New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1908-05-16
ART DEALER ARRESTED
PICTURE FRAUD CHARGED
". T. Euans Com pIainant Igainst
William Ctauseu.

f-o,J-r the appllcatlon OF William Il. Evans.
Of Montclair. n. J.. a We'll known art collector
end connoisseur. who seeks to recover $3.50 for
,po paintings which he alleges were sold to him
under false pretences. Bail was fixed at IS 600.
Al 2 late hour last night the prisoner still
,r rudlow Street Jail.
TIL. complaint alleges that the plaintiff in
7en3 bought two paintings from the defendant
which were represented TO him to pe the work
of the late Homer ID. Martin but that subse-
c,,ert investigation has convinced the plaintiff
that the paintings were not genuine. Mr. Evans
in an affidavit charges deceit and fraudulent
Misrepresentation" i'm connection with the sale.
For the painting entitled Near Newport" he de-
rnsnds So $50 damages and for that called "Old
Mill Near Saint-Cloud' he asks $4,000 damages.
These are the amounts which he says he paid
for the canvases-
conspiracy and maintained that he believed the
two canvases to be genuine
The complaint goes to say that Mr.. Evans
had heard several criticisms of the pictures and
.hat the middle of last April he ordered them
70 be taken from the frames and examined.
Upon taking pictures from their frames. con-
-inues the affidavit, Il found that the back of each
one Of them stained or daubed with paint.
which is not usually done by artists. and which,
in NY opinion was done, with respect to said
rsc pictures, either TO give the canvases the
appearance of age, hide stencil marks on
the backs of the canvases, which, if left visible,
would have given the names of the manufact-
urers ca the canvases and assisted in tracing
their origin
Attached to the complaint half dozen
sfidayits in addition that of Mr. Evans
AFFIDAvITS SUBMITTED.
otto J. Karch, a former employe Of Mr.. Clau-
sen, makes affidavit follows:
For period of several years bare canvases were
business Of the said William Clausen and prepared
s%s 5T on sd Rp caGsen H9 pape Of busness and
eanEases which in my opinion Were the same 1yn %leh
having painted upon them pictures signed with |
pf psiy i'ale George Inness. Alexander II Wyant or
Homer D Martin. all of whom had then been dead
pictIIFes fm WHICH refer We're painted in nita-
ton OF the work of the artists whose names they /
bore said pictures We're on offeTed 1 Tor SALE ,j1 ana
works Of The artists whose names they bore, said
Gausen well knowing they were spurious
Charles Graessel. Who also formerly an
empoye, swore to the same effect as karch. and
sdded:
.rsehers to give them The sPpearanSe 9f ase on on
sveepings Of the floor be saved and he used them
on esnTases which had recently been painted by
vases 10 take off their new appearance and TO
g then es gf ag ffed e ints re
It's frame when it came into defendants establish.
was then a freshly painted picture 1t was only
sfew weeks. or at most only a few months, old at
thar time ----
One affidavit is that of Frederick W. Kost an
artist Rho says that Clausen told him the
whole picture business was a bunco game
Kost said ne was called TO the home OF the late
Lyman G. Blooningdale to examine a picture
which Mr.. Bloomingdaie had purchased from
ClaUsen for a Homer Martin
PICTURE BUSINESS A FAKE"
He said he called on Clausen and was told
that thz picture was all right. Then he called
on Mr.. Bloomingdale. examined the picture and
Pronounced il an imitation. Mr.. Bloominsdale.
The affidavit continues. sent the picture back.
END day or two later Kost says he called on
clausen. The affidavit then goes on:
I asked the defendant Clausen: Where is that
poneT Martin J turned down for You at NE, Mr-
sen said TT ie 1Tetsirs. Then said: Te me
He le replied: no, Dawson don't paint on no more
Homer Martins for me" Then said in sub
tance. What you trying TO do thing like
5aat foT5o sell picture like that to 4 Bo9nins
MMSarnn you don't suppose that he would get ~!
that you trying 10 get me into" and ne said:
Fred. don't sou know that the whole picture busi-
ness is bunco game"
William Macbeth, who has an art gallery at
no $50 Fifth avenue swears that he considers
NE two paintings IN question TO be limitations.
ss does Arthur c. Friedrichs. a dealer in art
supplies No. l69 West 57th street, who states
II his affidavit that the canvas which the
PICTURES painted manufactured by him
n 1902. or FIVE years after Homer d. Martin
&ee
Mr.. Evans the complainant who is treasurer
q the drygocds firm of Mills & Glib, at Broad
way and Grand street. said yesterday that the
Nhcle matter in the hands Of Frank
Z Lawrence, his counsel. He added: In good
ehne the name Of the artists in question will
appear. The papers in the case show conclu-
sFey enough, / think, who is AT the bottom
" this affair. and they ought fix responsible
- for the evident fraud that has been perpe-
ss'ed i suppose this will create stir in the
World but ] think the public ought 10 be
Hkful that some steps have been taken"
MI. Evans added that many other private art
.oiectors had purchased paintings in the last
4" years which had turned out to be imita ,
lions
Mr. CLAUSEN'S VERSION. !
-1r clausen talked freely while at the Sherin's
liee He said he had TIE receipted bills and the ,
peek stubs 10 show when and from whom he ,
."chased the paintings which he sold to Mr. Z
e1A de reiterated his statement that he had {
eh' the George Inness canvas Late After =
oh al Medheld. which he sold to Mr.. Evans
lu 'he authenticity of which is also questioned.
I'm 'he widow Of the painter, and added that )
'so Mrs. Inness's receipt for the money.
ashed about the reported trouble which he r
- hao with Dr. Alexander c. Humphreys, I
ueht Of Stevens Institute. over certain pict-
:. Niaasen said that there was truth in !
.eport We made a settlement several ,
- ago as result of the exchange OF certain =
nures said Mr. Clausen Il am suing Mr. !
h4lhfeys ~ for his failure accept a painting
,e . .l.ide Hassam which he ordered from me 3