The Express.
London, England, 1848-03-03 00:00:00

TIIE EXPRESS, FRIDAY EVENING, MAWCH 3, 1848.

Edward Spine, depansi, that he was clerk at Trinity
Church, Mary Lebow., and he was at that church in the per-
ferments of his duty on the 23rd May last. The defendant
came into the vestry-room on that day, and wished to pub-
lish the banns of marriage, and headed him a paper, and he
filled up the book from the particulars on the paper. The
entry desmibed the prironer and the person to whom he
was to be married as of full age, and residing at Wimpole-
street, within the district. He gave his own name es
Samuel Brown, and the Isdy as Hester Field, he being de-
,'gibed as bachelor and the lady as spinster. Witness gave
the book to the officiating clergyman, and the banns were re-
gularly published in the ileum way, for three successive Sun-
days. On the 19th of June the parties attended at the
church to have the marriage solemnised, and he produced
the register book of marriages. Before the marriage
was solemnised he put some questions to the pri-
, ironer, and, in answer to them, he said his name
was Samuel Brown, that he was of full age, that
'he was a bachelor--eeeribed himself as a gentleman—and
he gave his residence as 31, Wimpole-street. The prisoner
described the lady as being of full age, a spinster, and said
that she resided in Wimpole-street. All this took
place before the arrival of the Rev. Mr. Hamilton, t
ad-
he
1 officiating clergyman, and the parties subsequently
leurned to the church, where the marriage was !solemnised.
Before he affixed his signature, Mr. Hamilton read over the
I partitulars of the register to the prisoner and Miss Field, and
they both assented to their correctness.
The Rev. J. F. Hamilton deposed that at the time in
question he was the curate of Trinity Church, and he re-
membered the marriage between the prisoner and Hester
Field takieg place on the 19th June. After the solemnisa-
tion he read out the particulars in the marriage register. and
asked both parties distinctly if they were correct, and they
both replied in the affirmative, the prisoner by • distinct
declaration, and Miss Field gave a silent assent. Both
parties then signed the register.
Edwin Whitney, butler to Mr. Clitherow, 31, Wimpole-
street, deposed that the prisoner held the HMO situation be-
fore he took it. The prisoner called upon him on two occa-
sions since he left, and requested that if any letters or par.
eels arrived for him, he would forward them to him at Tnng.
Neither he nor Miss Field had resided in the house
since 1840.
Mr. John Lake deposed that he was acquainted with the
prisoner, and to the best of his belief in June last he was re-
siding at Tring with his brother. In July he met the pri-
soner, and he told him a long story about his marriage, and
among the particulars he mentioned, be said that a clergy-
man had given him information that as the young lady was
under age he could not marry her by licence without the
consent of her guardians, and that he must have the banns
published, and he did so; and was present on the first occa-
sion in the church. He also said that he had shown Miss
Field a paper, which he believed she imagined to be a mar-
riage licence, and said that he had doubled back the word
"benne," to induce her to believe so.—Cross-examined Did
not know that one of the sons of Mr. Smith, the solicitor
for the prosecution, was paying his addresses to Miss Field.
Mr. J. Brown deposed that the prisoner was his brother.
He was formerly in the service of Mr. Clitherow,
but left it ten years ago, and had since resided with witness
at Tripp, and as-hated him in his trade of a brewer. Miss
Field was witness's ward, and would be entitled to consi-
derable property when she came of age. She was now It
years old, and came to his house at Tring when she left
school, which was about three months before this occurrence
took place. Prieoner and Miss Field both left the house on
the morning of the 19th June, and returned together in the
afternoon. Supposed the prisoner knew her age, as her
birthday had been kept shortly before June.
The /attorney -General said this was the case for the pro-
secutioa.
Sir F. Thesiger then took some technical objections, but
the court, without bearing the Attorney-General in reply,
ruled that the case must go to the jury.—Sir F.
Thesiger eice..rdingly addressed them on behalf of
the defendant, and he commented by e-
characterising the pdr
sent prosecution as a most harsh proceeding against the e-
fendant. He said there was not the slightest evidence nto
show that the young lady was not an entirely free agent i
the matter, or that she had in any manner been entrapped
into the marriage. The defendant had already buffered
severely for his share in the transaction. He had been corn
mitted to prison under an attachment of the Court of Chan-
cery, and there he must remain until he consented to have
such an allowance settled upon his wife as should be directed
by the Lord Chancellor, and therefore he submitted there
was no ground for insinuating that the young lady would
be deprived of her property by her connexion with the de-
fendant. He urged upon the jury that it was exceedingly
probable the prosecution had only been instituted by some
disappointed suitor to the young lady, or some other pughter-
sons who bad an eye to her property, and that they o
not by returning a verdict of guilty tosanction the law being
made the instrument of carrying out the private objects of
such parties.
The Attorney-General, at the close of the address of Sir
F. Thesiger, said he felt called upon to state distinctly that
the prosecution was instituted by him in his official capacity,
under the authority of the Vice-Chancellor.
The Lord Chief Baron, in summing up, told the jury that
they had nothing to do with the motives or objects of a pro-
secution, or the parties by whom it was instituted. The
legislature had directed that these registries of births, t
v mar-
riages, and deaths should be kept ; audit was no doubt miry
important that they should be kept correctly ; and to insure
that result, the legislature had fixed penalties of a severe
character for the offence of causing a false statement to be in.
sorted in any such register. The defendant was charged
with having made such false statement ; and the question
for the jury to consider was, whether the evidence adduced
satisfied them that be had done so or not.
The jury, after a short deliberation, returned their verdict,
finding the prisoner " Guilty of making a false statement
with regard to his residence."—t/pon the application of tbe
prisoner's counsel the verdict was recorded in the form in
which it was given, and the prisoner was placed in custody
of the governor of Newgate, judgment being deferred.
NSW COURT.—Before the Recorder sad Aldermen Sir J. Duke
sad Saleroom.
THE SOCIETY Or ARTISTN.—EITHAORDINLILY DISCLO-
MAMIE—E. Rizon VMS indicted for stealing and embezzling
the monies of the Society of British Artists, his masters.—
The prisoner had been in the employ of the society about
four years, his situation being that of keeper of the exhibiting
gallery in Suffolk-street, Pall-mall. The duties he had to
perform were, to take charge of the pictures sent in for ex-
hibition, to sell as many Si possible, and keep accounts of
every transaction, which were to be supervised by the com-
mittee. The society was accustomed to deduct 5 per cent.
from the amount realised by a picture, the work of an artist
not a member of the society ; but upon the proceeds of the
pictures of the members the per centage was oaly 21. The
prisoner had books, in which was entered the number of
each picture, and the price set upon it by the artist ; and in
another book were entered the number of the picture and
the price realised.
Mr. Stevens, the treasurer to the society, showed that a
picture, priced by the artist at 50 guineas, had been pur-
chased by • gentleman who drew a prize of 401. in the Art
Union, and who selected this picture, Raying over tohe
t
prisoner 121. 10s., the difference. The prisoner in his books
represented this transaction as having realised only 501. He
thereby subtracted 21. 10s., besides depriving the society of
the increased commission, and the society were liable to the
artist for the original sum fixed upon the picture. It was
shown that the prisoner took the same course in three die-
'-et traneactions:

Mr. Clarkson, in cross-examiost.,.., asked Mr. Stevens if
it were not usual for pictures sent to the society to be sold at
a very reduced rate from that stated by the artist, while it
was published to the world that the price realised was ten
times as much.—Mr. Stevens said he could not answer the

question.
Mr. Clarkson : Here's an instance then. Turn to 192 in
the catalogue. Was not the price put by the artist upon
that picture 3001., and was it not actually sold for 371., while
in a printed catalogue it was stated to have fetched 2001.?
Mr. Stevens said the original price was 3001., and it cer-
tainly had produced but 371. He could not say whether it
was stated to have fetched 2001. It was one of A. J. Wool-
mer's pictures. The Art Union catalogue was made up
from the society's books. lam an artist by profession. I
remember painting a picture called a "Head of a Greek
Boy." It was exhibited by the society, and was sold in the
gallery to a Mr. Bohn, of Davenport, for 17 guineas. I
painted a copy of it. I sent the picture to Mr. Bohn. I
think the original was sent.
Mr. Clarkson : Upon your oath, Mr. Stevens, did you not
send to Mr. Bohn a copy of the picture you sold him for 17
guineas, while you resold the original Pr 10 guineas ?
Mr. Stevens : I believe I did. It is a common practice
amongst artists to make copies of their pictures, and some-
times a copy excels the original. I cannot say that I have
done it deliberately. It 's a very common practice. I re-
mgember last • mon (1847) selling a picture out of the
gallery to Sir Thomas Philli for 10/. Sir Thomas paid •
deposit of 21. There was aps
picture called " Dividing the
Spoil" priced at 2-50 guineas, and Sir Thomas agreed to pur-
edoatothc,an.ydou:
caution you how you answer my question, did you not ask
chmaser.thcaitufkorso2:o:l.,
Now,but afte:r
the contract.
uponw a rth
your h he
solemn
the prisoner to represent in the hooks that Sir Thomas
Phillips had paid. the 21. m a deposit upon the two pictures
—while, in fact, he had only paid it upon the smaller
purchase ?
Mr. Stevens : No, I never did.
Mr. Clarkson : Mind. I ask you again. Did you not do
that to prevent Sir Thomas Phillips from getting out of the
purchase of the 2201. picture ?
Mr. Stevens : 1 did nothing of the kind.
The Recorder wished to know whether the witness had
received the seventeen guineas from Mr. Bohn before he sent
I him the imitation picture ?—Mr. Stevens believed not.
Mr. Clarkson : So you swear, Mr. Stevens, that you said
nothing about the deposit being on both pictures.—Mr.
Stevens seemed to be recollecting, when—The Recorder said,
the question is plain enough : did you think that the deposit
had been paid on both pictures, when in point of fact only
one was sold to Sir Thomas Phillips?
Mr. Stevens : I said something about it ; but I thought
that both pictures h
boh ad been sold to Sir Thomas, and that the
deposit was upon t.
Mr. Clarkson said he wanted to let the public know how
this and similar societies were coaducted.
Mr. Stevens: Artists fix whatever price they choose upon
their pictures : No. 128 last year sold for 801.
Mr. Clarkson : Was it not stated to have realised 1501.?—
Mr. Edwards objected to the question.—The Recorder said
he thought it had but a very meagre bearing upon the case.
Mr. Clarkoon declined to press the question. U. had five
and twenty similar instances before him. He only wished
the public to know the practice of these art societies. The
teemed counsel then asked whether, supposing a picture
priced at 100 guineas was sold for 25, the artist being con-
tented to receive 20, allowing the seller to have the other 5,
the society would expect commission on the 25 guineas or
the 0 i
Mr. Stevens • On the larger one. The commission was
charged upon the amount realised.