The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1892-11-20

The Law OF Portrait Painting.
The late EDWIN LoNo. II. A.. was prom
inent English artist whose distinction was
achieved chiefly by his pictures Of ancient
| Oriental and Biblical scenes and charac-
tiers. Occasionally. however. no undertook
to paint portraits Of men and women of the
present day; and one Of his efforts In this
direction has led recently to an interesting
I lawsuit in the Queens Bench Division of the
High Court OF Justice in England.
The executor Of the deceased artist sued
Mr.. NORMAN G. LAMpsoN to recover one
thousand guineas rs the value OF picture
| OF Mr. LAMrsoN's vito and daughter.
painted by Mr. LONG in the summer and
autumn of $780, The defence was that there
| was no agreement to pay one thousand
| guineas. or anything beyond fair and
reasonable price. and that Mr.. LAMPsoN
| ought not to DO compelled to pay anything
at oil. because the picture was not in any
sense Il likeness OF the persons it was sup
posed to represent Mr. LAMpsoN insisted
that it was expressly understood between
him and the artist that he was under no
obligation 10 accept tho picture unless 1t
was satisfactory. He had offered. how
ever. to pay five hundred EuneaS and lot
Mr. LoNG's executor keep the picture and
dispose OF it for the benefit OF tho artists
widow. This proposition was rejected. and
the case recently came Oh for trial before
Mr. Justice CAVE and speca! jury.
The plaintiffs proof showed that the pic
turc had been painted pursuant to an order
given hy Mr.. LANPsOS to Mr. Lose, that
one thousand ruincas WAS the charge which
| the artist had been in the habit of making
| and receiving for such works. and that It
was not excessive in the estimation of n!t
dealers in London. On the other hand Mr..
| LAMrsuN. IT." defendant. testified that
| Mr.. LONti told him that he preferred he
should not take the picture il the event OF
its not being satisfactory. After iiv" sit
tinss Mr.. LAMlsOS saw it and criticised it
very severely. There were thirty stt!uss
in all. but Mir. LAMp;oT did rot sec the pie
ture again until after completion VIXEN it
was exhibited at the Royal Academy. aud
| OH this occasion he sul che wis So
| shocked that he could not express what he
| Thought. 1t was not likeness OF his wife
and child He furthermore remarked
| that the colo" Of his daughters
hair and eyes. Us represented in the
picture. was different from the actual
color. In ORDER that this might he made
evident to the jury. Miss JAMESON was put
into the witness box 50 that she iiIiEht be
compared with the portrait. Mrs. LAMP
son was also Witness and told the jury
that she thought it was q "horrid picture"
as did n number of other witnesses. among
whom was Mr. FREDERICK LOCKER LAMP
son, the poet. better known by tho simple
name of FREDERICK LOCKER. He pro-
nounccd the picture extraordinarily unlike
Mrs. OF Miss LA3:psoT. ami said that there
was want OF refinement in it, that IL was
not Il ilattcring likeness. and that Oae thou
sand gulncas was n piepostcrous price.
Similar opinions were expressed by tho art
critic Of the London AthcnrHm and tho
Government buyer OF pictures for the South
Kensington Museum.
1t might be supposed that against all this
evidence the plaintiff would have little
chance OF success. but. unfortunately for
Mr.. LAMPsoN. he had written letter to Mr..
LONG in which no suggested the propricty
OF little iiattery Of the subjects OF tho
picture by means of the artists brush. III
artistic license would permit your slightly
improving on nature" he wrote. cit would
DO nicer; but. OF course. that should not be
done at the expense OF likeness" In sum
ming up the case to the jury. the presiding
Judgo called attention to this fact. He
then stated the law applicable to the case.
He declared the rule to be that where
there was an agreement to paint picture.
no price being fixed, and the work not to
be accepted II not satisfactory. the person
who ordered the picture could not be COM
PEELED to take 1t il it was inferior
to the ordinary work OF the artist; nor in
, any event could he be compelled to pay
more than the fair and reasonable value of
, the picture. II. however the picture was
to be rejected as unsatisfactory, tho dis
satisfaction must BIO expressed within a
| reasonable time after the picture was fin
ished. If the picture was not reasonably
. satisfactory. and that dissatisfaction was
7 expressed In a reasonable time. then the
defendant wns entitled to the verdict But
II it was satisfactory. or II not. and the dis
satisfaction was not expressed In reason
, able time, then the plaintiff was entitled ia
a verdict" The jury found a verdict foI
the plaintiff for the full amount claimed
, one thousand guineas.
A similar question to that involved In this
English case arose at Corning, In New York
, few years ago. The plaintiff who was d
. crayon artist. agreed to make crayon por.
traits OF the defendant and his wife from
! photographs furnished for that purpose.
The portraits were to be- In all respects
.. likenesses which should DO satisfactory tc
the defendant. Upon their completion the
defendant said that he was not satisfied
with them and declined to receive the pic,
lures. whereupon the artist sued to recover
the contract price OF sixty dollars, Upon
! the trial the presiding Judge instructed the
, Jury that the meaning OF the provision in
the agreement that tho portraits should be
satisfactory to tho defendant was not that
the caprice Of the defendant should con
, troll, but that the painting must be good
} one and come up to the standard required
, and II 1t did, that the defendant could not
J say by caprice that he would not take 1t
! Upon IN appeal to the General Tern. ef the