The St. Louis Republic. [volume] (St. Louis, Mo.) 1888-1919, 1902-02-19
Music Experts Give Contradictory
Testimony in Judge Fer
riss's Court.
LEGAL FIGHT FOR HEIRLOOM.
Vital W. Garesche Suing His COu-
sin, Marie r. Garesche, for
a Valuable Stradivarius
Left by Grandfather.

| Two expert musicians added TO their tes'
| timony yesterday in the Circuit Court by
playing on the violin which is the subjec;
Of controversy in the suit of Vital w
Garesche against his cousin, Miss Marie
r. Garesche, which was tried and faker
| under advisement.
A similar occurrence has perhaps never
! taken place heretofore in court of justice
| in St. Louis The spectators forgot them
selves as the soft strains Of the music filled
| the courtroom. and Deputy Sherin = D.
Rodgers had to rap for order
The experts not only played different
kinds Of music but they gave different
testimony. Professor Victor l-ichtensteir
OF the Odeon, after playing Melodies from
the Spanish Symphony" by Lalo, said the
violin was worth 500.
Signor Guido Parisi. No. 4l30 Lindell bou-
| levard, r.ayed the opening bars OF the
| Austrian Hymn" and handed the violin
to the interrogating attorney with the re-
mark:
1T is worth SO; would not give SIS fol
it, =,
On what do you base your judgment Of
the value OF the Instrument asked Judge
Ferriss.
by the appearance of the violin and Its
tone" replied the professor. By being wort
$50 he said he meant that it would not sell
The witness stated that the label on the
violin is not genuine. The name Amat'
Stradivarius' is inscribed on the instrument.
violin. stated that the name "Ramona
Daco" is Inscribed in Italian on it. He said
Daco was a Frenchman. The witness did
bee Seealse aseae OF the @ inssripons. He said the
violin is in bad condition.
Sgnor Parisi stated he gave Miss Garesche
lessons on the violin at intervals for four
years.
Based Judgment on Tone.
Professor Lichtenstein did not base his
judgment Of the worth Of the violin on the
Inscriptions. He said he formed his esti-
mate from the tone and age Of the instru-
ment. 1t was difficult to make out the date
which was inscribed on the instrument. To
some it looked like 1725, to others 1926 and
the Inscription was 1Io6.
Alexander A. J. Il. Garesche. uncle Of the
litigants. testified that the violin had been
in the Garesche family for 121 years. 1t
was originally the property of Vital n.
.Garesche. grandfather of the witness Where
he procured 1t is not known. He left the
violin with his son, the late Alexander A.
j. =. Garesche, father of the witness. with
instructions that 1t be given to whichever
Of his grandchildren who first learned TO
play it.
Here the controversy starts. A. J. B.
Garesche took lessons on the violin and
claims that II was turned over to him by
his father in 1868, and that he loaned 1t to
his cousin. Miss Marie Garesche, about
twelve years ago. She has had 1t ever since.
The witness said he gave the violin to his
nephew, Vital W. Garesche. Portions of
correspondence which passed between the
witness and Miss Garesche. when Mr..
Garesche tried to get the violin more than
a year ago. were read in evidence.
Miss Garesche bases her claim to the
violin on the assertion that she was the
first grandchiid OF Vital NJ. Garesche to
learn to play the instrument.
Says Cousin Couldn't Learn.
She stated on the witness stand that her
cousin, A.. ]. B. GaIesche. had maie at
tempts to learn to play. but had never sue
ceeded She said she asked her uncle. A. J;
=. Garesche. to loan her the violin. and
that 1t was sent to her some days later.
She did not remember who brought 1t. While
in New York some years ago, she stated.
she paid SO to have It repaired and she also
mad 1t repaired in st. Louis
Her uncle. she stated, in 1875 loaned the
violin to her brother, J. NJ. Garesche. who
kept 1t for FIVE or six years, when he re-
turned 1t.
Her brother testified to the same effect
Her father. +. l. Garesche. testified to see
| ing the violin at his house.
Vital Garesche did not testify. though he
was in court. The value OF the violin IS
| given in the petition 5000. In addition
| to Its intrinsic worth. It is specially priced
by the Garesches because of its being m
heirloom.
The question of adverse possession may
| also enter into the decision in the final dis
| poeition Of the case. as Miss Garesche had
! the violin for about eleven years, before q
| demand was made for 1t.