Mermaid court case

In the Court of Chancery, on Wednesday, Mr. Hart applied for his Lordship's injunction to restrain a Mr. Eles for removing a certain Mermaid or dried specimen, from the room in which it was now exhibiting in St. James's-street, and from selling or disposing of it. He moved upon the affidavit of Mr. Stephen Ellery, the plaintiff, who stated that in the year 1817 he became interested jointly with Eles, the defendant, in a vessel called the Pickering. The plaintiff's share was seven-eights, and the defendant the remaining one eighth; in consideration of which he was to act as master and commander of the vessel. He proceeded on a fishing expedition, and afterwards to other ports, taking up merchandize and disposing of them again, and generally carrying on a running trade. Communications were made by the defendant to the plaintiff from time to time as to the success or loss of his traffic.

Mermaid in the Musée des Civilisations de l’Europe et de la Méditerranée, Marseille. CC image Morburre.

In December, 1821, the plaintiff received a letter from him, stating that he had received a cargo at Battavia, and was coming to Europe. In January, 1822, he received another letter, informing him that the defendant had sold the ship and cargo for 6,543l. and was returning to Antwerp for the purpose, as he alleged, of soliciting a remuneration for himself and crew, for having saved a Dutch man of war. He did not go to Antwerp, but came to London. His reason for thus changing his destination was that a vessel having arrived at Battavia bringing the mermaid, or specimen, which the defendant bought for the sum of 5,000 dollars. This money had been procured from the sale of the vessel and caargo, seven-eights of which belonged to the plaintiff. Upon the defendant's arrival in London he had taken a room for the exhibition of this mermaid, and retained the possession and the profits of his traffic for his own use.

The affidavit stated that the plaintiff believed that the defendant had no money of his own, having regularly remitted his one-eighth of the profits of his traffic for the support of his wife and family. The defendant threatened that if any claim was made he would remove the mermaid, and thus the plaintiff would be defrauded of his just share of the profits. The Lord Chancellor said that whether man, woman, or mermaid, if the right to the property was clearly made out, it was the duty of the Court to protect him. He asked whether the plaintiff swore positively to his belief that it was purchased with his money.

Mr. Hart said it was so sworn, and that he believed this purchase was the motive of the defendant's return to England. No account of the profits had been given to the plaintiff. The Lord Chancellor pronounced the injunction, and directed that the service of the minutes on the servants or agents of the defendant should be good.

The Sunday Times, 24th November 1822.