Archives Scrapbooks

The image shows a newspaper clipping from an old publication. The article discusses a legal case involving Sir Joseph Duveen, a renowned art dealer, and M. G. J. Demotte, a Paris art dealer. The case centers around a painting, "La Belle Ferronnière," attributed to Leonardo da Vinci, which was refused by the Dreicer estate.

Key points from the article include:

1. Sir Joseph Duveen's Defense:

   • Sir Joseph, an art dealer with 35 years of experience, asserts that the painting in question is not a genuine Leonardo da Vinci made in the 15th century.
   • He claims he expressed this opinion to the trustees of the Dreicer estate when asked.
   • The plaintiff (Demotte) denies having expressed this opinion, but Sir Joseph's character and honesty are defended by his lawyers.

2. Separate Defense:

   • The defense also argues that the suspicion of the painting's authenticity was first raised by Demotte himself in a letter, where he mentioned the painting might be a half-million francs if genuine.
   • Sir Joseph contends that a qualified art dealer has the right to express a personal opinion on an object brought to him for criticism in his professional capacity.

3. Vigouroux Rearrested:

   • In a related case, M. Vigouroux, who is accused of defrauding his employer, was rearrested.
   • Vigouroux was brought to trial but did not come under the unsheltered roof of the twelfth correctional chamber.
   • The court declared itself incompetent to try the case and ordered Vigouroux’s immediate arrest to be bound over to the next court of assizes.

The article provides insights into the legal proceedings and the professional opinions involved in the art dealing world, particularly concerning the authenticity of famous artworks.

The image shows a yellowed, clipped newspaper article, divided into two main sections, with the top section appearing to be folded over the bottom section. The text in the top section discusses a legal dispute involving Sir Joseph Duveen, an art dealer, and the Dreicer estate. Sir Joseph asserts his belief that a statue in question is not a 13th-century champleve enamel but a 19th-century forgery, and he claims that the Dreicer trustees first raised doubts about the statue's authenticity. He also maintains that, as an art dealer, he has the right to express his professional opinion.

The bottom section of the article, with the headline "VIGOUROUX REARRESTED," reports that in New York, M. Vigouroux, a former manager of Demotte’s branch antique shop, was re-arrested. Vigouroux, accused of defrauding his employer, had previously claimed that the court lacked jurisdiction. The court, however, declared itself competent to try the case and ordered Vigouroux to be held over for the next court of assizes. The text also mentions that the suit of M. G. J. Demotte, another Paris art dealer, against Sir Joseph Duveen was creating a sensation.

The image shows a collage of two newspaper clippings, likely from the early 20th century, placed on a flat surface.

Top Clipping:
The text discusses a legal dispute involving Sir Joseph Duveen, an art dealer, and Mr. Demotte. Sir Joseph states that he believes the statue in question is not a genuine Champele enamel made in Limoges in the 13th century and that he expressed this belief to the trustees of the Dreicer estate. He denies ever attacking Demotte's character, asserting that his opinion was imposed upon him. Sir Joseph argues that a qualified art dealer has the right to express a professional opinion on artworks.

Bottom Clipping:
This part of the clipping is titled "Vigouroux Rearrested." It mentions a lawsuit against Mr. M. Vigouroux, who was formerly the manager of Demotte's branch antique shop in New York. The text states that Vigouroux was accused of defrauding his employer and was brought to trial. The court found the case to be out of jurisdiction, and the court declared itself incompetent to try the case. Consequently, Vigouroux was immediately arrested and bound over to the next court of assizes.

The lower section of the clipping is partially cut off, but it seems to be related to legal proceedings involving the same individuals or entities involved in the top clipping.

The image shows two newspaper clippings that are related to legal cases involving a Paris art dealer named M. G. J. Demotte.

The first clipping at the top discusses a legal dispute between Sir Joseph Duveen and the Dreicer estate. Sir Joseph, a well-known art dealer, stated that he believed a particular champlevé enamel statue from Limoges was not from the thirteenth century, contrary to the Dreicer estate's claims. He had expressed this opinion to the estate's trustees. The plaintiff, Demotte, denies attacking Sir Joseph's character and insists he merely expressed his own opinion. Sir Joseph contends that art dealers have a right to express their professional opinions on art objects.

The second clipping at the bottom relates to another case involving M. Demotte. While Demotte was involved in a suit against Sir Joseph, he was also embroiled in another legal matter. M. Vigouroux, a former manager of Demotte's branch antiquity shop in New York, was accused of defrauding Demotte. During his trial, Vigouroux requested a change of venue, which was granted, and he was subsequently rearrested to be tried in the next court of assizes.

The clippings are partially damaged, with some text missing or obscured, particularly in the lower section.

The image shows a pair of old newspaper clippings, likely from the early 20th century, each with distinct articles.

1. The top clipping discusses a legal case involving Sir Joseph Duveen, a prominent art dealer, and M. G. J. Demotte, another art dealer. The article mentions that Sir Joseph believes the statue in question was made in the 13th century and not the 14th, as Demotte suggested. Sir Joseph asserts that he has the right to express his professional opinion, even if it contradicts Demotte’s claim. Demotte denies attacking Sir Joseph's character, stating that he was merely expressing his opinion. Sir Joseph claims that Demotte offered him a half-million francs if he withdrew his belief about the statue’s origin.

2. The bottom clipping, titled "Vigouroux Rearrested," reports on another legal matter involving M. G. J. Demotte and his former manager, M. Vigouroux. Vigouroux is accused of defrauding his employer. When brought to trial, Vigouroux requested a change of venue, arguing that he did not come under the jurisdiction of the twelfth correctional chamber. The court found itself incompetent to handle the case and ordered Vigouroux's immediate arrest and transfer to the next court of assizes.

The articles suggest a series of legal disputes involving art dealers and accusations of fraud, with significant financial stakes and professional opinions at play.

The image shows an old newspaper clipping with two main articles related to legal cases involving art dealings.

First Article:

Title/Subject: Testimony of Sir Joseph Duveen in a legal case regarding the Dreicer estate.

• Key Points:
  • Sir Joseph Duveen, an experienced art dealer, testified in court.
  • He stated that a particular statue in question was not from the thirteenth century in Limoges, but rather from the nineteenth century. He admitted he had expressed this belief to trustees of the Dreicer estate when asked for his opinion.
  • The plaintiff’s legal team argued that Duveen's characterizations were defamatory and merely expressed opinions that might not be accurate.
  • Sir Joseph defended his stance by asserting that, as an art dealer, he had the right to express personal opinions on any art object presented to him for critique in his professional capacity.
  • It was mentioned that suspicion about the statue was initially raised by a letter from Denoël himself, in which he offered to pay a substantial sum if the claims about the statue were false.

Second Article:

Title: VIGOUROUX REARRESTED

• Key Points:
  • While a lawsuit involving M. G. J. Denoël, a Paris art dealer, and Sir Joseph Duveen was creating a sensation in New York, another related case was unfolding.
  • M. Vigouroux, the manager of Denoël’s New York branch, was accused of defrauding his employer.
  • Vigouroux claimed that the trial should not proceed under the jurisdiction of the Twelfth Correctional Chamber. The court, however, denied his request for a change of venue.
  • He attempted to declare himself incompetent to stand trial but was unsuccessful.
  • The court ordered Vigouroux's immediate arrest to be held over until the next session of the Court of Assizes.

Additionally, part of the newspaper page also contains an advertisement for an automobile.

The image shows a light grey surface with a small piece of beige paper, on which two newspaper clippings are attached, oriented vertically in a slightly overlapping manner. The paper appears to be aged, with the text printed in traditional newspaper font.

The top clipping contains text about Sir Joseph, an art dealer with thirty-five years of experience, discussing a statue and his professional opinion regarding its authenticity. It mentions the Dreicer estate and clarifies that Sir Joseph asserts a qualified art dealer’s right to express personal opinions on art objects.

The bottom clipping, just below the first and partly overlapping it, has a bold headline stating "VIGOUROUX REARRESTED." The article discusses a legal case involving M. G. J. Demotte, a Paris art dealer, and Mr. Vigouroux, the former manager of Demotte’s branch antiquity shop in New York. Vigouroux is accused of defrauding his employer and was rearrested after the court declared it incompetent to try the case, ordering his arrest to be bound over to the next court of assizes.

The text in these clippings reflects legal disputes and professional art dealings from what appears to be an older newspaper. The paper shows signs of yellowing and aging consistent with vintage materials.

The image displays an old newspaper clipping with small, dense text, presenting an article or a series of articles. The paper has yellowed with age, indicating it is likely quite old. The top article appears to be about a dispute involving an art dealer and the Dreicer estate regarding the authenticity and valuation of a statue. Specific names and details are mentioned, but without context, their significance is unclear.

The bottom article, separated from the first by a bold line, is headlined "VIGOUROUX REARRESTED" and discusses the re-arrest of M. Vigouroux, who seems to be involved in a legal issue potentially related to fraud or deception against his employer. The article mentions a trial, the twelfth correctional chamber, and the subject being bound over to the next court of assizes.

The text's size and font are typical of historical newspapers, and use of language like "assizes" suggests the clipping could be from the late 19th to early 20th century, a time when such terms were more commonly used in legal contexts. The nature of the article suggests these clippings were part of a legal or society section of the newspaper.

The image depicts a vintage newspaper clipping attached to a piece of paper. The visible part of the clipping contains text discussing legal matters related to art dealers and an arrest. Specifically, it mentions Sir Joseph, an art dealer with thirty-five years of experience, and his involvement in a dispute with the trustees of the Dreicer estate. Additionally, there is a mention of another legal case involving M. Vigouroux, the former manager of Demotte's branch antiquity shop in New York, who was accused of defrauding his employer. The clipping notes that a court declared itself incompetent to try the case and ordered Vigouroux's immediate arrest, pending a future trial. The clipping is yellowed with age and shows signs of wear, indicative of its historical nature.

The image shows a close-up view of a newspaper clipping or printed document. The text is partially visible and appears to be from a historical or legal context. The document is titled "VIGOUROUX REARRESTED", indicating that it discusses the arrest of an individual named Vigouroux.

Key Details from the Visible Text:

1. Context of the Arrest:

   • The document mentions M. G. J. Degenette, a Paris art dealer, and Sir Joseph Duveen, a prominent figure in the art world.
   • It refers to a legal case involving M. Vigouroux, who was formerly the branch manager of M. Degenette's shop in New York.
   • Vigouroux is accused of defrauding his employer and is brought to trial.

2. Legal Proceedings:

   • Vigouroux was arrested and bound over to the next court of assizes for trial.
   • The court ordered a change of venue due to his request, and he was re-arrested for the trial.

3. Content of the Document:

   • The visible text includes legal and historical references, such as a statue and a letter written by Demolte, which is tied to a financial obligation of half a million francs if the statue were found to be false.
   • There is mention of Sir Joseph defending his professional integrity and expressing opinions on art objects.

Visual Description:

• Paper Quality: The paper appears aged, with a slightly worn and yellowish tone, suggesting it is from an older publication.
• Text Layout: The text is printed in a standard newspaper or legal document format, with justified alignment and clear, legible typography.
• Framing: The document is placed against a plain, light blue background, which contrasts with the paper and makes the text stand out.

Overall Impression:

The image captures a snippet of a historical legal or news article, focusing on the arrest and legal troubles of M. Vigouroux, an individual involved in the art trade. The document highlights the complexities of the case, including financial disputes, professional integrity, and legal proceedings. The title "VIGOUROUX REARRESTED" emphasizes the ongoing nature of the legal drama.