The Defendant is an upholsterer and tapestry-worker, and was recommended to Plaintiff as a person skilful in painting patterns for that purpose; the Plaintiff accordingly came to Defendant, who informing him that he had occasion for a tapestry design of the Element of Earth, to be painted on canvas, Plaintiff told Defendant he was well skilled in painting that way, and promised to perform it in a workmanlike manner; which if he did, Defendant undertook to pay him for it twenty guineas.
Defendant, soon after, hearing that Plaintiff was an engraver, and no painter, was very uneasy about the work, and ordered his servant to go and acquaint Plaintiff what he had heard; and Plaintiff then told the said servant, 'that it was a bold undertaking, for that he never did any thing of that kind before; and that, if his master did not like it, he should not pay for it.'
That several times sending after Plaintiff to bring the same to Defendant's house, he did not think fit so to do; but carried the same to a private place where Defendant keeps some people at work, and there left it. As soon as Defendant was informed of it, he sent for it home, and consulted with his workmen whether the design was so painted as they could work tapestry by it, and they were all unanimous that it was not finished in a workmanlike manner, and that it was impossible for them to work tapestry by it.
Upon this, Defendant sent the painting back to Plaintiff by his servant, who acquainted him, 'that the same did not answer the Defendant's purpose, and that it was of no use to him; but if he would finish it in a proper manner, Defendant would take it, and pay for it.'
Defendant employs some of the finest hands in Europe in working tapestry, who are most of them foreigners, and have worked abroad as well as here, and are perfect judges of performances of this kind.
The Plaintiff undertook to finish said piece in a month, but it was near three months before he sent to the Defendant to view it; who, when he saw it, told him that he could not make any use of it, and was so disappointed for want of it, that he was forced to put his workmen upon working other tapestry that was not bespoke, to the value of 200 l. which now lies by him, and another painter is now painting another proper pattern for the said piece of tapestry.
To prove the case as above set forth, call Mr. William Bradshaw.
To prove the painting not to be performed in a workmanlike manner, and that it was impossible to make tapestry by it, and that it was of no use to Plaintiff, call Mr. Bernard Dorrider, Mr. Phillips, Mr. De Friend, Mr. Danten, and Mr. Pajon.
By the counsel's memoranda on this brief it appears, that the witnesses examined for the Plaintiff were Thomas King, Vanderbank, Le Gard, Thornhill, and Cullumpton.
[25] James Thornhill, esq. serjeant-painter and history-painter to King George I. In June 1715, he agreed to paint the cupola of St. Paul's church for 4000 l. and was knighted in April 1720. In a flattering account given of him immediately after his death, which happened May 13, 1734, in his 57th year, he is said to have been "the greatest history-painter this kingdom ever produced, witness his elaborate works in Greenwich-Hospital, the cupola of St. Paul's, the altar-pieces of All-Souls College in Oxford, and in the church of Weymouth, where he was born; a cieling in the palace of Hampton-Court, by order of the late Earl of Halifax: his other works shine in divers noblemens' and gentlemens' houses. His later years were employed in copying the rich cartoons of Raphael in the gallery of Hampton-Court, which, though in decay, will be revived by his curious pencil, not only in their full proportions, but in many other sizes and shapes, he in a course of years had drawn them. He was chosen representative in the two last parliaments for Weymouth, and having, by his own industry, acquired a considerable estate, re-purchased the seat of his ancestors, which he re-edified and embellished. He was not only by patents appointed history-painter to their late and present majesties, but serjeant-painter, by which he was to paint all the royal palaces, coaches, barges, and the royal navy. This late patent he surrendered in favour of his only son John Thornhill, Esq. He left no other issue but one daughter, now the wife of Mr Wm. Hogarth, admired for his curious miniature conversation paintings. Sir James has left a most valuable Collection of pictures and other curiosities."