309 



ANNUAL REGISTER, 1813. 



the pictures in question at a cer- 

 tain price, representing them as 

 works of certain eminent masters ; 

 that he had previously purchased 

 these pictures for less than half 

 the money, and that, too, upon 

 credit. 



Now it might be improper in a 

 clergyman to be dealing in pictures 

 and jewels, &c. ; but moral im- 

 propriety, supposing such to exist 

 here, was not necessarily a good 

 ground for the interference oi the 

 court ; as moral fraud and judi- 

 cial fraud might be quite distinct 

 things. Then, as to his repre- 

 senting these to be the pictures of 

 certain eminent masters, he swore, 

 that he believed so, and that they 

 were worth the sum charged for 

 them. In such a case it was no 

 good ground for the interference 

 of the court that he had purchas- 

 ed them for half the money and 

 upon credit. Of all things in the 

 world, pictures were those in re- 

 gard to which the prctium nffec- 

 tionis was most applicable ; and it 

 Jwas not in itself a proof of fraud, 

 that one bought pictures at 5,000/. 

 and sold them for 12,000/. or for 

 5iO,000/. As to purchasing on 

 credit, and selling for ready money, 

 that was no ground of interfer- 

 ence. 



It was also to be observed, that 

 no oiFer had been made by sir G. 

 Page Turner to return the pictures. 

 Now, in any view of the case, if 

 the plaintiff refused to pay the 

 price contracted fo), the defendant 

 had a right to have his pictures 

 back again ; for, being pictures, 

 it was mighty uncertain, whether 

 «nother "amateur might not give 

 •the defendant more for them than 

 the price contracted for by sir G. 



Page Turner. Theinjunctioncould 

 never have been reasonably re- 

 quired to stand, unless, at least, 

 the money which the defendant 

 had paid for them was paid by the 

 plaintiffinto court. But in the pre- 

 sent instance, he saw no grounds 

 for the court's interference at all. 

 Injunction dissolved. 



Court of Common Pleas, Diih- 

 Jin, Sik, 9th, and iOth of Dec. 

 \S\3,— Dunne v. the Albion In- 

 surance Company. — Before Lord 

 Norbury, and a special Jury.— 

 This trial was of considerable im- 

 portance ; and occupied the at- 

 tention of the court during three 

 days. 



The action was brought for 

 2,300/. the amount of an insur- 

 ance effected with the Albion 

 Company, by the plaintiff, An- 

 drew Dunne, esq. of Dollards- 

 town, in the county of Kildare, on 

 the life of the late James Dowling 

 Medlicott, esq. of Youngstown, 

 in the same county. The insur- 

 ance was effected on tiie 12th 

 of April, 1811; and Mr. Medli- 

 cott died on the 6th of October 

 1812, 



It appeared that an insurance on 

 the same life, for 700/. had beea 

 effected with the company, subse- 

 quently to the insurance of 2,300/. 

 by a Mr. Hyland, a neighbour of . 

 Mr. Dunne's ; and that the fate 

 of both policies was likely to be 

 determined by the issue of this 

 suit. 



The defence set up by the com- 

 pany was, that at, and before, the 

 period of the insurance, Mr. Medli- 

 cott was addicted to habits of vio- 

 lent excess : that he was not in 

 insurable health at that period: 



