The Sun.
London, England, 1846-11-28 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

VICE- CHANCERY COURT, Non. 27.
(Before the VICE-CHANCELLOR of ENGLAND.)

A:SLIGHT BREEZE IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY,

His Honour the Vice-Chancellor of England sat in
his court in Lincoln's Inn to day, pursuant to appoint-
ment, and took motions. Nothing of any public interest
came before his Honour, but the usual dull routine
business of the court was somewhat changed, and the
spectators not a little amused, by a slight fracas among
counsel, which took place in the case of

BOYD V. FARQUHARSON,
in which Mr. BETHELL moved that certain of the de-
fendants should be ordered to pay into court a sum of
upwards of 1,500/.
Mr. J. Parker and Mr. Glasse appeared for some of
the parties in the case, and the former gentleman was
proceeding to argue against the application, when
Mr. BETHELL, with considerable warmth, interrupted
him, and said—Mr. Parker, I put it to your sense of
honesty and propriety whether, in a flagrant case like this,
such a defence as you are now making ought to be made?
Mr. J. PARKER felt indignant at such a statement, and
denied that Mr. Bethell had any right to question the
honesty or propriety of the course he was pursuing.
The Learned Gentleman then proceeded with his
arguments, but was again interrupted by
Mr. BETHELL, who, addressing himself to Mr. Glasse,
said, he trusted that his (Mr. Glasse's) name was not
attached to the original answer to the bill.
Mr. GLAssz being thus personally called upon, stated,
that his name was not attached to the original answer,
as he did not draw it, but it was affixed to the supple-
mental answer. Notwithstanding, however, the hopes
of Mr. Bethell towards him he had no objection to take
upon himself the responsibility of the first answer. He
submitted that this course of proceeding on the part of
a leading counsel in a cause was highly improper,totally unjustifiable, and not calculated to forward the
proceedings of the Court, or increase it in the estimation
of the public.
Mr. BETHELL, in a further stage of the case designated
the answer and the arguments of counsel as evasive and
dishonest.
Mr. J. PARKER, with some warmth, deprecated the
adoption of the course pursued by Mr. Bethell, and was
surprised that a gentleman of his standing at the bar
should think it decent to designate the arguments of his
adversary as evasive and dishonest. Such assertions
were not calculated to promote the decency and decorum
of the proceedings of the Court.
After this short, but rather warm, digression, the
arguments were concluded, and
His llorroun ordered the matter to stand over in order
that some further information should be furnished to the
Court.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BEACH, Nov. 27.
(Before Mr. Justice ERLE.)
ILES V. ELLINGTON.
This was an undefended cause, and was brought to
recover compensation in damages for false imprison-
ment at the instance of the defendant, who is a veterinary
surgeon at Deptford. He caused the plaintiff, who is a
journeyman whitesmith, to be taken into custody late
at night, on a charge of stealing some tools, but he was
liberated in about twenty minutes after his arrival at the
station-house, the charge being unfounded. The action
was brought in order that the plaintiff might be enabled
to wipe away the stain which the proceeding had cast
upon his character, and the jury gave him a verdict for
10/.

The following undefended. cases were disposed of, in
each case a verdict for the plaintiff being given:—
" Lawrie v. Francis," 257/, 6s. 7d.; and "Phillips v.
Millington," 50/. 10s.
A PASSION FOR PICTURES.—MOUNTAIN V. WILL3IOTT.
This was an action to recover le7l. 19s. for goods
sold and delivered, from the defendant, who is the
executor of a person named Knight. Knight was an
eccentric, penurious individual, and his appearance was
so dirty and wretched that people often gave him alms
as he passed along the streets. He was only dirty and
wretched from choice, as he possessed a good deal of
property, and a house in Nassau-street, two large
rooms in which were crowded with many pictures of the
choicest masters—not hung on the walls, but closely
packed against each other on the floors. The house
was loathsome from dirt, and he lived in it in the
greatest seclusion ; he kept no servants, and had no
family, the only inmates of the dwelling being himself and
several dogs,which he kept in a corner of the picture-room,
but ho only allowed them spare diet, and they were,
therefore, sadly lean. The plaintiff, it appeared, was in
the habit of buying and selling pictures for Knight, and
also in the habit of selling pictures to him on his own
account, and in this way he had supplied him with pic-
tures for about three years before his death, which took
place in November, 1842 ; at his death the amount
claimed remained unpaid. He left a will, which was in-
valid, on account of not having been properly attested.
A witness named Stephens, a coach-smith, proved taking
pictures to Knight from Mountain, and the delivery of
the bill, which Knight stated was correct, adding that
would be plenty of money for every one, and that he had
taken care of him in his will for the kindness with
which he and his wife had treated him, and he left him
a legacy of 1001., which he had not received for the above
reason. The witness identified the copy of the bill,
which was produced. On being asked to describe as
many of the pictures as he could recollect, he said the
subjects were—a swan and two boys; a naked lady, as large
as life, lying down; a man feeding pigs; a man with thorns
on his head, and some men a beating of him, called the
" Scourging of Christ," which was a very large picture ;
"A Music Party," and "A Lady Playing at Cards;"
and " A Man with a Long Beard." In cross-examina-
tion, he said the plaintiff conjoined the professioa of
picture. dealing with the less elevatieg one of cobbling
boots and shoes; he, believed kept a large dog 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 Morland, 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 I to
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 for several things, and that he should pay
kim 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.
Taybraham, 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 ;" the 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 17i,
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 100 L was intended by Knight to cover
rather
whole of his claim. It appeared that the plaintiff was
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 1001. legacy, in
July, 1843, through Mr. Johnstone, his attorney, no
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'ssale-rooms,of
the value of 171, which he wished to be deducted from the
legacy, not from the 1871., as might be inferred. Was it
not more probable that the claim was a fictitious one,
trumped up after his application 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 condition to give credit for even 5/.
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 ha 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 lOW.
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.