Ctrl-C, Ctrl-V. Rinse, repeat.
ARCH.2003.29, Rendition: 803716
The image shows a newspaper clipping from the Christian Science Monitor, dated June 19, 1946. The headline reads "Officials at Harvard Silent On $100,000 Painting Suit." The article discusses a lawsuit filed in Suffolk Court by Mrs. Jean Bullitt Darlington of Weston against Harvard University. The suit concerns a $100,000 painting by Peter Paul Rubens, which Mrs. Darlington alleges was damaged while in Harvard's custody.
Key points from the article include:
Harvard's Silence: Harvard officials have been tight-lipped about the issue, with only a brief statement from William H. Claflin, Jr., the University Treasurer, acknowledging that the painting was in Harvard's possession.
Mrs. Darlington's Claims: Mrs. Darlington charges that Harvard breached its contract by failing to return the painting in its original condition. She seeks damages for the alleged mishandling of the artwork.
Legal Proceedings: The case was filed by Mrs. Darlington's attorney, who claims that Harvard has not responded to their attempts to settle out of court. The suit specifies charges of fraud and seeks to recover damages.
Painting's Authenticity: The article mentions that the painting, a copy of Rubens' masterpiece "The Cross," is not a genuine original but a custom-made replica. This detail is expected to be a significant factor in the court proceedings.
Harvard's Stance: The university has not publicly addressed the specifics of the case, maintaining a silent stance on the matter.
The article suggests that the outcome of the suit will depend on the court's assessment of the painting's value and the circumstances surrounding its handling by Harvard.
The image shows a newspaper clipping from the Christian Science Monitor, dated June 19, 1946. The headline reads, "Officials at Harvard Silent On $100,000 Painting Suit." The article discusses a $100,000 lawsuit filed by Mrs. Edward Darlington of West Chester, Pennsylvania, concerning a missing painting that was allegedly in Harvard's possession. The painting, "Descent From the Cross," by Peter Paul Rubens, had been lent to Harvard by Mrs. Darlington's great-uncle, Edward T. Stotesbury.
The article mentions that Harvard officials are not commenting on the matter. It also notes that private detectives searched the former Fogg Museum gallery but found no trace of the painting. The lawsuit alleges that the painting was lost or stolen while on loan to Harvard. The case is expected to be heard in the Suffolk Superior Court, with the critical question being whether Harvard, as an educational institution, is liable for the loss. Mrs. Darlington's attorneys argue that Harvard failed to take proper precautions to protect the painting, while Harvard's lawyers maintain that the university is not responsible for the loss.
The image shows a page from a newspaper dated June 19, 1946, titled "Christian Science Monitor."
The main article on this page is a news story titled "Officials at Harvard Silent On $100,000 Painting Suit." Here's a detailed summary:
Context and Background:
Details of the Case:
Legal Proceedings:
Additional Notes:
The main focus of the article is the legal dispute over the painting and the subsequent silence from Harvard University officials regarding the case.
The image shows a newspaper clipping from the Christian Science Monitor dated June 19, 1946. The headline reads "Officials at Harvard Silent On $100,000 Painting Suit."
The article discusses a lawsuit filed in Suffolk Court by Mrs. Charles P. Darlington of Westchester County, New York, seeking $100,000 in damages for a missing painting titled "Descent From the Cross" by Peter Paul Rubens. The painting was known to be in the possession of Harvard University for a long time and had been in the Harvard Art Museum.
The plaintiff, Mrs. Darlington, is a relative of former Ambassador William Bullitt and is seeking damages for the mysterious disappearance of the painting. The case involves the Harvard Corporation, with the suit accusing the university of negligence.
The article mentions that the university officials are tight-lipped about the case. The court is expected to determine whether Harvard is liable, and if so, how the damages should be fixed. It also notes that the painting was believed to be a genuine original by Rubens, though it is not clear if this was the case.
Additionally, the clipping notes that the painting was one of several that were copied by great artists, and there was a possibility that the copy was mistakenly thought to be the original.
The lower portion of the clipping is partially visible, showing the continuation of other news items, but it is not fully legible. The date and title of the newspaper are clearly marked.
The image shows a newspaper clipping from the Christian Science Monitor, dated June 19, 1946. The headline reads, "Officials at Harvard Silent On $100,000 Painting Suit."
The article discusses a lawsuit filed by Mrs. Chester Darling of West Chester, Pennsylvania, against Harvard University for $100,000 in damages due to the mysterious disappearance of a painting. The painting, "Descent from the Cross," is attributed to Peter Paul Rubens and is believed to have been in the possession of Harvard for several years.
The suit alleges that Harvard officials knew about the missing painting for a long time and did not inform Mrs. Darling. The article mentions that a first cousin of former Ambassador William Bullitt and mother of the late Mrs. Darling is seeking damages. The lawsuit is filed against Harvard and its president, James Bryant Conant, along with the Fellows of Harvard College.
Harvard University officials are reported to be tight-lipped about the case, and the article notes that the case will likely be settled out of court. It also mentions that Mrs. Darling's attorneys believe the painting is a genuine Rubens masterpiece.
Additionally, the article explains that it was common for great artists to paint several copies of their works, often for outstanding students, which might explain the existence of multiple copies.
The clipping also includes a small section from another article titled "Demands for Page," discussing a different topic related to Fort Lawton, but the main focus is on the Harvard painting lawsuit.
The image is a newspaper clipping from the Christian Science Monitor, dated June 19, 1940. The headline reads, "Officials at Harvard Silent On $100,000 Painting Suit."
The article reports on a legal suit filed against Harvard University for damages concerning a missing painting valued at $100,000. The painting, a masterpiece by Peter Paul Rubens, was loaned to Harvard by its owner, Descant Fromkes, for an exhibition. However, the painting mysteriously disappeared while in the university's care.
Key details include:
The article also includes references to other stories and columns in the newspaper, such as the "Discuss Deven's Area" section and the "Plain Talk" column.
The image shows a newspaper clipping attached to a piece of paper. The clipping is an article titled "Officials at Harvard Silent On $100,000 Painting Suit." It reports that Harvard University officials are tight-lipped regarding a $100,000 lawsuit filed in Suffolk Court by Mrs. Jean Bullitt Darlington of Westchester, PA, concerning a mysteriously missing painting.
The article states that Harvard officials acknowledge they are unaware of the missing painting. It mentions William H. Claflin Jr., a member of the Harvard Corporation and Treasurer of the institution, who said a purported Rubens masterpiece had been in progress for several years.
Mrs. Darlington alleges that Harvard University turned over the painting "Descent From the Cross" by Rubens, which she had sent for inspection, to another person without her authority or knowledge. The suit seeks damages from Harvard and its officials, including specific charges against the President and Fellows of Harvard College for breach of contract and conversion.
Private detectives conducted a search at the Harvard gallery but found no clue. The case will likely come before the Suffolk Superior Court to decide liability if Harvard is found responsible.
Mrs. Darlington's attorneys stated that it was a custom for great artists to paint several pictures on the same theme or to have outstanding students make copies of great works.
Handwritten on the paper beneath the clipping is the note "Christian Science Monitor June 19, 1946," suggesting the source and date of the article.
The lower part of the clipping appears to be upside down and mostly cut off with only a few words visible, unrelated to the main article text.
The image shows a newspaper clipping that appears to be from the "Christian Science Monitor," dated June 19, 1948. The headline of the article reads "Officials at Harvard Silent On $100,000 Painting Suit," indicating that the article is about an incident where officials at Harvard University were not commenting on a lawsuit concerning a painting valued at $100,000. The layout of the clipping suggests that part of the article continued onto another page, as is common with newspaper articles that are longer than the space allotted on one page.
Part of the text is obscured by the fold, but from what is visible, the article mentions individuals like a museum director William H. Claflin Jr. and a Mrs. Paul Darlington of West Chester. There are also references to a lawsuit possibly involving allegations of damage to a painting by Darling, involving private detectives, and discussions on whether the case would appear before the state Supreme Court. The text is written in a formal journalistic style typical of the time.
On the paper to which the clip is attached, there is a handwritten annotation indicating the source and date as mentioned earlier. The physical condition of the paper and the way the text is laid out suggest this is an archival document that has been preserved or is being used for research or reference.
The image shows a scanned newspaper clipping from the Christian Science Monitor, dated June 19, 1946. The article is titled "Officials at Harvard Silent On $100,000 Painting Suit" and discusses a legal dispute involving a missing painting valued at $100,000.
Context: Harvard University officials and private detectives were tight-lipped about a lawsuit filed in Suffolk Superior Court by Mrs. Darlington of West Chester, Pennsylvania. The lawsuit concerns a missing painting that was part of a gallery but could not be found during a thorough search.
Painting in Question: The painting in question is described as a Rubens masterpiece, specifically "Descent From the Cross." The article notes that the painting had been the subject of a long-standing legal dispute over its authenticity and ownership.
Harvard's Role: Harvard University was involved because the painting was part of its collection. The university turned the painting over to another person for inspection without Mrs. Darlington's authority or knowledge.
Plaintiff's Claim: Mrs. Darlington, a first cousin of former Ambassador William Bullitt and daughter of a Harvard student, is seeking to recover damages for the mysterious disappearance of the painting. She is represented by attorney George A. McLaughlin of Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Legal Action: Mrs. Darlington has charged the President and Fellows of Harvard College with breach of contract and conversion. The case is expected to come before the court for argument unless it is settled out of court.
Authenticity Concerns: The article mentions that several art authorities in Philadelphia examined the painting and stated that it was believed to be the genuine original of the famous Rubens masterpiece. However, it also notes that it was a custom for outstanding students to make copies of great works, which complicates the authenticity issue.
Overall, the image captures a historical news report detailing a high-profile legal battle involving a valuable artwork and an esteemed academic institution.
The image shows a page from a newspaper with a headline "Officials at Harvard Silent On $100,000 Painting Suit." The article is about a missing painting that was stolen from Harvard University. The painting, which was valued at $100,000, was missing for a long time, and the university officials were tight-lipped about the case. The article also mentions that private detectives were hired to search for the painting, and the case was expected to be heard in the Suffolk Superior Court. The article also mentions that the painting was a copy of a famous Rubens masterpiece, and it was a custom of great artists to paint several pictures on the same theme.