DOI Heft:
January 14, 1882
DOI Seite / Zitierlink: https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.17752#0032
24
rUNCH, OR THE LONDON CHARIYAEI.
[January 14, 1882.
WATTS -IN A NAME?
Not much, when, great portrait-painter as he nndouhtedly is, he
is scarcely even a name for the Public, to whom Millais is a house-
hold word. Howeyer, here are Watts’s Hims and Hers collected
together at the H. Gr.—“the Gree-Cree” being Sir Coutts Lindsay’s
hobby. Among the most noticeable are —
No. 10. Fiddle-de-dee ; or, FLerr Joachim as he appeared Fifteen
Years Ago.
No. 11. Postage-Stamp Fortrait; or, Study of a FLead.
No. 17. The Lanky-shire Witclies. The Melancholy of Anatomy.
No. 26. Fxhausted Nature ; or, An Fstablished President.
(Look at Sir Fwedewick’s hand! It might be one of Tooth’s
drawings.)
Most of them, excepting the portraits, are picture-puzzles, and an
afternoon may be pleasantly wiled away in trying to find out what
any one of them means, without reference to the Catalogue. Try
No. 46 for example.
Nos. 48, 61, 58 appear to be a series (misplaced) representing the
No. 48. Rougli Pcissage. No. 61. No. 58.
She fell out of the The Steward assists Limpet on Kock. To be
Berth above, calling her Ashore. left till called for.
for the “ Steward! ”
adventures of an Unprotected Female during and after a severe sea
voyage.
No. 60. The Catalogue tells us this
is “ Lent by Earl Somers.” If we were
Earl Sosiers we shouldn’t hanker to
have it returned.
No. 70. TheApo-
theosis of Snooks.
Like—
“ The Sacristan, he
speaks no word to
indicate a doubt,
But he puts his thumb
unto his nose, and
he spreads his fin-
gers out.”
No. 70.—Classic. No. 205.—“ Catching it.”
“Guilty Creatures Sitting at a Play.”
Mr. Gladstone varied the monotony of wood-cutting at Hawarden
by attending an amateur performance. All the world knows this,
because amateur performances nowadays are more public than
professional efforts. The pieces selected had rather suggestive titles,—
Who Wins, and Done on Both Sides. Perhaps, while witnessing the
latter, the Premier thought of that too patient ass—the British
Taxpayer ?
DUKES VFPSUS BOOKS.
[The Duke of Hamilton has decided upon the sale of the magnificont
library with all the collection of valuable manuscripts at Hamilton Palace.]
Another great Library brought to the hammer!
Again there ’s a vast distribution of tomes !
And volumes possessing historical glamour
Are rudely disturbed and removed from their homes.
As sale upon sale gives us cause for refiection,
We grieve the dispersion *>f treasures untold—
But where will it stop, when the choicest collection
Is only esteemed for its value in gold ?
The Blenheim ’s half gone ! Now the Beckford is going—
Which causes the bibliophile to bewail—
And what may go next there is really no knowing,
Mayhap we may see the Bodleian for sale!
Perchanee ’twill be found that this practical Nation
Will follow the lead of the two noble l)ukes ;
And send auctioneers, with the least reservation,
To the British Museum, and sell all the books !
WANTED—A CODE.
Pegina versus Coney and Others.—This was a case as to whether
spectators at a Prize-Fight had been lawfully convicted for “ abet-
ting the pugilists,” or for committing an “assault.” There being
no work of any sort to do in the other Courts, eleven Judges attended
to decide the important question, “ What eonstitutes an assault ? ”—
this being a moot point in English law up to the present time.
Mr. Pea Greene (who appeared for the Prisoners) argued that
the offence of which the prisoners were guilty, was certainly not an
assault, and eould not be a battery,-
Mr. Justice Stiffun. A very able (though slightly indigestible)
“ Digest of the Criminal Law,” lays down that there are fifty-five
different kinds of assault. Now-
The Chief Justice. Oh, when you come to definitions, that always
reminds me of what a great English writer has said,—“ Show me a
man who asks for a definition, and I will show you-” well—a
candidate for apartments at Colney Hatch.
Mr. Pea Greene. Quite so. I may remark, my Luds, that my
Clients are most harmless persons, who werey'ws^ passing by at the
time of the fatal fight, and happened to look on for a few momenfs.
But as for aiding and abetting-
Several Justices. What. was the bett.ing ?
Mr. Pea Greene. Pretty even, my Luds, I believe.
Mr. Justice Floorkins. If your clients were just looking on for a
few moments, how came it that they stayed half an hour, in faet,
until the ring broke up on the arrival of the Police P
Mr. Pea Greene. Oh,—ah,—well, my Lud, let me refer your
Ludship to the case of Rex versus Smith, and Regina versus Brown,
where I ’m sure your Ludship’s difficulty is fully answered.
Mr. Baron Muddlestone. The question is, what sort of presence is
necessary to constitute aiding and abetting ? Is it bodily presence ?
All the Justices. Oh, it can’t possibly be bodily presence.
Mr. Baron Muddlestone. Of course not. Presence in law means
absence in body. Then comes the point,were the prisoners encou-
raging the prize-fighters,-
Mr. Justice Stiffun. Take this case. Suppose A. says to B., “ if
C. assaults me, knock him down! ” Then D., E., and F., who have
been getting blackberries on land belonging to G., happen to pass,
and seeing H. engaged in marking out a ring, they go up to a
refreshment stall kept byl., or in his absence, J.,-
Mr. Justice Floorkins. I am getting a little confused. Suppose
we all retire ?
Mr. Baron Muddlestone. Are two persons practising fencing
together guilty of an assault ?
Mr. Justice Penman. Or boxing, for instance ? I was a splendid
boxer in my time-
Mr. Baron Muddlestone. So was I. But single-stick was my
forte. Nobody eould toueh me there.
The Lord Cliief Justice. Well, well, Shakspeare in a very fine
passage has observed-
Mr. Slowhand (who supported the conviction). The Magistrates,
my Luds, were of opinion that it was only an assault by consent.
That being so, it appears-
All tlie Judges (yawning). Shall we go now, and write out our
opinions on this most important case ? [ Court rises.
“ Toole’s Theat.re, Late Folly.” How Late ? It musn’t be Toole
Late, or nobody will go. Say over at 10'50.
Provisions eor Earth Hunger (Juvenile).—Dirt-Pies.
rUNCH, OR THE LONDON CHARIYAEI.
[January 14, 1882.
WATTS -IN A NAME?
Not much, when, great portrait-painter as he nndouhtedly is, he
is scarcely even a name for the Public, to whom Millais is a house-
hold word. Howeyer, here are Watts’s Hims and Hers collected
together at the H. Gr.—“the Gree-Cree” being Sir Coutts Lindsay’s
hobby. Among the most noticeable are —
No. 10. Fiddle-de-dee ; or, FLerr Joachim as he appeared Fifteen
Years Ago.
No. 11. Postage-Stamp Fortrait; or, Study of a FLead.
No. 17. The Lanky-shire Witclies. The Melancholy of Anatomy.
No. 26. Fxhausted Nature ; or, An Fstablished President.
(Look at Sir Fwedewick’s hand! It might be one of Tooth’s
drawings.)
Most of them, excepting the portraits, are picture-puzzles, and an
afternoon may be pleasantly wiled away in trying to find out what
any one of them means, without reference to the Catalogue. Try
No. 46 for example.
Nos. 48, 61, 58 appear to be a series (misplaced) representing the
No. 48. Rougli Pcissage. No. 61. No. 58.
She fell out of the The Steward assists Limpet on Kock. To be
Berth above, calling her Ashore. left till called for.
for the “ Steward! ”
adventures of an Unprotected Female during and after a severe sea
voyage.
No. 60. The Catalogue tells us this
is “ Lent by Earl Somers.” If we were
Earl Sosiers we shouldn’t hanker to
have it returned.
No. 70. TheApo-
theosis of Snooks.
Like—
“ The Sacristan, he
speaks no word to
indicate a doubt,
But he puts his thumb
unto his nose, and
he spreads his fin-
gers out.”
No. 70.—Classic. No. 205.—“ Catching it.”
“Guilty Creatures Sitting at a Play.”
Mr. Gladstone varied the monotony of wood-cutting at Hawarden
by attending an amateur performance. All the world knows this,
because amateur performances nowadays are more public than
professional efforts. The pieces selected had rather suggestive titles,—
Who Wins, and Done on Both Sides. Perhaps, while witnessing the
latter, the Premier thought of that too patient ass—the British
Taxpayer ?
DUKES VFPSUS BOOKS.
[The Duke of Hamilton has decided upon the sale of the magnificont
library with all the collection of valuable manuscripts at Hamilton Palace.]
Another great Library brought to the hammer!
Again there ’s a vast distribution of tomes !
And volumes possessing historical glamour
Are rudely disturbed and removed from their homes.
As sale upon sale gives us cause for refiection,
We grieve the dispersion *>f treasures untold—
But where will it stop, when the choicest collection
Is only esteemed for its value in gold ?
The Blenheim ’s half gone ! Now the Beckford is going—
Which causes the bibliophile to bewail—
And what may go next there is really no knowing,
Mayhap we may see the Bodleian for sale!
Perchanee ’twill be found that this practical Nation
Will follow the lead of the two noble l)ukes ;
And send auctioneers, with the least reservation,
To the British Museum, and sell all the books !
WANTED—A CODE.
Pegina versus Coney and Others.—This was a case as to whether
spectators at a Prize-Fight had been lawfully convicted for “ abet-
ting the pugilists,” or for committing an “assault.” There being
no work of any sort to do in the other Courts, eleven Judges attended
to decide the important question, “ What eonstitutes an assault ? ”—
this being a moot point in English law up to the present time.
Mr. Pea Greene (who appeared for the Prisoners) argued that
the offence of which the prisoners were guilty, was certainly not an
assault, and eould not be a battery,-
Mr. Justice Stiffun. A very able (though slightly indigestible)
“ Digest of the Criminal Law,” lays down that there are fifty-five
different kinds of assault. Now-
The Chief Justice. Oh, when you come to definitions, that always
reminds me of what a great English writer has said,—“ Show me a
man who asks for a definition, and I will show you-” well—a
candidate for apartments at Colney Hatch.
Mr. Pea Greene. Quite so. I may remark, my Luds, that my
Clients are most harmless persons, who werey'ws^ passing by at the
time of the fatal fight, and happened to look on for a few momenfs.
But as for aiding and abetting-
Several Justices. What. was the bett.ing ?
Mr. Pea Greene. Pretty even, my Luds, I believe.
Mr. Justice Floorkins. If your clients were just looking on for a
few moments, how came it that they stayed half an hour, in faet,
until the ring broke up on the arrival of the Police P
Mr. Pea Greene. Oh,—ah,—well, my Lud, let me refer your
Ludship to the case of Rex versus Smith, and Regina versus Brown,
where I ’m sure your Ludship’s difficulty is fully answered.
Mr. Baron Muddlestone. The question is, what sort of presence is
necessary to constitute aiding and abetting ? Is it bodily presence ?
All the Justices. Oh, it can’t possibly be bodily presence.
Mr. Baron Muddlestone. Of course not. Presence in law means
absence in body. Then comes the point,were the prisoners encou-
raging the prize-fighters,-
Mr. Justice Stiffun. Take this case. Suppose A. says to B., “ if
C. assaults me, knock him down! ” Then D., E., and F., who have
been getting blackberries on land belonging to G., happen to pass,
and seeing H. engaged in marking out a ring, they go up to a
refreshment stall kept byl., or in his absence, J.,-
Mr. Justice Floorkins. I am getting a little confused. Suppose
we all retire ?
Mr. Baron Muddlestone. Are two persons practising fencing
together guilty of an assault ?
Mr. Justice Penman. Or boxing, for instance ? I was a splendid
boxer in my time-
Mr. Baron Muddlestone. So was I. But single-stick was my
forte. Nobody eould toueh me there.
The Lord Cliief Justice. Well, well, Shakspeare in a very fine
passage has observed-
Mr. Slowhand (who supported the conviction). The Magistrates,
my Luds, were of opinion that it was only an assault by consent.
That being so, it appears-
All tlie Judges (yawning). Shall we go now, and write out our
opinions on this most important case ? [ Court rises.
“ Toole’s Theat.re, Late Folly.” How Late ? It musn’t be Toole
Late, or nobody will go. Say over at 10'50.
Provisions eor Earth Hunger (Juvenile).—Dirt-Pies.