The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1803-07-05 00:00:00

1.111,e

tiiratiaLlatt,*

,
. -

.. •
OMIT Or VMS'S Illrefelf, Tear ei.
RAY? Load. ELLtallollotiOat. .
letleirrt le. tams. .. ..
Mr. Caaaow gated, that this was ase OkA66
brought by the Plaintiff to recover the sum of fif-
teen guineas for painting the portraits of Mr. and
Mrs. Lewis, and five guineas for the frame. The
Plaintiff was a youn and ingenious artist, as the pic-
ture for which the a&inn was brought would prove;
He was a pupil of Sir William Beecbey, and bad
been applied'to to paint the portraits of the Dyftn-
dant (a linen-draper, in Conduit-street) and his wife.
People's taste differed, and it was the Defendant's
taste to have his portrait and that of his lady upon
the same canvass, he looking affedionately upon
her, and she contemplating him with eyes beaming
with love. The painting was finished, and taken
home. It was objefted tb. The collar of the ena-
moured husband stood ton high. and hid that part of
his face which Mrs. Lewis liked to pat : the artist
altered it, and again sent the pidure home. It was
again found fault with : the ear was not prominent
enough. Well, the hair was removed, to slew the
' gar a little more. The next ohjedion was, that Mr.
Lewis's eyes wre wholly diretted towards the lady;
he wished they .would no:: only contemplate her, but
the company who were admiring the picture. Tae
artist threw the eyes a little out to produce the effed
desired The lett objetction r, ide wasttrit the Either
inexpr •s-ibles were n'* well ptinte 1. It was an odd
taste for a man, when he wished to be described in
an affeetionate posture with h's v. :c, to be painted
with leather breeches on ; hu se') i; was the Defen-
dant's fancy ; and the a.-tist, consrio . that he had
endeavoured to fit him, refused to make any altera-
tion. Such was the nature of the aiction With re-
gard to the price, i, w..s the common price f: r such a
pidure.
Miss Kirkby 1 roved the terms upon which :he
Plaintiff painted his piaires were hui.g up in Ilis
room.
Mr. Sharpe, a young artist, who painted for tie
Royal Family, said the pidure was well painted, and
was worth much more than was charged.
Sir William Ileechey said the picture was well
done. He had seen the Defendant and his I..dy.
Mr. Lewis's portrait was like, hut Mrs. Lewis's w as
not like ; yet, to an :mist, who examined the features
one by one, there was a resemblaace, theugh the
whole was not like. With re;ard t • the price, it
was nothing, as the Plaintiff was a y.a.ing artist wi•o
was painting for fame If he was tl paint such a
piettire' he should ch irge len guineas.
Mr. G:sas addr-ssed the ?tire en the past ..d. the
Defendant. The grimed of his jef.r.ce was, that the
Plaintiff bad contracted with the litiendant, that if
he or his frieu Is did not approve of the picture, he
was to have no hing to do Seidl it.
The Defendiot 's shop-Jan said he was in the shop,
and overheard •;;consersatiau between the Plaint 1
and-Defendant to the effect stated by Nit-. Gibbs
1 , Mrs. Peareey declared the riScure was not in the
least hike—,as to Mrs. Lewis, she was hideous. -
.s:k. Barnard Pr.ucey, a young ('antab, son of the
last witness, was .asked his opinion of the i:ieteire.
Mr Garrow desired him to use the glass that was
pendant from hi . neck. Ihe Ari VICS% said he could
vet better without it. He was dressed in the style of
a Bend-sum'', I^•'"Ber of the Orst order. Mr. (Jar-,
row asked horn whist prtression he was of ? He -4-
plied that was best kmArn to himself. It turned out
he was a student at Canibr;dge. Mr. Garrim ad-
vised him to go back to his University, and learn to
deport himself with more decorum, and not to an-
swer civil questions in so rude.. manner. It was
the opinion of the witness that the picture was odious.
The next witness wasa taylor, and he declared that
the picture was totally unlike the originals. He ad-
mitted the coat and leather breeches were alikt,
Mr. Carberry, one of the Jury, WAS sworn, and
said the pi Lure WAS ;tot like. t
Mr. GA it Row replied--He observed, i had been
admitted that the portrait of Mr Lewis was like,
but that Mrs. Lewis': was not a perfed resembhisice.
Perhaps those who had adopted this opinion were
only accustomed to see Mrs. Lewis in her ordinap
domestic habit. In the pidure she was arrayed an
her bridal dress, and seemed to smile upon her hus-
band with an affedion which in-heated she had just
come from the altar of Hymen--she appeared all
loveliness. Perhaps het looks were different now.
Those who judged of the pidure might have seen
her when she was contemplating her lord with an
aspeft which denoted impatience of the matrimonial
yoke. lie was far from insinuating that this was
1 the case, he merely wished to infer that the wit-
nesses judgment might have been so deceived.
' Lord Et tcenosoucis said, that if the Jury be-
lieved the young man who had given evidence for
the Defendant, this 'became a question of contra&
and the verdid must be in his favour ; but it was
possible their conversation might have been imper-
fectly heard. It was net very likely that a young
man, wishing to rise in his profession, would enter
into a contract by which he was to expend his time
and labour, and his remuneration to depend upon
the caprice of the Defendant and his friends.
The Jury were of the same opinion, and returned
a verdid for the Plaintiff —Damages '2ll.

I