New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1903-08-12
HEAR DIR. DODGE'S PLEA.
Temporary Injunction in Suit to
Keep Paintings Intact.

The application of William De Leftwich Dodge
for an Injunction restraining the Tiffany studios
OF No 2S3 Fourtn-ave., from altering mural paint
ings OF his which form part of the decorations OF
the King Edward Hotel, of Toronto. Canada came
up before Justice Mccall I'm the Supreme curt
yesterday. The changes which Mr. Dodge uesiteS
10 prevent demanded by T.. J. benoN the aichi
sect of the hotel To the Tiffany Studios there IL
still owed $4,000 while S2OOO Is due to Mr.. Dodge.
Mr. Dodge who is represented by the law hFn
of Pryor & Harris says that his paintings were L"
be historical, acceptable to the archtec'' anu "e0
to be retouched by him in Canada They were APP
proved of by Mr.. Lenox he declares. but now the
architect wishes them changed, and refuses TO pay
the balance due unless Canadian artist were al
lowed to make the changes which Mr.. Dodge says
he refused to make,
Edward w. Harris. in asking for the injunction
said Mr. Dodge valued his professional reputation
highly Mr. Dodge's sketches. said his lawyer were
approved by the Tiffany Studios and by the arch'-
tect OF the hotel, according TO the contract NOW
the architect. said the lawyer. wished Mr. Brown
to change his pictures just the border on wall
would be changed for a lighter darker one. This
declared the attorney. would not only offend all
the canons Of art. but would also destroy the ar
lists idea and the common sense of his paintings
He continued:
unless he has the changes demanded by the hofei
architect made and add that if he refuses TO make
make s them whetker VI" he likes L or not
refuses to make them and says II you o0a en- i live
you back Your money but I will not allow my
pictures TO be mutilated and destroyed. -,
We claim that have the same right TO nave
pictures preserved author has 10 ms
books. We object to these pictures being destroyed
and yet held out to the public as the WORKS OF M
reason which makes the work of an artist dlIer-
ent from that of an author and that the same pro-
lection should afforded the work of the brush as
is afforded the work of the pen
Mr.. Thorne of De Forest Brothers, in opposing
the motion, said a completely new proposition OF
law had been enunciated by Mr.. Harris.
AT the blush" said Justice Mccall, his po-
sition seems to me be perfectly tenable. II a
man has established a reputation as an artist, 1t
does not seem right that you take his paint
ings change them and still claim they are his
works. think this should be protected in his
rights, he having fulfilled the obligations OF his
contract.
''Mr. Dodge has made a contract to decorate orr
walls said Mr. Thorne, land it comes down to
question very nearly of how much foot he was
to be paid for his work He to get 1900, &C
eording to designs, which were submitted; Thss
the contract said the work should be satisfactory
to We find it is not and ask that it be
Justice Mccall said that he thought that the
question of the painters reputation comes into
paintings had right TO change them, he had the
right to have his taken from them.
Mr. Dodge's contention. to which Mr.. Thorne re
torted that it might be good French law but was
not good American law.
Justice Mccall said it appeared to him 10 be
coHnmon-sense that this artist would not part with
his reputation for $4,000. but that as he was IN
some doubt to whether Mr. Dodges title had
not passed in his paintings he would take the
papers under advisement.
Mr.. Thorne refused to give stipulation that
the changes would not be made, saying he be-
lieved another artist had already received orders
do the work, so Justice Mccall directed MT
ference with the pictures until he should have
passed on the case