Court Of Exchequer, Satur...
The Times, 1824-07-12T00:00:00

Rcvetuc Sittings after 7'crm. The SOLICITOBO4iNEXRAL stated tllat this was an information, seeking ,the condemnation o! a number of foreign pictures, which were claimed by olnn Eckford. The cause. of forfeiture stated in the infomlatlon was, that the picturcg had been imported into this coantry without payment of the duty to which they were liable The jury moast be aware that adllforeign picures broaght inWtb'tie country were subjeteWd to a tluty, and he knew of no articles tc which revenue duties could more properly attach, for pictures were objects of luxury, and purchased only by persons of considerabh property. The case which he had to make out with regard to the pictures which formed thc subject of the information appeared to hir very clear. The officers of the Csestom-house havinig reason to sup. pose that the,claimant, Mr. Eckford, who was a picture-dealer, wai in possession of someforeien pictures which had not paid theduty, pro- ceeded to search his hoasein Water-street, Bridewell-preeinct,wheri they seized 64 paintings the condemnation of which was now soughit The circumstance which firstexcted the suspicion of the revenue officers was the arrival at the Custom.house of 145 jicrure-frames and from information which the officers received, they were led tc suspect that part of the pictures which were formerly the inmatas ot these frames were deposited in the house of the claimant. The jurs perhaps, mightnot be aware of the way in which foreign pictures were smuggled into this country. The pictures were taken out of thei frames andJ packed closely together in a wooden case, and were tben concealed in the middle of a bale of goods or at the bottom of c trunk. He was given to undorstand the sawugglers of pictureE from Italy bhad carried their ingenu,ity hO far as to scoop a hole in a block of marble, large enougi1 to conceal from 20 to 30 pic. tures, in which manner they ha -been surreptitiously introduced into this country. It would be shown in evidence that marks were tbund on the pictures seized at the claimant's, correspond. ing with other marks which had been plaoed upon the frames that were detained at the Custom-house, and there were other circurn- stances to identify them as having been in those frames abroad. Mr. Drinkwater, a landwaiter in the service of the Customc, proved that in November last, 145 picture-frames were entered at the Custom-house to a person named Walling. They were detained fai being under value. Thiomas Boyce, a Custom.house officer, deposed, that on the 12th of March last he went to the house of the claimant. HIe had previously taken copies of the marks on the picture frames; heseized 64 pictures at the cilamant's which had marks corresponding with those on the frames. Sixty-two of the pictures fitted exactly to the frames at the Custom-bouse; for die other two no frames could be found, and they had written upon them " No F." Robert Laming deposed, that he was a gilder, and had been in the service of Mr. Eckford for 12 years. His master's son told him lately in his fathier's piesence that he had lost some picture frames at the Custom.hounes. On the 13th of February, three packages arrived at his master's house; saw them opened, and thev contained pictures without frames. On the 10th of Mlarch, a wooden case came to Mlr. Eckford's. It was opened during the night, but not in his presence. The next morning, however be observed some yictures which were not in the house on thc preceding day. It was Mr. Eckford's habit to go abroad twice a year to purchase foreign pictures. He knew from experience that "0 . F." placed upon a picture. meant that there was a good frame for it, and that " N. F." meant that there was no frame. Those marks were placed on the pictures abroad. irl. Woodburne, a picture.Jealer, stated, that in his opiniwn the pictures in question were foreigrn paintings. Mr. JERvIS addressed the jury for the defendant. He stated that his client was a very respectable man. He had carried on business in his present residence for upwards of 20 years, and the fairness of his dealings had never been questioned before. It was extremely difficult to prove that property like pictures, which were constantly passing from hand to hand, had paid the proper duties. It rested with the Crown to prove the negative. Too much importance ap- peared to have been attached to the circumstance of the marks on the pictures. It was a common practice in foreign countries to place marks upon pictures. He remembered particularly that on the intro- duction of the Orleans and Dusseldorf galleries into this country, nearly all the pictures were mr,arked as those found in the claimant's possession might be. He should be able to prove that part of the pictures seized at Mr. Eckford's had beeti the subject of sale at a public auction, and that others had been seen in his possession two years ago; and if he did that, he trusted the jury would come to the conclusion that the pictures had been fairly imported. lr. Heath, a picture-dealer, proved that he had seen upwards of 30 of the pictures which were seized in the possession of Air. Eckford in November last. Mr. Newton, an auedoneer, proved that he was employed to seL some pictures for Air. Eckford, at the Mart, on the 23d of January. Some of those pictures were among those that had been seized, A clerk to Sir. Williams, the auctioneer, also proved that that gentleman was employed by Mr. Eckford to sen some pictures for him on the 24th of December. Some of the pictures offered for sale were amongst those seized. John Gumby, sword-cutler to the ring. deposed, that in Feru- afty 1822, he purchased of SIr. Eckford a picture by De Witte, the subject the GotId's Lead. He lef. the picture in the possession of Air. Eckford, and it was amongst those seized. Another witness proved that he had seen another of the pictures seized, the subject A Woman and Cihild, in this country about three years ago. The SCLICITOa-GENERAL replied. The CHiEF BARON said that it rested with the claimant to prove that the picturcs h2d paid the duty. He had not done that, nor had he attempted to show how the pictures came into his pos- session. Under these circumstances, it was for the jury to deter- mine wehether thtey had been fairly imported. The Jury immediately condemned the whole of the pictures, with the exception of she Getied'., Head and the WFomanand Child. In the course of the trial several of the pictures were brought into Court. They appeared to be principally of the Flemish echool, and some wvere good specimnens. COURT O1F EXCIEQUER. SATURDAY, JULY 10. TIlE KINd V. ECKFORD.