The Sun.
London, England, 1846-11-27 00:00:00

boots and shoes; he
_believed kept a large doer for
Knight, but he could not say, that he had a bill of 171.
against Knight at his death, which was afterwards
settled. He was ill "all over," particularly during the
last six months, when he appeared more eager for pic-
tures than ever, and more were supplied by the plaintiff
from that time to his death. He was very ill; he did
not know whether he was or was not affected in his mind,
but he was very cunning. Mr. Morley, a picture dealer,
proved seeing •-a picture of " Venus " reclining, " the
Judgment of Paris," " A Contest between a Man and
a Lion," " Lambeth Palace," by Morlend, and several
articles of vertu about six months before his death, and
his stating that he had purchased them from the
plaintiff. He had supplied Knight with pictures, but not
within five months of his death. A cheesemonger,"named
Wrankley, proved that Knight was perfectly in posses-
sion of his mental faculties up to the time of his death,
and that the expression referred to by Stephens was used
in reply to a question from the plaintiff, " When am Ito
be paid for my pictures, sir ?" Many people called
Knight " mad Knight." He even called himself so ;
and had cards printed on which was engraved, " Mad
Knight, Esq.—a renowned but harmless man." A
young man; named Price, who had attended Knight in
the capacity of a servant, had heard him, a few months
before his death, say that he owed the plaintiff a good
bit of money foe several things, and that be should pay
him as soon as he went to town. He had upwards of
3,000 pictures, which were numbered, and piled nearly
up to the ceiling of the rooms, only sufficient room being
left to get to the fire-place. The dead man's intention
was to build a house, if he had lived, and to have a
picture-gallery. The plaintiff was out of the way, or in
prison, at the time Knight died, and this the witness con-
sidered the reason he did not receive his account.
Joseph Patterson, the plaintiff's brother- in-law, proved
that the plaintiff had borrowed various sums of money
for the purpose of purchasing pictures for Knight. Mr.
Tajbrsharn, a vestryman of St. Pancras, and Knight's
landlord, deposed to being present when a Mrs. Gill-
ham, who represented herself as a relation of the de
ceased, said to him "Moreton (who was present)
claims all of these pictures;" to which Knight turned
round in his bed and responded, "No! a moiety
I grant ;" ehe being under the impression
that none of them belonged to the plaintiff. Knight
was in a wretched state from neglect for two months be-
fore he died, and at his (witness's) request the clergy-
man of the parish visited him. .
This was the plaintiff's case. Mr. Whitehurst, Q.C.,
was for the plaintiff.
Mr. CROWDER, Q.C.,` addressed the Court at some
length in behalf of the defendant. He said, notwith-
standing the evidence that had been adduced, he was jus-
tified in characterising the claim set up by the plaintiff
as fraudulent. If it was a just claim, was it likely that
the plaintiff would have allowed so many years to elapse,
during which he was in very poor circumstances,
before making any demand, save for the 171.,
which was paid ? He made no demand for the
amount he now claimed until January last. Assuming
that the pictures had been supplied, what evidence had
been given to show their value, or that they had all been
supplied ? The plaintiff did not pretend to make any
claim beyond six months previous to the death of Knight,
but he should produce evidence to show that all the pic-
tures spoken to were in his possession for more than six
months before his death, thus proving, by the evidence of
the plaintiff, that they must have been paid for. The
inference to be drawn from the whole of the matter was
that the legacy of 1001. was intend( d by Knight to cover
the whole of his claim. It appeared that the plaintiff was
rather employed in the capacity of an agent to go about
and purchase pictures, and for which he was supplied with
money, than as a seller. In applying for the 100/. legacy, in
July, 1843, through Mr. Johnstone, his attorney, nu
mention was made of what the plaintiff wished the jury
to believe was a bona fide debt, and in a letter subse-
quently written, he sought leave to take into his possession
pictures belonging to the deceased at Jones's sale-rooms of
the value of 171., which he wished to be deducted from the
legacy, nit from the 1871., as might be inferred. Was it
not more probable that the claim was a fictitious one,
tramped up after his rpplication for the legacy had
proved ineffectual ?
Mr. Linton deposed to the plaintiff informing him
that Mr. Knight had had some pictures from him for
approval, and that he had not had them returned to him.
A person named Davy proved that the plaintiff pur-
chased pictures for Knight, and that he was not
in a conditition to give credit for even 51.
He was imprisoned for six months with the plaintiff on a
conviction for manslaughter, but he (witness) was inno-
cent, as he held Mountain back in order to save a fellow
creature's life, but the Jews finding he would not give
evidence against Mountain, they swore falsely against

him.
Alfred Moore proved that the plaintiff told Mr. Gill-
ham that his bill had been settled, that he had no
further claims whatever, and that he thanked him for
the facilities he had afforded him to obtain its settle-
ment.
Mr. CROWDER having replied.
Mr. Justice ERLE summed up, and the jury found a
verdict for the plaintiff for 1001.
Mr. CRoWDER applied to the Court for leave to the
defendant to enter a nonsuit on account of a technical
mistake in the declaration.
Mr. Justice ERLE said he would consider the appli-
cation.