The Sun.
London, England, 1864-09-17 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVEN LNG, SEPTEMBER 17, 1864.

LAW INTELLIGENCE--This Day,

SHERIFFS' COURT.
(Before Mr F. Gibbons.)

SHABSPERE'S PORTRAIT-SINQULAIt CASE-ELLIS P.

POLAND.

This was an action to recover a sum of money for certain
portraits of Shakspere and engravings of Shakspore's house,
at Stratford-on-Avon.

Defendant objected to the portraits because they were
not like the original. (Laughter.)
His Honour (Mr Gibbons) would like to know who could
decide the question, for there were half a dozen different
portraits of Shakspere.
Defendant produced two or three of the pictures sent in
by plaintiff, and his Honour remarked that it appeared to
be a very good likeness, taken from the celebrated Chandcs

portrait.
Plaintiff—That is exactly so. Defendant had the pic-
tures for the fancy fair held for the benefit of the Dramatic
College at the Crystal Palace.
Defendant—Yes, but I could not sell them.
His Honour—Let me see the engraving of the house.
Well that is a very good one indeed. What is your objec-
tion to it ?
Defendant—There is a model brougham standing at the
door. (Laughter.)
His Honour (laughing)—l cannot see anything to com
plain of in that. Perhaps you object to a tiger standing by
the brougham. (Laughter.)
Defendant—The pictures were sent on approval, and as
they would not sell, I contend that plaintiff ought to take
them back.

Plaintiff—They have been so roughly used that I can
not do so. Why defendant papered the whole of the in-
side of the Shakspere House at the Crystal Palace with en-
gravings, and I believe that some are actually nailed up.
His Honour asked defendant how long he had kept the
goods.

Defendant—Till the fair•was over.
His Honour thought that was too long. It was clear
that the goods sent on approval ought to be returned im-
mediately they were found not to suit:
Defendant assured the Court that the engravings were
not at all damaged, and his Honour directed that they
should be produced on a future day, when he could judge of
the state they were in, and if plaintiff should receive them
back upon certain terms.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE,—This day.

WESTMINSTER.

A PROMI-.ING YOUNG Womax.—Elizabeth Corbett, a
girl apparently not more than 18 or 19 years of age, wa
chorged with the following outrageous conduct in St Luke's
Workhouse, Chelsea.
Miss Mary Sutton, assistant matron of the workhouse,
said that the defendant was admitted there last Tuesday•
Last evening complainant was in the hall, and as the in-
mates entered for supper the defendant suddenly attacked
her in the most disgraceful manner. She turned round
suddenly when opposite, and slapped complainant's face,
which she followed up by rushing upon her, striking her
repeatedly with her fists, and throwing her on the ground.
She then pulled her hair down and seized herby the throat.
Mr Selfe—ls anything known of her ?
Complainant—She only came out of prison on Tuesday
morning.
Prisoner—What of it ? What has that to do with you ?
You're a nice article
Mr Selfo—What was she in prison for ?
Policeman—Sho was committed for six weeks for break-
ing her mother's windows.
Mr Selfe—Had you done anything to her, Miss Sutton
before she attacked 3 ou ?
Complainant—l had merely pointed to the seat she was
to take, as it was the first time I had seen her since her ad-

mission.
Prisoner—Why, you better mind; you laid your hands
upon me, didn't you, and I paid you out, didn't I. I'll let
you see what I am ; I am a devil in hell outlawed.
Complainant—l did not put my hand upon her at all.
William Cook said that, hearing cries, he went to the
spot and found Miss Sutton upon the ground with her hair
all loose about her head.
Another inmate was called to show the violence of the

assault.
Prisoner—You're a pretty thing. Why, didn't you
and me agree to slip into her, and go to prison together ?
Witness—Yes, we did ; but I don't want to go to prison.
Mr Selfe—Your conduct is most outrageous, and I shall
commit you to hard labour for 3 months.