APPENDIX TO CHRONICLE. 



S93 



dealer in pictures : he had not 

 represented to the defendant that 

 the picture belonged to Sir Felix 

 Agar in the letter he wrote, nor 

 had he ever so stated in conver- 

 sation. Sir F. Agar had some 

 pictures at the plaintiflf's that he 

 wished to sell for 4000 guineas, 

 to raise money, but the witness 

 .had never said that this Claude 

 was one of them. He had never 

 stated to the defendant that Sir 

 F. Agar was in a rage with him 

 for taking 1000 guineas : some- 

 thing has passed between the wit- 

 ness and the defendant, which 

 made an approach to it at Boy- 

 dell's, where they saw an en- 

 graving of this picture in the 

 Liber Feritafis, with tlie name of 

 Mr. Agar at the bottom ; and the 

 defendant having fallen into the 

 delusion, the witness did not 

 think it incumbent on him to re- 

 move it. 



Lord EUenborough observed, 

 that he could imagine no reason 

 why the name of the owner 

 should be withheld : in all fair 

 dealing there was no concealment 

 of the kind. It was the duty of 

 the witness, seeing the delusion, 

 to have endeavoured to do it 

 away. 



In the continuation of the 

 cross-examination, this point was 

 still pressed : a letter was pro- 

 duced to, and admitted by the 

 witness, in which he had men- 

 tioned the name of Mr. Agar. 

 After the sale, the witness never 

 said that Mr. Gray, having bought 

 the picture under tlie misrepre- 

 sentation that it belonged to Sir 

 F. Agar, was therefore at liberty 

 to return it ; but he had stated, 

 that if Mr Gray could satisfy him 

 that tlie picture was not a genuine 

 Clau'le, he would never rest till 



he was relieved from his bar- 

 gain. 



Lord EUenborough observed, 

 that the witness appeared to have 

 mistaken both his duty and the 

 law : knowing the existence of 

 the delusion, he ought to have 

 removed it ; and unless he did so, 

 the contract was founded upon 

 circumstances of deception ; if 

 which circumstances had not ex- 

 isted, the defendant might not 

 have offered so high a price as he 

 proposed : not only the law, but 

 every principle of common ho- 

 nesty required that the party 

 should not be allowed to continue 

 under any delusion when it could 

 be prevented. 



The Attorney-General hoped 

 that it would not be imputed to 

 him that he at all countenanced 

 the practice, because he endea- 

 voured to show that the delusion 

 coiild have no opei-ation under 

 the circumstances ; the suspicion 

 that the picture came out of a 

 particular cabinet might induct 

 a party to give a higher price, 

 but he submitted that here the 

 contract had been completed be- 

 fore any thing passed which could 

 be misinterpreted into a state- 

 ment that the picture belonged to 

 the collection of Sir F. Agar. 



Lord EUenborough added, that 

 a third person making a contract 

 like the present ought to take 

 especial care that nothing was 

 said or done by him to lead to 

 mistake. It appeared clear, that 

 though not directly, yet indi- 

 rectly, Mr. Butt had told the de- 

 fendant that Sir F. Agar was «the 

 owner of the picture. 



The witness observed that he 

 had had great difficulty in the 

 business. 



Lord EUenborough.— There can 



be 



