Newark evening star and Newark advertiser. [volume] (Newark, N.J.) 1909-1916, 1910-03-25
CLAUSEN
CmONTRAOICTED IN
EVANS Art SUIT
Mrs. F. H. Leggett and Experts
Testify at MOntclair Mans
b Case Hearing.

NEW YORK, March 25.-Mrs, Beth
Mcleod Leggett, widow of Francis III.
gge the millionaire grocer, pro-
duced a sensation in the Clausen pic
ture suit which is being heard in the
Supreme Court today. she fatty con-
tradicted Clausen, who is being sued by
William 7. Evans, of Montclair, for So
800 for paintings sold as the work OF
Homer d. Martin, but alleged to be
spurious.
Clausen had said that soon after the
Leggett bought their city home on
Madison avenue, Mrs. Leggett sold him
thirteen paintings for Sc, 900. She did
that, Clausen asserted, without the au-
thority of her husband, who tried to get
the pictures back.
Clausen said that Leggett, who
wanted to teach his wife a lesson"
told him that he could make a copy
of the Wyant and send that back with
the others, keeping the original.
Clausen testified that he afterward sold
the original to Colonel Wilson, a direc-
tor of the Lotus Club, now dead.
Mrs. Leggett testified that she had no
dispute with her husband about the
paintings and that none of them was
ever sold to Clausen. He was simply
asked to appraise them.
1--WE never thought of selling the
paintings at that time" testified Mrs.
Leggett.
Another sensation came in the after
noon when two picture %restorers of high
standing gave testimony directly con-
tradicting that of Arthur Dawson. the
nrfiSf who did rrarI- for Clot1caD nn1
thar of the dealer himself.
James 3. Dillon said he had had
t%hirty-two years experience as a pic
ture. restorer.
He. had examined Near Newport"
twice. When asked if il had been
transferred from one canvas to another,
he replied: Most decidedly not" He
was of the same opinion about the
Medfield picture, which Clausen said he
bought from Mrs. Elizabeth 1nness,
widow of George Inness. She had dug
it out of a trunk where it had lain for
a long time, Clausen asserted.
In "Medfield," Dillon said, he found
places where the paint was off and the
bare canvas was disclosed. He had no
doubt whatever that the picture was
on the original canvas.
John NJ. Beers gave testimony along
the same lines as Dillon. He also was
of the opinion that the two paintings
were on the original
J. Scott Hartley, a son-in-law of In
ness. said he was sure the Medfeld
painting was not at any time among
the pictures in the possession of Mrs.
Inness. He knew all the Inness pic
lures, he said, and none of them was
stored in a trunk.
Henry w. Ranger, artist, recalled to
the stand. was asked if he ever had
aid TO Clausen that on payment of
$1,000 for a canvas he, Ranger, would
square it with the boys" His reply
was: TITS an absolute and complete
lie. without shadow of foundation"
Clausen had said tina Ranger de-
manded 81, 900 outright from him.
Rangers reply to this was: Another
absolute and complete lie" Ranger
denied that he had talked on any sub
ject with Clausen at that time.
MY income at that time was $50, coo
q year" asserted the artist.
William 7. Evans, the plaintiff, testi-
fed that he had seen two pictures in
Clausen's studio, signed "A. Dawson"
which were very much in the style of
j. Francis Murphy. He told Clausen
that it would be deceiving the public
to sell those paintings, and Clausen
said he would return them to Dawson.
Just then Murphy came in and Evans
asked him what he thought of the two
works.
That's marvellous" Murphy replied,
according to Evans. Il feel tina 1
painted that
Murphy himself testified that the pic
lures bore a resemblance to his own,
and that he jokingly said that if he
had a few minutes to work on one of
them he could make a Murphy of it."