The Sun.
London, England, 1834-02-08 00:00:00

Mr. Jadis, after he had got the paper, was not satisfied as
to the originality and v.due of the picture ; therefore called
for a warranty. fie received from Mr. Pennell the fol.

lowing note :

" WO, Piccadilly, Sept. 2, 1520.
" SlR—The picture I have this day sold you I warrant to be
a Claude, and for which you have paid 4001.—1 am, Sir, your
obedient servant, " J. PENN ELL."
.111 r. Pennell some time after agreed to sell the picture,
and it was left with him for that purpose, but _Sir. Pennell
could find no purchaser, and it remained in his gallery. At
last it was put up to auction, and bought in at 211. It
turned out that it was not a Claude, and not worth 5/.
Edward Smart lived at No. 10, Titchborne-street. He
was a dealer in paintings, thirty-five years of age, and was
born in the trade. He was acquainted with the works of
old masters. Knew the style of Claude. He bad seen the
picture in Court. It was not the production of Claude.
The value, frame and all, did not exceed 151.
Cross-examined by Sir JAMES SCARLETT—He said
Claude flourished about 150 years ago. He belonged to
the French school.

Henry Smart, brother to the last witness, was ac-
quainted with paintings. His opinion was that the pie.
ture was not a Claude. The alteration was made fifty years
after the picture was painted. He did not know when
Claude was born.
Phillip Hill had attended to the art of painting the
greater part of his life. He had bought pictures on his
own account, and on account of others. His late Majesty
George IV. had pictures from him. Many Claudes had
been in his posse.sion. Had seen the Marquis of West-
minster's and Mr. Angerstein's pictures. He did not
consider the picture in Court a Claude. It was of a class
of pictures be never bought.
SirJ. SCARLETT said if Mr Jadis should recover in
'this action it would be clear gain. It was no question of
fraud. If the character of the picture had been anisrepri.
tented the plaintiff must recover, notwithstanding the
defendant might he the most honest man alive. He
should prove that Pennell bought it as a Claude from a
person who would be called to prove it a Claude. The
fact was that on the application of the King of Sardinia
four hundred ancient pictures were discovered walled up
in a subterraneous part of Turin, and most of them had
been altered to render them more perfect. He had seen
those pictures at Turin. Claude was born in 1600. Like
many other painters he changed his style. He should
prove it was one of Claude's earliest pictures.
Mr. Allan Woodbur❑ sold the picture warranted to be
a Claude. He knew the pictures of Claude. There were
few of his pictures in England. He saw the picture firet
in 1828 at Rome, and soon after it came to this country.
The witness made the alteration to improve it, and bold it
to Pennell for eighty guineas.
Mr. John Smith was the author of aswork giving an
account of pictures in all the galleries in Europe. He
was acquainted with Claude's works. He ascribed the
picture to the early manner of Claude. It was a picture
of capricious value. It teas not a fine performance. II
the picture had been done in CI suile's hest style it would
be worth from 1,000 to 1,500 guineas.
Mr. J. Melton, a picture-dealer twenty-five years,
believed the picture to be a Claude. The touches about it
were Cl iude's. No other man could have made them.
The touch of a little castle convinced him it was done by
Claude.
The SOLICITOR.-GENERAL, in his reply, said that Rome
' was the Birmingham of Italy in respect to the manu-
facture of pictures, and the painting in Court was a
trumpery copy of the early works of Claude.
The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages
3601., by which they allowed the defendant 401. for his
picture.

COURT OF ADMIRALTY, FEB. 7.

(Before Sir J. NxcHotr,.)
IMPORTANT JUDGMENT.—THE NEPTUNE.

The arguments in this case, which is one of great im-
portance to the shipping and commercial interet=, were
heard last Court day, and Sir John Nicholl this day pro-
nounced a very elaborate judgment, in the course of which
he detailed all the material facts in the c iuse.
Sir J. NICHOLL said the vessel sailed for India in
IS3I, and returned in May, 1E333, having in the interval
rriormed various voyages and cat ried considerable freight.
Soon after her arrival home she was arrested for the pry-
meat of seamen's wages, and uo bail being given on the

part of the owners she was sold, and the proceeds brought
into the registry. The wages paid out was 1,5001., and
6,0001. was paid in as the proceeds. The question the
Court had to decide was if material men had a lien on the
ship for stores supplied for her outfit. Looking to what
had been the established practice of this Court, founded
upon the civil and general law, the Court did not feel
authorized to prevent the material men from proceeding
with their actions against the proceeds.
An appeal was asserted from the decision of the Learned
Judge, and the proceeds were directed to he kept in pos-
session of the registry till the decision of the superior
Court is known.