The Washington times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1902-1939, 1923-05-17

name of the plaintiff.
He contended Sir Joseph's state
ments that the enamel was not gen
ufne not only reflected upon his
lDemotte's) skill, ability and in
tegrity, but held him UP to the
business community as an art
dealer who was unable to dis
tinguish genuine from imitation
Champleve enamels.
In the papers on file Denote
names five men to whom, he
alleged, Sir Joseph made statements
| that the enamel was a fake. These
men included Theodore Hetzler,
Vital Benguiat, art dealer of New
York and Paris; George L. Dur.
lachner, Bernard D'Hendecourt and
Parrish Watson, well known dealer
n Chinese art.
| DuVoem Denies Charges.
In his reply, Sir Joseph emphati-
oally denied that he had cast any
aapersions on Denotes character
or had sought to reflect on his pro-
fessional ability. In support of
this denial, the noted art collector
produced letters written by Warren
and Hetzler in which they assured
him that he had never said any
thing to them Of a derogatory ma.
ture concerning Denote. In fact,
it was shown by these letters that
Sir Joseph had high regard for De-
motto and believed he was honestly
convinced Of the genuineness of the
enamel in question.
Denote charged Sir Joseph said
to Benguiat:
II win spend $500, 900 to prove
that this Virgin is a fake and to
oblige Denote to leave. BUSINESS in
America for one year. / do not
want anybody's opinion about this
Virgin because see perfectly well
that it is a fake"
Denote further alleges that Sir
Joseph had maliciously charged him
with being guilty of nlisrepresenta.
ton and fraud in the sale Of an
imitation and fraudulent copy of an
ancient and genuine Champleve
figure.
The enamel in dispute comes
from the collection Of the Prince
Antoine d'Orleans, Duke OF Calliera,
uncle Of the king Of Spain. 1t
originally belonged to Queen Isa-
bella, who, according to tradition,
priced IL so highly she took it with
her on her journeys.
The enamel was sold to Dreicer
on March s, 1921 for $4,000 francs.
The purchaser paid 100000 francs
and agreed to pay the balance in
two installments. Before the date
Of the final payment Dreicer died,
in August, 1922. ~
Declares Payments Stopped.
According to Denote, on the adj
vice of Sir Joseph. Dreicer's estate
took the position that they would
not make any further payments, A
few weeks ago the executors filed
an accounting with the surrogate,
and one of their claims for, de-
probation was on account of the
Virgin and Child sold by De.
| motto. The surrogate did not allow
the claim and the accounting was
returned to the executors.
Five separate and distinct causes
OF action are cited in the complaint,
each for $4,000 damages. De-
| genuine Champleve, described It
in this manner in the bill of sale
when he sold 1t to Dreicer at Monte
Carlo:
zone Virgin of Champleve enamel
from Limoges, beginning of he
thirteenth century. The Virgin,
seated, holds the Child on her knee.
On the right side of the throne a
figure representing the Angel of
| the Annuciation. On the left side OF
the throne Is a figure representing
the Virgin of the Annunciation. The
door Of the reliquary is missing"
Sir Joseph today reiterated that
he does not believe the Virgin and
Child" enamel sold by Denote to
the late Michael Dreicer as a Cham
pleve from Limoges is genuine.
Denies ANY Reflection.
Sir Joseph, however, dened his
expert opinion was any reflection or
the character. or integrity of De
motto. Sir Joseph today made the
following statement:
while have no desire to become
involved in the controversies Of 9th.
ers, I am always ready to defend
my expert Professional opinions. De.
motto has controversy with the
Dreicer estate over the authenticity
of the enameled Virgin and Child
which he sold to the late Michael
Dreicer.
My opinion as to it's authentic
ity was sought and given profes.
sionally. Although generally ad
verse to expressing expert opinions
felt 1t my duty both to the Fifth
Avenue Bank, with whom / have
business relations, and to the es
tate of Michael Dreicer, of which
the bank is one of the executors
that should depart from my Gus
tom and should give them the bene
fit Of my best judgment when thsy
asked for it.
| II made a careful examination
OF this enamel. I was not then
aware that it had already been
seriously questioned abroad and
that a recognized expert had con
demned it. I concluded solely
from my own examination that II
was not a genuine Champleve
enamel from Limoges of the be-
| ginning of the thirteenth century
For this conclusion had ample
grounds to justify me. Indeed, nv
examination permitted me to reach
no other conclusion. 1t was only
months thereafter that heard
other experts had reached the same
conclusion. Since l assumed to
give my opinion, 1t was clearly my
duty to hew to the line of truth
as saw 1t, let the chips fall
where they might.
Wars On Spurious Art.
my general activity in fighting