THREE ENGRAVINGS

Dominion, Volume 15, Issue 135, 3 March 1922, Page 7

THREE ENGRAVINGS

TENANT UNWITTINGLY DESTROYS THEM CLAIM FOR THEIR VALUE Three Landseer engravings, which had been unwittingly destroyed by a tenant in a house at Lyall Bay, formed the main item in a claim brought by Ada Whod (Sir Kenneth Douglas) against Walter Beyer and Nellie Boyer, his wife (Mr. Watson) in the Magistrate's Court yesterday. The pictures were entitled “Tho Wounded Hound,” “In Full Practice,” and “At Play.” They were valued at five guineas each, and this, with £2 rent, brought tho total claim to £l7 ss.

The plaintiff, in her evidence, stated that tho pictures were very old and valuable, and she prized them greatly They had been in the possession of hor uncle for many years, and had been left to her. She had brought thorn out from England, and had loft thorn in the house when defendants took possession as tenants. After they Vacated the premises the pictures were not to bo found.

In reply to Mr. Wqtson, plaintiff denied that they -were merely pictures taken out of an illustrated paper.

j. M. Wood, husband of the plaintiff, said that the pictures had been in their possession for the last twenty years, while Mrs. Wood’* uncle had had them for fifty years prior to that. Mr. Watson: Do you saj' they wero steel engravings ? Witness: My wife’s undo said they were steel engravings. We always supposed them to be steel engravings. Dq you know the difference between steel engravings and wood block? — “Engravings have about one and a half inches of coloured paper between them and the mount. Mr. Watson: Oh! I see. I will sell you some steel engravings some day. Alexander Paterson 'was called to prove the valuo of the engravings, but Mr. Watson objected to his evidence, as he had not seen the particular pictures in dispute. He stated, however, that he had failed to find the names of the pictures, mentioned in a catalogue of engravings ho had perused. Engravings ranged in value from one guinea to 100 guineas, according to the engraving, condition, and whose pictures they were. Mr. Watson: They are like antique furniture—age adds to the value. If the pictures were all fly marks, it showed the owner did not attach much value to them.

George E. Dowsing, a tea merchant, said he had seen these pictures. One of them,'“The Wounded Hound,” was a very excellent picture. Mr. Watson: I object to a. tea merchant giving evidence as to tho valuo of a picture. Is he a connoisseur or an artist? Have you any qualifications? Witness: I am a lover of art. Mr. Watson: We all are.

Witness: I am a painter ip water colours, but I am not an expert in pictures.

What would yon say the pictures were? —“I would call them engravings. I think they wore Landseer’s because they were very much after his style.” “Very much after,” I should say. What is your reason for saying they wero Landseer’s? —“Because. there was an expression' of sympathy in the eye of the dog that you cannot see in the •human eye. I have seen many of his pictures.” * Can you name some of them?—“The Wounded Hound.”

Yes —tho hound with tho human eye. You say you are a tea merchant and an artist; have you ever exhibited any pictures in tho Wellington Academy ?*-“! have had pictures in the ‘Graphic’ and the ‘London Illustrated News.’ I don’t pose as an expert.” Mr. Watson raised several nonsuit points, and the Magistrate nonsuited plaintiff as far as Mrs. Beyer was concerned. Mrs. Boyer stilted in evidence that she took the cottage in September. On December 17 she paid the plaintiff £lO and gave notice to leave. Palintitff did not seem pleased at receiving the notice and said she would see her husband. Nothing had been said about the steel engravings that witness had destroyed, thinking them to be cut out of some magazine annual. The engravings had been in a. filthy condition, and each had been affixed to tho wall by four tacks. They did not look like engravings, and as fai; as witness knew there was no artist’s or engravers name on them. Visitors had asked witness why she did not . take the pictures down as they were in such a filthy and insanitary statr. M itness explained' that tho front door was always left open at night for ventilation purposes, and that last Labour Day there had been a strong southerly wind The pictures had been blown off the wall and badly damaged, and she, thinking that they were ot little use, kind destroyed them. The husband of the last witness gavo corroborative evidence. . The Magistrate, in giving judgment for tho plaintiff, eaid he would assess the value of the pictures at £1 Is. each, and also would allow the week s rent (£2).