The Sun.
London, England, 1850-01-05 00:00:00

LAMBETH.

John Shaw, a hairdresser, residing at No. 6, Car-
digan-place, Kennington-cross, and George Mathews,
a carver and gilder, of 83, Regent•street, Lambeth-
walk, were placed at the bar, before Mr. Norton, on
a charge of obtaining, by means of false and fraudu-
lent pretences, the sum of 201. from Mr. Paul Charles
Garbanati, of 112, Newman-street, Oxford-street, carver
and gilder.

Garbanati deposed that having served the pri-
soner Mathews in some pecuniary matters, that person
came to him, and said, " Now that I am a freedman,
and in a condition to repay you, I'll tell you that which
I never could tell you before. I have a very valuable
painting by Etty, and which has been exhibited by
the Society of Arts, in Adam street, Adelphi, but it's
locked up for a small sum." I asked where he had
got it, and he replied, " I am not in a position
to tell you now—but say you will release it,
and I'll then ,tell you all about it.. The picture is in
the possession of Mr. Shaw, of Kennington-lane,
who has advanced 201. on it, and if you will give
that sum to release it, you shall have the power im-
mediately to claim it ; you will also be able to deduct
the 51. you paid to Adams tcrme, and the picture
wilt afford you a liberal commission." I replied, that
if the painting had teen exhibited by the Society of
Arts, the fact stamped its authenticity, and that I
should look after it. On the 20:h or 21st of' last
month I went to the house of the prisoner Shaw,
and, seeing that person, said, " You have a picture
painted by Etty, belonging to a man named Ma-
thews ?" Shaw showed me the painting (the Storm),
and said that it had been exhibited by the Society of
Arts. He also said that he had lent Mathews 201.
on it, and had given him a day or two longer to
pay the money and get it back. On the 24th
Shaw called at his (Mr. Garbanaii's) house, when
he repeated that the picture was by Etty, and
offered
to keep it a few days longer; and on Saturday last
he (Garbanati) paid him the 201, and took away the

painting. On the following Monday the witness
called on Mr. Wass, the secretary to the Etty Exhi-
bition, and ascertained from that gentleman that the
painting was a copy of Etty's marine painting, " The
Storm ;" that the original had been forwarded to the
exhibition from Manchester, and had been returned
to Manchester. Mr. Wass also told him that the late
Mr. Etty himself had pronounced the painting pur-
chased by Mr. Garbanati to be a copy, and that of
course it had not been in the exhibition.
The prisoner Mathews—Who was it that suggested
or rather recommended you to go to Mr. Wass ?
Mr. Garbanati—l certainly will give you the credit
of recommending me to show the painting to that
gentleman.
Mr. Garbanati proceeded to say, that on discovering
the painting to be a mere copy, he saw the prisoner
Shaw, and said he bad come for the 201. that he bad
been defrauded of; but his reply was, " I have nothing
to do with what Mathews may have told you ; the
picture was sold by him at that interview." Shaw
said, " rll tell you the truth ; I bought it for 101. at a
sale on Brixton-Lill, and wrote to Mr. Wass to have
it exhibited with Mr. Etty's paintings, thinking it to
be one of his, but he pronounced it to be spurious.
, Mathews solicited me to sell it, and I asked 301. for
I it, but, to oblige him, accepted of 201., out of which
I had to give him (Mathews) 51." Mathews subse-
quently told him (witness) that Shaw had instigated
him to deceive him, and to state that the picture had
been exhibited at the Society of Arts.
In his cross-examination by Mr. Games, who
attended for Shaw, Mr. Garbanati said, that if the
painting had been an original by Etty, it would be
worth 2001. He had not asked any one the value of
the painting, but his own opinion was, that if put up
for sale, it would not fetch 51. He had advanced the
money to oblige the prisoner Mathews, and had no
idea of purchasing the picture if he had not been
urged to do so by Mathews, and had done so in the
hope of being able to serve that person, and to repay
himself the money he had advanced on his account.
Was quite certain the painting would not fetch -251.
or 301. at a sale. Though he (Mr. Garbanati) had
known Mathews for some time, he should not have
purchased the painting on his representation, and
he was induced to part with his money, not upon his
representation., but those of the prisoner Shaw.
In, his cross-examination by the prisoner Mathews,
Garbanati admitted that the money he had
paid for the painting was the produce of
a bill of exchange, drawn upon him by the
prisoner (Mathews), and which Mathews got dis-
counted. He added that this was done more to serve
Mathews than himself, and in order to secure the
painting, as Shaw had refused to keep it any longer,
and he could not at that moment get in so much
money as 201. The bill which was indorsed by
Mathews had some time to run before it would be-
come due.
Mr. Games addressed the magistrate on behalf of
his client, said the case exhibited nothing more than a
little bit of the trickery in the trade of picture deal-
ing, and that there was not the slightest pretence for
giving the parties into custody.
Mr. NORTON, on the contrary, was clearly of opinion
that a conspiracy to defraud was made out. The
case was one which he thought required the fullest
investigation, and with that view he should remand
the prisoners, but would take bail for their appear.
ance on a future day.
Shaw was at once bailed, but the friends of Ma-
thews not being in attendance he was locked up.
WESTMINSTER.
William Manning, upwards of twenty years a
private watchman at the House of Lords, whose wife
stands remanded until Monday next upon suspicion of
having stolen a great number of printed papers
relating to appeal causes, and other business of the
House, was placed at the bar charged with being
concerned with her in the transaction.
William Lucy, a fishmonger, in Hungerford-market,
stated that about last autumn the prisoner came to
him and inquired whether he was a buyer of waste
paper, and received an answer in the affirmative. The
prisoner's wife subsequently brought at two dif-
ferent times twenty-five and thirty-six pounds,
which he purchased. On Tuesday last (the day after
the examination of his wife, the particulars of which
have been already detailed in our impression of
Tuesday last), the prisoner came to him, and having
stated that his wife was in trouble about the paper,
asked witness to let him have it back, which he
refused to do, observing that he would not give it up
to any but a person in authority, and he subsequently
gave information in the proper quarter.
The paper which witness had purchased was pro-
duced, and resembled that exhibited on the former
occasion, a portion of which related to appeal causes
still pending in the House.
In reply to questions from Mr. Lewis, who defended
the prisoner, witness said the prisoner never brought
nor sold him any paper.
James Tutton, a policeman on duty at the House
of Lords, said that on the 23d ult. he was in the
passage of the House, at about seven in the morning,
when the prisoner passed him with a blue bag under
his arm, which from the bulk might have contained
about Albs. of paper, but he did not see the contents at
that time. Prisoner returned in about a quarter of
an hour, and went in the direction of the new House
of Lords. In a few minutes he came back with
another bag full, and about the same size as before.
Prisoner said he had been taking a few papers for
waste paper; they were of no use, were lying about,
and as they were going to clean up the place he
thought he had a right to have a few as well as any-
body else. Some conversation then occurred about
the value of the paper, when witnes, who had been in
the cheesemongering line, said that if clean the paper
would fetch 21d. or 31d. per pound, when prisoner
replied that 2d. or 21d. was as much as he could get
fur it. He then produced a sheet of paper, resembling
in size and form those sold to Mr. Lucy. After some
further remarks the prisoner said the paper was of no
use and he had the privilege of taking it, and he then
put the blue bag under his arm.
Mr. Lewis asked the witness whether it did not
appear to him to be waste paper.
Mr. BURRELL said that was a mere matter of
. .

opinion.
Mr. Lewis observed that the reasonable inference
was, that if the constable had thought it was not, he
would have felt it his duty to take notice of the cir-
cumstance.
Mr. Lewis having repeated the inquiry, the con-
stable said it did look like waste paper, and added
that he had no suspicion that anything was wrong, as
prisoner was considered a very trustworthy person,
and had been in the situation a great many years.
A gentleman in the Parliamentary-office of the
House was about to be called, when
Mr. Lewis said it was unnecessary, as he would
admit the paper at the House of Lords was like that
produced He then addressed the Magistrate on
behalf of his client, and submitted that there was
nothing to justify his detention. His client had
continued to perform his duty at the House until the
previous night. He entreated the Magistrate to
pause before he remanded the prisoner, as the effect
of that would be, probably, to deprive him of his
situation, in which he had borne an irreproachable
character for upwards of twenty years.
Mr. Minium. remanded the prisoner until Monday,
and refused to accept bail for his appearance.