Morning journal and courier., 1890-05-07

An Abuse of the Engraving Pablish- Ing Business fred in Publlc-Sir John Millais.
From the London Standard. l

sOhA NHAlaaAss
 IFrom the London Standard
 Judge Bagley had before him yesterday case in which Messrs. Tooth 6 Son, picture dealers and print sellers, sought to recover sum of e8Ss. from MT. William Muir for goods sold and delivered. Plaintiffs were represented by Mir. Tooth, solicitor, who stated that the firm, early in the year 1886, purchased from Sir John Millais very valu- able oil painting, called "Bubbles," also the copyright. of the picture, Defendant went to the plaintiffs gallery and entered his name in the subscribers book, both for an artist's proof and letter proof of the picture, the charge for the former being 9SSs., and for the latter @ 2s. per copy. The defendant had not paid the amount claimed for the artists proof, and hence the action.
 Sir John Millais was paid 2,000 guineas for the picture, that sum including e750 for the copyright. The firm issued 500 rrtists' proofs, signed by Sir John Millais, at e8 s., and 5GO letter proofs at g g. A witness said he had never issued such numbers, but he had issued 250 and 275 of picture, and he knew that Messrs. Aguew sometimes printed 5000 or 5000. The defendant said Mir. Tooth, told him the issue would be artists proof would be issued. The engrav ings would have been well worth fS Ss. had the number been limited. There was standing difficulty over this question of proof. Sellers were continually trying to in- crease the number of proofs, and to press on the public what were not real proofs at all. He had never heard of thousand copies be- ing called proofs. No plate could give them except a steel plate, and steel plate was no proof at all Not only were 1 ,000 copies issued as proof, but copies of the picture were sent out as advertisements all over Eng land.
 MT. L. Pagan, assistant keeper sof the de- partment of prints and drawings at the Brit- ish museum. was called by the defendant, and stated that proof was an early impress sions; but it seemed that when print sellers made 500 copies they called them all proofsa No, it is not honest at any rate. Is it usual. It is usual, unfortunately, I should say an artists proof after eight or nine impress sions would hardly be very fine proof. Mir. Stephens, an artist and critic, was called and examined by the defendant. Do you consider ftom your experience that peo- right or title to issue 300 impressions as ar tist's proofs and 500 as other proofsa I do not think it is fair. I entirely endorse what Mr. Pagan has said. should take 250 to be the proper number for all states of proofs, and there are four different kinds of states. Cross examined by Mir. Tooth: I think they ought not to be called proofs. The defend- ant: After plate has been steeled no copy taken from it can be called proofa Wit nesa: That is so. His honor said the de- fendant had right to expect that there would not be thousand copies called proofs of the engraving. It was the duty of the plaintiffs to have stated that fact to him. An ordinary person would not expect so large number of proofs to be published. Under the circumstances, his verdict would be for the defendant with costs.