The Express.
London, England, 1852-07-28 00:00:00

EVENING, JULY 28, 1852.

forming him that Mr. Tennant had referred him to him
respecting the purtriit. On the 12:k, In consequence of
the reel ipt of another eummunicatiun from the prisoner,
witness gave the picture to a person saht fur it.
Mr. Crossley produced both the prisoner's letter,. The
first stated that he was rnhst anxious to publish the por-
trait amongst his new series of 116ot-incr., and requesting
to know when he might stud for it ; and the second that it
might be forthwith given to the bearer, as he was most de-
sirous that it should- be immediately put in hand, and
added that be was desirous sf arranging about sitters for
his new work..

I,l;.A;n4clinquired whet value the witness put upon the
portrait ?
Mr. Crowley replied, 35 guineas.
Mr. Arnold inquired whether he had subsequently made
any application for the return of the portrait.
Witness replied that he bed for some time miter the pri-
soner had obtained it, but had not succeeded. Prisoner had
been written to in the same year to restore it, and nude '
some reply in the course of speaking about other mitten.
The letter, witness believed, had been destroyed, and he
could not remember the contents. Witness was tint told
that the portrait was in pawn by the police.
In moss examination, Mr. Crowley said he hid been fre-
quently requested by Mr. Tennant to recover possession of
it, but could not, as prisoner bed no fixed habitation.
An assistant to Mr. Wood, of High Holborn, pawnbroker,
produced the portrait, which had been punned at hie slur)
on the 19th of July, 1851. They could not trace it back to
any earlier period.
Mr. Arnold observed that the charge of larceny could not
be sustained in this cue, mud the pawning was too long a
period ago for him to deal with summarily.
The charge was therefore dismissed.
The police having intimated that the pawnbroker's
assistant in the Earl of Desert's case was now present,
Mr. Arnold, after expressing his dissatisfiction at his
conduct in not attending when required, directed him to I
give evidence.
The young man,who is an assistant to Mr. Attenborough,
of roitnum-street, Oxford-street, was sworn, hut could not
carry the ease any further than on the previous examina-
tion. The original ticket at the first pawning of the picture
had been destroyed ; its first renewal had been on the 'Pith
of September, 1849. The person who had taken the por-
trait in had left Mr. Attenberough's service three or four
years ; and, notwithstanding every inquiry, there was no
chance of discovering his whereabouts now.
Mr. Arnold intimated that this case must alto fall to the
ground.
Mr. Disuse was about to offer some remark, when
Mr. Arnold observed that there was no necessity. He
had dismissed the ease because the evidence was not suffi-
cient against the prisoner.
Mr. John Edward Mayall, the well-known American
daguerreotype artist, 433, West Strand, then stood forward
to prove that prisoner had obtained the portrait of Mr.
Power, who sat to hint, which was to be published in a
work prisoner was producing of eminent conservatives, •
number of which he produced with his name printed or
written as the publisher, in order to induce witness to let
him have the portrait and take others. Witness took
several under an arrangement with the prisoner that they
were to be paid for or returned within six months; but find-
ing that be did not act up to it he refused to let prisoner
have any more, and wrote to him to that effect.
The letter prisoner had written and sent for the portrait
was read, and after treating of general matters said:
" Mr. Collins is much in want of a specimen of a lady's
portrait in his new work of ' The Female Aristocracy of
the Reign of Queen Victoria.' Mr. C. tried for the /le-
paulese Ambassador, but was just too late when he arrived
from the north, as his Excellency sat elsewhere." 1
Mr. Ma all said ho had repeatedly sent to the address
given by the prisoner, 6, Lambethaquare, hut could
get the portrait back—indeed his clerk went • dozen times
before he could find the seat of obscurity, which was a
wretched place.
Mr. Arnold inquired whether he had since seen the
portrait.
Mr. bleyall replied that he had, at a Mr. Smirk's, a
pawnbroker, at Islington.
Mr. Arnold inquired when it was pawned.
The police replied on the day it was obtained.
Mr. Arnold observed that there was sufficient in this ease
to induce him to remand the prisoner.
A gentleman, who was understood to be Capt. Ward, I
stepped forward and said that the prisoner had obtained his
father's portrait, and disposed of it like the others. He
(Capt. Ward) was in India at the time, and prisoner got it
from his sister.

In answer to the magistrate's inquiries, the police said
they could not offer any evidi nee, so the ladies who bad
parted with the picture were residing at Jers, y. The pawn-
ing was on the 21st of last January.
Mr. Arnold thought the prisoner rather fortunate, as if
he had been charged with this offence before the 21st of July
it would have lxcn a pawning within the time—six months
—beyond which a magistrate Amino jurisdiction.
Captain Ward said he should wish to have the miniature
returned. He bad no obiection to reimburse the pawn-
broker. In this case the prisoner had also obtained a sub-
scription from the ladies for the work.
Mr. Arnold observed that he could have no objection to
the gentleman's regaining the picture, which it was most
natural he should wish to do, and, as there was no dissent
on the part of any body else, the gentleman retired with the
pawnbroker.—The prisoner was remanded for a week.
Mr. Minns applied to the magistrate to know whether he
would take bail for his appearance.
Mr. Arnold said if he could procure two good sureties in
1001. each he would take them.

As bail wu not forthcoming prisoner was scot to gaol.