WHAT IS “BLAH”?

Greymouth Evening Star, 19 December 1933, Page 9

WHAT IS “BLAH”?

“WHISTLER” PICTURE DISPUTE. The story of a picture painted by a living artist and alleged to have had Whistler’s name put on it was told to Mr Justice Charles and a common jury in the King’s Bench division recently. The artist, Mr Joseph Edward Homerville Hague, of Upper Gloucester Place. W., claimed the return of the picture froihi the defendants, the Old Times Furnishing Company, of Victoria Street, SAY., who maintained that they had bought the picture at an auction sale from persons who were entitled to sell it.

Mr Molewyn Hughes, for the plaintiff, said his client had exhibited at the Royal Academy and the Paris Salon. In 1928 he painted the picture which he intended to call “Silence Day in the Chelsea Pensioners’ Chapel” and left it with other pictures at rooms 'he had in Ovington Street, Chelsea. He went away, and when he returned he was refused admittance to his rooms. He next saw this picture on December 11. 1931, in the window of the defendants’ shop. On a closer examination, he found it was not in the same state as when he left it. On the elaborate frame wad painted the name of J. McNeill Whistler, and in the corner of picture, was a crude imitation of the butterfly symbol which Whistler always used on his pictures. Whistler always stencilled his butterfly, but the one on this picture had been painted. Someone had. apparently thought that the picture would be improved by the addition of a crudely painted clergyman. The title of the picture now was “Chelsea Pensioners in Westminster Chapel.”

Mr 11. J. Wallington, for the defendants, said he did not dispute that Mr Hague had painted the picture and that it had since been added to. “WICKED FORGERY.” 1 Mr Justice Charles: It is an extraordinarily wicked performance, and someone may still go to gaol for this because it is a wicked forgery. Mr Hague, in cross-examination, said he did not know that a distress had been levied on his goods at Ovington Street. Mr Wallington said that after the distress the picture was sold at auction sales for 14/7, and, lastly, for 30/to the defendants. Mr Justice Charles: Did the defendants think they could get a Whistler for 30/-? Mr Hill, a picture-buyer, said that the mark said to be a Whistler butterfly looked like three brass balls. Mr Justice Charles: But what about Whistler’s name on it?—That is what we term “blah.” That means a swindle?—Possibly it would. Mr Hill said to sell the picture as a Whistler would be a joke. Mr Justice Charles: It would be "blah”? —I shouldn't say so, because “blah” has a certain amount of reason behind it. Did they put the name on for fun? —I should say it was put on in ignorance. It is ridiculous to say that the signature is even a copy of Whistler’s. You don’t think that this picture in its wanderings had got into a lunatic asylum?—l don’t know. Mr Justice Charles said Mr Hague's testimony that the picture was bis had not been really attacked. Mr Hague said he owed no rent at his rooms, and his landlady had not been called to show that he did. His lordship accordingly heid that the property remained in the plaintiff, for whom ths jury formally returned a verdict.