture was not painted like him on purpose. Q. That was before it was finished, will you say that he did not tell you that after he had been so told that the beast was like Mr. Hope, he did not go on and finish it up to the complete likeness ? ' A. I think he did. Q. Have you not heard him say that the figure of Beauty was taken from the portrait he himself had i drawn of Mrs. Hope ? A. No, Sir. Mr. Ewing was also in the room, but did not see the defendant do any thing. The picture was then cut to pieces. Mr. T. Standen was also present, but paid no par ticular attention to what passed. Charles Sonarat was at the door, and received from the defendant a five shilling piece to change, which he gave him in a few minutes afterwards. When the witness was in the next room, a person called out to him, that a Gentleman was destroying a picture, on which he went up to the picture in question, and saw the defendant standing by it, with a knife in one hand and a stick in the other. The defendant put himself in a threatening posture, if the witness should endea vour to come near him. The witness immediately tollthe not to come in, thinking that the de fendant intended to murder him, and himself iun di rectly for a const able. He went to several different places, but returned without getting one, after being absent nearly three quarters of an hour. When he returned, the defendant was still there, and the pic ture was completely destroyed and cut to pieces. He thinks this was done by the defendant, but did not see hibi cut it. Lord ELLEshonouGH—Was it in a different state when you returned, from what it was when you went away ? A. It had fallen down when I went away, but was not cut, but when I returned I found it in .three pieces. It was cut with a knife ; it was hanging in its place when the defendant came into the rooen,and had not been' then damaged. He did not know the amount of the profits derived from the Exhibition. Q. Come, take time ? A. Now I do trinember his saying that he did not know where to look for a Beauty more exquisite than Mrs. Hope, or one that he could take better suited to represent the character. Q. And so he deternaind to finish up his Beauty from the represefitatim of Mrs. Hope f. A. yes. Q. -From what representatlevt Aid he take the lines, which, in the picture, the Beast was supposed to be uttering, and wh4ch !ppeared on a scroll--" I ant sensible that I am a most horrible beast, and that you can have no thoughts of ; btit if you . will ac cept of me you shall have all these riches at yoar disL Posal ?" A. These are the words u 1 the fable. Q. Now these are the words sp ',tea by the figure, .which is like Mr. Hope, to the ilgure which is like .Mrs. Hope, in short, by Mr. Hope to Mrs. Hope ? A. I cannot say. Q. Have you not heard Mr. Dubost twenty dif ferent times say that he would be revenged on Mr. Hope, because he had displeased him ? A. I have heard him say he was displeased with Mr. Hone. Q. And was it not for this that he published this picture ? A. I believe so: Q. Is not the defendant Mrs. Hope's brother, and did he not tell you that he destroyed the picture be. cause it was a vile slander on his sister ? A. He was in a great passion, and spoke so fast that I could not understand what he said. Lord 'destroying the picture r Mr. ATTORNEY-GENEF ♦ery moment." Mr. Louis Odekay, who collected the admission- Money, at the plaintiff's exhibition, stated the daily receipts to be at first about £3 or R 4. They rose as the exhibition was better known, to £lO, £l5, and even to £l9 a-day. After the destruction of the pic ture in question the receipts fell off greatly. Several persons, when they understood that picture was gone, would not go in. . Cross-examined by Mr. ATTORNEY-GENERAL. He said that the daily receipts afterwards fell down to about A-2, but that many people who went away without going in offered to pay for the sight of the fragments that remained of the representations of Mr. and Mrs. Hope. Mr. Huet Villiers said, he had been a painter all his life time, and had known the plaintiff for ten pars. The plaintiff had always been esteemed a celebrated artist, both is Frknce and in this country. He, wit ness, had examined the fragments of the painting in question, and if the totality was equal to the frag ments, it must have been a fine picture. in its present state, however, he could not judge of its value. Mr. Sonarat was again examined by the ATTORNEY GENERAL, and said, there was an eye-glass round the shoulder of the Beast. Was this at the time of Yes, my Lord, at the Mr. Stroehling, Historical Painter to the Prince of Wales, thought the plaintiff, when he came to this country, one of the first Artists he ever knew. He thciaght the picture in question a kvellpainted picture. Helad mot examined it attentively when he saw it at theexhibition, but he had examined the fragments, and a person could judge of the merit of the picture from them as well as if it had been entire. Judging of the 'aims of the Artist, and of the size and merit of the picture, he thought its value must have been about 500 or 600 guineas. Examined by Lord ELLENBottomt. If the picture would have been of the value he put on it, in a private collection, without the name of an artist upon it ? The witness said, he could not speak as to that: the name of a painter of eminence gave it a value. M-. JEKYLL said, that was his case. The ATTORNEY GENERAL, for the defendant, said this was the most impudent appeal by a foreigner to the justice of a British Court of Judicature he 'had ever witnessed, and, he trusted, he should never i see such another. His Learned Friend had said, that a British Jury would never be slow to afford protection to a foreigner appealing to their justice.— He trusted they never would. But then it was in cumbent on that foreigner to see that he himself had not violated those laws to the protection of which he appealed ; for, to be entitled to the protection of the laws, he should have deserved it. What, how , ever, was the injury for which the plaintiff in this case now impudently endeavoured to get a recompence ? It must have struck every person as singular, first, that the plaintiff had endeavoured to prove the destruc tion of the picture by so many persons who knew no thing about the matter ; and it was another circum stance no less singular, that to prove its value, he ' should have adduced only one Artist who had seen the picture while it was exhibited, and who having been carried to the Exhibition by a false representa tion as to the merits of another picture, had passed by the picture in question, without even noticing it.— The only value now attempted to be put upon it was according to the plaintiff's own rate of charge, calcu lated according to the size of the picture. See what is, the injury for which this plaintiff asks reparation ; i and what his own conduct has been—What he has( done—and from whom it is lie asks reparation. The; Learned Counsel for the plaintiff had told the Jury; that the plaintiff had been exhibiting a picture by I which he was realizing considerable sums of money, and from which he expected still greater advantages , and that it was for the demolition of this picture that 1 r he now asked for compensation. The Learned Coun sel had also said, that merit in this country was always' certain to meet its reward. The plaintiff himselfhad fully experienced the truth of this assertion. In a pe -1 riod of distress he had come to this country, seeking for patronage and encouragement in the line of his 1 profession ; and he had not sought for it in vain. He I had found it in Mr. Hope,'in w hom merit in distress had always foutira patron and benefactor. He had i , ; come to this Gentleman with all the wealth he had, i I which consisted in one picture, for which Mr. Hope had given him A'SOO. Not only so, but as an addi- I tional encouragement to him, to improve his talents, he employs him to paint the portrait of his wife, for which he bargains to give him 4.00 guineas, the one half of which he actually paid before the portrait was begun, and the remainder before it was finished. The plaintiff, who was in Court, said he could shew this to be false. • The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he knew what he stated to be true, but he was really astonished to think that a plaintiff in such aicause as this, could have been so insensible to every feeling of delicacy and proprie ty, as to be present in Court whilst it was trying. He was not accustomed to use such language, but his in dignation was so roused that he could not suppress his feelings at the conduct of one, who, in his representa tion of a beast, had so uuly described himself. This plaintifFhad been received into the house of Mr. Hope, and had availed himself of that opportunity to paint the picture in question; and because Mr, Hope would net submit to hit apreabonakla &minds, and at length whom he loved': in the expectation that Mi. Helve , would still buy him n. Foiled thisexpectation, he was nor, however, discomfited, but thought thatby the terror of the present action, his purpose might still i)e ' effected, supposing that Mr. Hope would yielito his • demands, rather than allow._ the remit, defendant, *a high-minded man ,wounded almost to death on account of his sista, and who, on the impulse of the mouteet, had himself cut in pieces the infaittous publication by whi l ih she was traduced, to appear in the Orman:taint). —Could the plaintiff ever hope, by a verdict of' twelve honest Englishmen, to effect his objet`'! No, he never could; but he did hope that the parties would have yielded, rather than try the present action. Did the Jury riot think that this Lady's family, writhing almost to agony, felt the ridicule to which she was exposed ? for unfortunately this was one of the effects of judicial proceedings, that the verdict did - not a tuse the pain arising from an injury of the kind immedi ately to cease. This great object, therefore, the plain• tiff had gained, so far had his malevolence succeeded but farther it could not go. Should he not, this At torney-General asked, if a man held a sword to his throat, beat it down ? Should he not, if held up to ridicule in a caricature, which could not be regarded as an Exhibition of Art, feel himself entitled to cut in pieces the infamous exhibition by which he was attempted to be loaded with disgrace ? Under pre. tence of this story of Beauty and the Beast, Mr. Hope had been elhibited in a most disgraceful point of N iew, representing himself as a stupid and disgust. irtg monster, who had nothing but his riches - to offer to his wife, as an inducement to accept of him is a husband; while she, on the other hand, was. repeats senteti as having accepted of such a monster, merely on account of his riches. Mrs. Hope, it was well known, had no occasion to submit to such a sactifiee. She was not in 3 situation to require it. To fornr a proper idea of the Gentleman and Lady *so grossly calumniated. it was only necessary to *see them in their domestic circle surrounded by their family and friends,. he a husband and she a wife, of whom it w:is to be regretted there were so few examples ! And was it nothing that by such a ruffian as the plaintiff, a man like Mr. Hope was to be held up as a nv , nster, and a woman like Mrs. Hope to be represented as a sacrifice to brutality, merely on account of sordid lucre ? At first, it appeared in evidence, that this exhibition of the plaintiff's yielded very little emolument, but when it• was told, at every corner of the streets, that there Mr. Hope might be seen exhibited as a mototer, it got up to ,11 4 20 per diem. It coold not he surprisiftg, that the knowledge of such an exhibition should reach the relations of the Lady. It did reach , her brother, the present defendant and for annihilating' this infamous libel on his sister and her husband, he was now called on to defend the present action. 'flie plaintiff now sat in Court to hear the present action tried ; but if Mr. Elope had taken his (the Attorney. General's) advice, that would have been out of his power. Still, however, it was in the option of Mr. Hope to bring him before a Jury of his country, far the infamous exposure of which he had been guilty. Mr. Hope probably did well to spare such a reptile for a time, but now, after the length he had gone, the Attorney-General trusted Mr. Hope would at length follow his advice. It may be s:6:1, the parties ag grieved by this exhibition might have brought their action against the present plaintiff, or might have in dicted him, but still, in the mean time they were ex posed to ridicule, or obliged to shut themselves up from public observation. The only course, then, that was left was to destroy the libel itself, and the engray. ing which was to have been executed from it, and by which its poison was intended to be still more widely disseminated. There were cases in which, if a speedy remedy was not applied, the injury became irremedi able. It was no answer to say the inconvenience may be tried at Law, if while the arm of the Law is raised the evil is doing. He trusted, therefore, the Jury would be of opinion that in such a case the pleintif could recover nothing. There were no witaesses called on the defence. Lord ELLENBOROUGII.-44 The plaintiff demanded a Compensation for the loss of his profits by an exhi bition, and for the value of his picture. The defen-. dant pleaded no justification. He only said, he was not guilty. 1y was proved that the picture was de- • stroyed, and l'oerefore the verdict must go for the plaintiff. The ruaener and purpose of exhibiting the picture were clear. It was plainly Dubost's in tention to caricature Mr. Hope and his wife. The resemblance was evident to every one, and there. could be no doubt that it was done from a spirit of revenge. It was not for the Jury to consider the obligations of the plaintiff to Mr. Hope; they were not to look beyond the evidence. It was plain, that no caprice of painting could have' casually drawn a beast with an eye-glass round his neat ; and it was equally plain, that an insult to Mr. Hope was the object. As to the value cif the pic ture, one of the witnesses had evidently estimated it only from its value as a caricature. But that must not be recognized as giving it any value. It . was a species of property on which no man had a. right to reckon. It was a libel, the exhibition of which would have been stopped in five minutes, on an appli cation to the Lord Chancellor. It was more than pro bable that an injunction would have befit issued to prevent the picture's being ever exposed to.sale. The plaintiff then lost .iii right to consider himself as being aggrieved by the diminution of profit trim his Exhi ' bition, or even 1)1- the destruction of his picture. They were means of unlawful profit, and therefore no com a pensation could be provided by the law. The Picture, in its perfect state, could be only looked oh as mum in. strument for the production of punishment to the ex hibition, and the Jury would resolve the damages into those of the mere wood, canvas, and c010ur...". The Jury, after some hesitation, found a verdict for the plaintiff. Damages £5. Costs 40s. The Court was unusually crowded. Several persons of distinction, among whom werethe Marcinisof FWD FORT, Lords SEFTON, OSSULSTON, atiId'ECIUMONT D sit on the Bench with Lord ELLENBOROCUIL • In the last seizure . at Harwich, by Mr. Loved", of Forty-four Bari of Gold, it is remarbible that e.teli har should be secreted in a lar;-.e Scheme of the New Plan et drawing the State Lsttery in .One Day, Qll the lath of FLbruary /sl::xt, c exactly die same Number of Copttal Priza:b. het/ hlitia, tSe detend.i'a tgii# of revenge to attack his benchttor in the nv)st sens;ble point, by holding nut to ridicule himself and the wit