Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

DISPUTE OVER A MINIATURE.

ARTIST OBTAINS JUDGMENT. "Where a miniature painter contracts to paint a miniature of a child's face, and a photograph is furnished to the artist, it will not suffice for the latter to copy slavishly the photograph. The artist must, by sittings from life, visualise the child's pose and expression, and paint them into the picture.' Much greater latitude will be allowed the purchaser in respect of the time for reject-' ing ordinary chattels." Mr S. E. McCarthy, S.M., wrote thus in a reserved judgment, delivered at the Magistrate's Court yesterday. The case was*that of Olive Amy Westbury Hughes v. Ida Studholme, a claim for £l7, amount alleged to be due by defendant to plaintiff-in respect of a miniature portrait of defendant's baby daughter. At the hearing, on October 28, Mr M. J. Gresson appeared for the plaintiff and Mr J. H. Upham for the defendant.

After reviewing the evidence, and commenting upon tlix: fact that the plaintiff had effected alterations to the miniature and tried to comply, as far as possible, with the defendant's requisitions, the Magistrate said that the child had been in court, and a photograph and the miniature were produced as exhibits. Comparing these, he was bound to say that the miniature gave a better representation of the child than the photograph, thus disclosing that the plaintiff had made, keeping in view the fiightiuess of the sitter, an honest attempt to visualise both pose and expression. He was unable to find that the plaintiff's picture was not a portrait. It might be stated that the miniature lacked animation. If, however, the child displayed none, why blame the artist.' The plaintiff's contract was to paint a faithful portrait, not a mere copy of the photograph, but such a representation of the sitter's face as, whilst disclosing some natural pose, would also reveal her characteristics. This, he considered, the plaintiff had done. The contract between the parties did not relate to commerce, and greater latitude was allow* able in rejecting a miniature portrait than would be permissible in rejecting mercantile goods. Judgment was recorded for the plaintiff in the sum of £l7, together with aosts.

This article text was automatically generated and may include errors. View the full page to see article in its original form.
Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/SUNCH19201105.2.16

Bibliographic details

Sun, Sun, Volume VII, Issue 2099, 5 November 1920

Word Count
360

DISPUTE OVER A MINIATURE. Sun, Volume VII, Issue 2099, 5 November 1920

Working