Romance of a Picture.

New Zealand Graphic, Volume XLIV, Issue 15, 13 April 1910, Page 52

Romance of a Picture.

Detectives are again in search for the Leader picture, “Southwards from Surrey’s Pleasant Hills.’’ It was stolen from the. Academy of Fine Arts, Whit-more-street, between Sunday night and Wednesday morning. Consternation struck the custodian, Mr. 11. C. Williams, on Wednesday, when, on -opening the academy about a quarter to one, he saw the gilt frame, measuring about sft by 4ft, which had encased the picture, empty—-the canvas had been carefully removed.

The daring thief had not on this occasion left a dark lantern, a jemmy, and a brace, as on the former occasion, but a glance at the window at the right of the entrance revealed the fact that admission had been gained from that corner. A pane of glass was broken, which enabled tlie culprit to unfasten the window ciatch. The rest was easy.

The academy was last open on Sunday u; to 4 p.m., when the picture was still

in its position on the wall. The academy had been .locked since then —the holidays intervening—until Wednesday. Leaders picture, which has had such an eventful career, was presented t'o the city by Mrs. W. B. Rhodas, and is value.* at about £SOO. It was amongst the British art exhibits at the Christchurch Exhibition. In the absence of a more suitable place, the City Council handed it over to the Academy of Fine Arts for safe keeping. It first disappeared from the academy between April 11th and 12th, 1908, and was restored on Friday, July 17th, of the same year, after threo months’ negotiations—which are worth reviving at this stage. RANSOMED FOR FIFTY POUNDS. WHAT HAPPENED IN 1908. It was on the afternoon of Sunday, April 12th, 1908, that the now famous picture was missed for the first time. At 1.30 p.m. on that day Mr. Walter Leslie opened the Academy for the public. He very soon noticed that the picture was gone, and immediately made a search. A visit to an ante-room revealed traces of the work of the burglars. The picture had been taken from the wall, carried into the anteroom, and there

taken from the frame, the wood-work being left lying in the room. The canvas had bodily disappeared. On the floor was found lying a “jemmy” and a dark-lantern. The burglars—for it seemed to be too big a job for one—had gained entrance from the rear of the academy by climbing on to a shod, and thence on through the window. To prevent any unexpected entry through the main door they had plugged the keyhole with a small piece of wood. It was thought at the time, from the fact that the tools had been left behind, that the burglars had either found that the canvas was as much as they could conveniently carry away, or that' they had been obliged, for fear of detection, to beat a hasty retreat. The “New Zealand Times” said at the time the theft was reported:—“The theory is that' tlie theft was the work of more than average burglars, polished persons who knew the value of the work, and not burglars of the ordinary type who invariably concern themselves with bullion or plate or jewellery. They must,

too, have had more than a casual acquaintance with the academy precincts, and have known exactly where to find this Leader painting. In close proximity were several pictures ranging in value from 100 to 200 guineas, by prominent

English artists. These evidently had no attraction for the intruders. .' . The picture cannot be negotiated in New Zealand with any degree of safety, whilst its shipment out of the country should not be a work of ease without the senders laying themselves open to police scrutiny.”

As it turned out, however, the thieves soon found a way of turning the picture to account, and as the result of negotiations with the Mayor (Hon. T. W] Hislop) netted a cool £5O. The picture is city property, and of this fact t'he thieves must have been well aware. Immediately after the theft, the Mayor received a letter signed “A. G. Ransom,’ demanding £ 150 for the picture, and threatening personal harm to Mr. Hislop should he attempt to take advantage of the knowledge contained in t'he letter. The writer indicated the Sailors’ Rest as the place where correspondence might be addressed to him. The letter was placed in the hands of the police, and Mr. Hislop sent a reply. The spot was watched to see who should take delivery, but the thief was not to be caught so easily. Some; one else, who was very excited, called for the letter, and instead of shadowing him, the detective on guard took him into custody. It transpired that he had been merely spoken to in the street by someone he did not know’, and asked to call for the letter. He was therefore released.

The holder of the picture then changed his address. He wrote a second letter, in which he grew cheeky, and joked about the matter. He said that if they thought he would be fool enough to call for the correspondence himself they were very much mistaken, for he knew that the place would be watched. He mentioned the column of tlve "New Zealand Times” in which he could be communicated with. The second reply by the Mayor was not "lifted,” the thief having grown more suspicious. In each letter there was a threat to’ destroy the picture to the size of a postage stamp unless the money was paid. The thief at the same time wrote to Mrs. Rhodes urging that something should be done by her, otherwise he would destroy tiie picture. Mr. Hislop continued to receive threatening letters, and the police seemed iG be getting no nearer to the solution ot the mystery. It was therefore agreed that £5O should be paid to save the situation, the money being handed over to a person named. The exchange was accordingly made, and when the president reached the academy at 11 a.m. on Friday, July 17th, he found the picture waiting for him. The Hon. T. W. Hislop was interviewed the same evening by a representative of the "New Zealand Times.” He said that in his opinion the best thing had been done under the circumstances to prevent the total destruction of the picture. “If the picture had been my own personal property, I don’t know that I would have paid the ransom, but being

a public gift which could not be replaced, and one that was for the common benefit, I decided to act in what I considered to be the public interest. I hope that the culprit may yet be tracked down. The fellow got some pretty severe frights, and is not, I think, likely to repeat the job. It is to be hoped that the Fine Art Academy will in future take proper care of this and other pictures placed in its charge. I may add that the whole busi ness was not managed by me at all, and the picture was brought to the academy by an intermediary.”