The Detroit times. [volume] (Detroit, Mich.) 1903-1920, 1913-08-18
Attorneys Almost Come to
Blows When Replevin Suit In
vOlving Painting is Dismissed
COURT ORDERS PICTURE
RETURNED TO EDWARDUS
Artist Gies Called as Expert,
But Fails to Fix Value
of Canvas

waged during the last week in the
court Of Justice Command over
painting alleged to be an original old
master by Murillo, came near breaking
up in a physical alteration between
the opposing attorneys Saturday morn
ing, after the justice had dismissed
the replevin suit on the grounds that
suit for attachment should have
been brought instead. and that the
court had no jurisdiction since he
found the value of the property In
yolved TO be more than $500.
Attorney Gordon Brewer, who rep
resented the plaintiff. Charles Walsh
am, "a motorman, approached Edward
POkorny, attorney for the defendant,
Tinus Edwardus, Immediately after the
case was dismissed and the two en-
tered the Justices private Office, talk
ing argumentatively
Suddenly Brewer demanded, In an
CRY tones; do you mean TO insinuate
that | am not a gentleman" and he
drew back his right arm as II to strike,
adding, III you say that again III
knock you down"
oh, no you wont-this Is a court
room, the other lawyer answered
Justice Commands attention was
attracted by the loud talking and he
threatened to have them both arrested
for contempt OF court.
The chief witness in the hearing wa
James w. Giles, Detroit artist and
critic, who was called in as an expert
witness He testified that he did not
believe the painting an original Mu-
rillo, but admitted that there was no
one In this country OF sufficient stand
ing to pass authoritatively upon that
question.
In your opinion is it worth more
than s5V0?" inquired Brewer of Mr..
Gies.
IL mas no definite market value.
but would not care to pay $500 for
1t, was the answer
Then. in your opinion, 1t is not
worth that amount"
Il suppose that is the Inevitable
conclusion" the witness assented
Here the justice remarked that Tho
line of questioning was improper and
should be objected to by opposing
counsei
Let me ask few questions" he
said Are you willing to swear that
IT is not a Murillo, Mr.. Giesg'
No
Then. in saying that II is not
worth $500 you mean merely that you
are not willing to pay more than that
for it?''
Yes"
If you owned the picture and some
one offered you more than that for IL
you would sell 1t to him without feel.
Ing that you had cheated him."
Yes" replied tn ewitness again
Edwardus grew excited several
times while the trial was on and
once wanted to bet Mr. Gies 500 the
picture was genuine. but the Justice
ruled out the bet.
irving Swan, son-in-law OF Edward
us. verified the reported offer OF s12..
600 for the picture by New York art
dealer and said that he conducted the
negotiations and refused the offer
upon the order OF his father.in.law nor
to accept less than $4,000.
Mrs Swan. wife OF the last witness
told OF another offer which she said
her father received 10 years ago from
a man named Euquart for a third par
ty. who was willing to pay $4,000
down and give her father a life an
nuty of 81 900 for the picture.
The suit was started by Walsham to
secure $500 which he claims TO have
lent Edwardus. and he had the pic.
ture seized to secure his claim.
Edwardus accused him and his at.
torney In court with not wanting TO
recover the $500 but TO get posses.
sion OF the picture Justice Command
ordered that the painting be returned
TO its owner.