New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1881-01-02
DAViD COYS SIGNBOARD.
Prom The Sahuday Reriey.


The board in question not u Blue Lion or q
Pig and Whistle nor even the wel-knOwn "collrc-
ton of fabulous animals" the latter Of which. in
deed, offers some temptation to an artist who
should treat 1t in the byzantine manner. IL was %
Royal Oak. 8u Obviously suggestive subject, and
the painter was no less person than David Cox.
IL was painted in 1917, and as the port wine OF
that year was to other port wine, 40 apparently
were it's sgnboards 10 other signbOaIds Cox APP
pears to have painted the thing merely out Of
friendship for the then tenant OF tho hotel. Ii is
needless to say that in 1S47 three thousand pounds
had not yet been paid for any picture OF his, and
that Inc was still a member OF what NAV be called
the prc-silver-iork school The landlord at the
time of painting n certain Edwin Roberts, and
the sgnboard was undoubtedly painted for him.
Nevertheless he seems, or his heirs seem, to have
attached particular value to it, and il was left
though the tenancy of the hvtel changed, to an
nounce the building to which II was attached az
one that provided good entertainment for man and
beast. Twenty years OF outside life in this climate
would not as a rule conduce to the beauty Of a
painting but it would appear that the sign was not
one of the swinging variety, but was fastened
against the wall by hodfasts and may therefore
be presumed TO have been sheltered from the
weather by the caves Of the house. At any rate in
1906 certain artists who then lodged in the house
which was being altered, suggested that the tung
was too precious TO be left in this condition twas
accordingly brought In, framed and screwed TO tho
wall OF the entrance hall of the hotel How MANY
tenants entered upon the enjoyment Of 1t during
the thirty and three years which have passed since
its execution we cannot say. bnt certainly more
than one and no outgoing tenant seems to have
thought himself entitled, or considered 1t worth his
while, to remove it,
At last misfortune camo upon the " Royal Oak y
and its late tenant became bankrupt The scent
OF creditors, liquidators, assigDees. trustees and
such-lke folk after valuable property liz proven
bal. and the bankrupts representative claimed the
picture as q chattel divsihle let hope not in tho
literal sense) among the creditors. The tenant may
be presumed to be Indifferent about the matter hut
tho tenants landlord tho feminine Is in this sense
rer6um inusitdtuml, Lady Willoughby d'Eresby, did
not contemplate the abstraction Of the chief Orna-
ment Of her property with such calmness. The pic
ture could not of course be claimed q fixture
because the holdfnsts with which il was originally
attached to the outer wall and the screws with
which it was subsequently attached to the inner.
fall under the head of those fastenngs which, in its
infinite wisdom and care for small things we'll
as great, English law decides to be usable without
constituting fixtures. The only claim, therefore
that could Be- set up that the picture was sort
Of heirloom that Il was painted for the hotel had
been assumed and given up with the hotel, by sue
cessive tenants; and war, in fact part and parcel
of the essence Of the "ROyal Oak" The County
Court Judge decided In this sense but Sir j. Bacon
the Chief Judge in Bankruptcy, has reversed the
decision, and has decided that David Cox's sign
board was as much RobeItSs property as the coat
on his back" II he left old coat In cupboard In
his room--we presume the Judge argued in this way
1t would not have become Lady WilloughbY
dEresby's property; neither did the picture.