On the 11th of September, 1802, the following cause was decided by a
jury in the sheriff’s court.
_Hurst_ v. _Halford_
The plaintiff was a _nicknackitarian_, that is, a dealer in curiosities,
such as Egyptian mummies, Indian implements of war, arrows dipped in the
poison of the upas-tree, bows, antique shields, helmets, &c. He was
described as possessing the skin of the cameleopard exhibited in the
Roman amphitheatre, the head of the spear used by king Arthur, and the
breech of the first cannon used at the siege of Constantinople; and, in
short, of almost every rarity that the most ardent virtuoso would wish
to possess.
The defendant was the executor of a widow lady of the name of Morgan,
who, in the enjoyment of a considerable fortune, indulged her fancy, and
amused herself in collecting objects of natural and artificial
curiosity.
It was stated that this lady had been long in the habit of purchasing a
variety of rare articles of the plaintiff: she had bought of him models
of the temple of Jerusalem and the Alexandrian library, a specimen of
the type invented by Memnon, the Egyptian, and a genuine manuscript of
the first play acted by Thespis and his company in a waggon; for all
these she had in her lifetime paid most liberally. It appeared also she
had erected a mausoleum, in which her deceased husband was laid, and she
projected the depositing her own remains, when death should overtake
her, by the side of him. The plaintiff was employed in fitting it up,
and ornamenting it with a tessellated pavement; this was also paid for,
and constituted no part of the present demand. This action was brought
against the defendant to recover the sum of 40_l._ for stuffing and
embalming a bird of paradise, a fly-bird, an ourang-outang, an
ichneumon, and a cassowary. The defendant did not deny that the
plaintiff had a claim on the estate of the deceased, but he had let
judgment go by default, and attempted merely to cut down the amount of
the demand. The plaintiff’s foreman, or assistant, proved that the work
had been done by the direction of Mrs. Morgan, and that the charge was
extremely reasonable. On the contrary, the defendant’s solicitor
contended that the charge was most extravagant; he stated, that the
museum of the deceased virtuoso had been sold by public auction, and
including the models of the temple of Jerusalem and the Alexandrian
library, the antique type, Thespian manuscript, spearhead, and every
thing else she had been all her life collecting, it had not netted more
than 110_l._ As to the stuffed monkies and birds, which constituted the
foundation of the plaintiff’s claim, they scarce had defrayed the
expense of carrying them away; they were absolute rubbish. The
plaintiff’s attorney replied that his client’s labour was not to be
appreciated by what the objects of it produced at a common sale,
attended, perhaps, by brokers, who were as ignorant as the stuffed
animals they were purchasing.
The under-sheriff observed, that in matters of taste the intrinsic value
of an article was not the proper medium of ascertaining the compensation
due to the labour which produced it; a virtuoso frequently expended a
large sum of money for what another man would kick out of his house as
lumber. If Mrs. Morgan, who it was proved was a lady of fortune, wished
to amuse the gloomy hours of her widowhood by stuffing apes and birds,
her executor was at least bound to pay the expense she had incurred, in
indulging her whimsical fancy. He saw no reason why a single shilling of
the plaintiff’s demand should be subtracted; and the jury viewed the
curiosities in the same light, and gave a verdict for the plaintiff,
damages 40_l._
* * * * *