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_.