Archives Scrapbooks

The image is of a newspaper clipping from the "Christian Science Monitor," dated June 19, 1946. The article is titled "Officials at Harvard Silent On $100,000 Painting Suit."

Here is a summary of the article:

• Harvard University officials and private detectives are investigating the mysterious disappearance of a $100,000 suit of clothing from a gallery, which was found to have no clue to the missing painting.
• The painting, "The Blue Boy" by Jean Bullitt Darlington of Westchester, Pa., was stolen from a gallery in Philadelphia.
• Harvard officials have commented that they have no information about the painting's whereabouts.
• The painting was originally owned by Mrs. Darlington's father, who had it insured for $100,000.
• The article mentions that the painting was part of a collection that included works by famous artists such as Rubens and Ribera.
• The painting was stolen from the Darlington home in 1942, and the theft was reported to the police.
• The article also mentions that the painting was found in a gallery in Boston, but the gallery owner claimed that it was a copy and not the original.
• The article concludes by stating that the search for the painting continues, and that Harvard officials are remaining silent on the matter.

Overall, the article discusses the theft and subsequent investigation of a valuable painting, highlighting the mystery surrounding its disappearance and the efforts to recover it.

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. Charles S. Darlington of West Chester, Pennsylvania, against Harvard University for the alleged loss of a painting titled "Descent From the Cross," which she believed to be an original masterpiece by Peter Paul Rubens. According to the article, Harvard officials were not commenting on the case, but it was revealed that the university had deaccessioned the painting in 1939 after an expert determined it to be a 17th-century reproduction. The article also mentions that the painting had been sent to the Fogg Art Museum for inspection without the owner's permission and that the plaintiff sought to recover damages for the loss of the painting, which she believed to be an original. The case was expected to come before the Suffolk Superior Court.

The image is of a newspaper clipping titled "Officials at Harvard Silent on $100,000 Painting Suit," published in the Christian Science Monitor on June 19, 1946.

Here is a detailed summary:

Title and Main Headline:

• The headline reads, "Officials at Harvard Silent on $100,000 Painting Suit."

Main Content:
The article discusses a legal case involving a $100,000 painting that went missing from Harvard University. Mrs. Patricia Darlington, a former ambassador's daughter, filed a suit in Suffolk Court, seeking damages for the loss of a painting she claims is an original work by Rembrandt.

• Background:

  • Harvard University officials were tight-lipped about the missing painting, which was in progress for several years.
  • The painting, titled "Descent from the Cross," was allegedly given to Mrs. Darlington by a Harvard professor without her authority or knowledge.

• Plaintiff's Case:

  • Mrs. Darlington claims the painting was an original Rembrandt masterpiece, brought from the Antwerp family, and was given to her by the University without permission.
  • She alleges that Harvard University and its officials were negligent in handling the artwork.

• Search and Authentication:

  • Private detectives conducted a search of the former gallery but found no clue.
  • Several art authorities examined the painting and found it to be an excellent 17th-century reproduction rather than an original by Rembrandt.

• Historical Context:

  • The painting was reportedly taken by Mrs. Darlington to a Newbury Street art dealer in Boston in 1942, where it was examined and authenticated by Alan Burroughs.
  • The painting was hung in a private gallery in England, where it was examined and found to be a replica.

• Harvard's Position:

  • Harvard University's official stance was that they had no knowledge of the painting's loss until the suit was filed.
  • The university's involvement and liability in the matter were not clarified by the article.

Additional Notes:

• The article was published in the Christian Science Monitor, a newspaper known for its religious and philosophical perspectives.

The overall context of the article reveals a legal dispute over the ownership and authenticity of a valuable painting, with Harvard University initially being silent on the matter.

The image displays a news article 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 legal case involving Harvard University regarding a missing painting valued at $100,000. Mrs. Darlington, a plaintiff, claims that a valuable painting, "Descent from the Cross" by Rubens, was removed from her possession without her consent and later turned over to Harvard University. Harvard officials were being tight-lipped about the matter.

Key points from the article include:

1. Background of the Painting:

   • Mrs. Darlington alleges that the painting was originally from the Tesauro family of Antwerp and was thought to be an original masterpiece.
   • She sent the painting to Harvard for authentication and was told it was a genuine original of the famous Rubens masterpiece.

2. Dispute:

   • The painting was later examined by Alan Burroughs and found to be an excellent 17th-century reproduction.
   • Mrs. Darlington claims Harvard had no authority to act on her behalf and that they had no prior approval to sell or lend the painting.

3. Legal Proceedings:

   • The suit was filed in Suffolk Court by Mrs. Darlington's attorney, George A. McLaughlin.
   • The case involves Harvard's President and Fellows of Harvard College, and it is expected to be settled before the fall session unless it goes to court.

4. Search for the Painting:

   • A thorough search was conducted at the Newbury Street art gallery where the painting was allegedly given, but no trace of it was found.
   • Harvard is facing liability issues, especially since the painting was considered valuable and was part of their educational and research collections.

5. Historical Context:

   • The article mentions that during World War II, many artworks were returned to their owners, and Harvard's involvement in this case is being scrutinized.

The article captures the essence of the legal and institutional tensions surrounding the handling and authenticity of the painting in question.

The image is a news 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. Elizabeth Darlington of Westchester, Pennsylvania, against Harvard University officials. Mrs. Darlington is seeking $100,000 in damages for the mysterious disappearance of a painting, "Descent from the Cross," which she claims was a genuine Rubens masterpiece.

Key points from the article include:

• Harvard officials are tight-lipped about the missing painting, which has been missing for a long time.
• Mrs. Darlington claims that the painting was in her family for generations and was given to Harvard University for inspection.
• The painting was allegedly examined by Alan Burroughs, who determined it to be a 17th-century reproduction, not the original Rubens.
• Mrs. Darlington asserts that she had no prior approval to act as she did and that Harvard officials are liable.
• Harvard officials are conducting a thorough search but have found no clue about the painting's whereabouts.
• The case is expected to come before the Suffolk Superior Court.
• Harvard, as an educational institution, is liable in such cases and may face fixing a price on the painting.

The article also mentions that it was a common practice for artists to paint several pictures on the same theme, leading to confusion over the authenticity of copies.

The image is 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 details a legal dispute involving Harvard University concerning a valuable painting. Here's a detailed summary:

1. Background of the Case:

   • Harvard University officials were closely guarding information about a $100,000 lawsuit concerning a mysteriously missing painting.
   • The suit was filed in Suffolk County by Mrs. John D. Rockefeller, Jr., the daughter of Walter C. Durant, former president of Durant Motors.
   • The painting in question is a Rubens masterpiece that had been on loan to the Fogg Art Museum at Harvard.

2. Details of the Lawsuit:

   • Mrs. John D. Rockefeller, Jr., also known as Abby Rockefeller, filed the suit seeking compensation for damages caused by the mysterious disappearance of the painting.
   • The defendants in the suit include George L. Stout, the Director of the Worcester (Mass.) Art Museum and former member of Harvard’s Fogg Museum, and Paul J. Sachs, an emeritus professor and former associate director of the Fogg Museum.

3. Court Proceedings:

   • Harvard University had initially denied any knowledge of the painting’s whereabouts, stating that the painting was turned over to an unknown person for inspection without the authority of Abby Rockefeller.
   • The case was expected to come before the full session of the Suffolk Superior Court.

4. Plaintiff’s Allegations:

   • The lawsuit claims that the original painting, part of the Te Aroha family collection from New Zealand, was lent to Harvard for authentication and then went missing.
   • The plaintiff’s attorneys argue that Harvard's representatives acted without authorization when they allowed the painting to be taken from the Fogg Museum.

5. Discovery of the Painting:

   • In June 1943, the painting was found in the possession of an art dealer in Boston.
   • Harvard officials and the FBI initiated a search, and the painting was eventually found in England, having been hung in a private home.
   • Mrs. Darlington’s attorneys claimed that Harvard had not obtained her approval for the painting's movements.

6. Harvard’s Response:

   • Harvard officials stated that they had returned the painting to several art authorities in Philadelphia, believing it to be a genuine original.
   • It was noted that Harvard's practices and policies regarding the handling of valuable artworks were under scrutiny.

7. Additional Context:

   • The article mentions that during World War II, many art pieces were moved for safekeeping, which might explain the painting’s disappearance and reappearance.

The article highlights the complexity and high stakes of the legal dispute involving a valuable piece of art and the responsibility of educational institutions in safeguarding borrowed items.

The image is of a newspaper clipping titled "Officials at Harvard Silent On $100,000 Painting Suit." It reports on a legal case involving Harvard University officials who are tight-lipped about a $100,000 lawsuit filed by Mrs. Jean Bullitt Darlington of Westchester, Pennsylvania, over a mysterious missing painting. The article details various aspects of the case:

• A Harvard University official mentioned that the university has known about the missing painting for a long time.
• William H. Claflin, Jr., member of the Harvard Corporation and Treasurer, said the university turned over the painting, "Descent From the Cross," by Rubens, for inspection but none without authorization.
• Mrs. Darlington, cousin of former Ambassador William Bullitt and mother of a Harvard student, is seeking damages for the mysterious disappearance of the painting.
• The suit, filed by her attorney George A. McLaughlin of Cambridge, charges Harvard College with breach of contract and conversion.
• The painting was originally purchased from the Tesoro family of Antwerp in 1921 and lent to Harvard University in 1940.
• Mrs. Darlington alleges that the painting was given by the University to a Newbury Street art dealer without her knowledge or permission, who misrepresented himself and did not have approval.
• She requested the painting's return in 1942 but was told it had been given to the Boston art dealer.
• A worldwide search for the painting was conducted, including locating the agent in England who had hung the painting in a private gallery on Dartmouth Street, but the gallery had gone out of business.
• Harvard officials say they knew nothing about the painting's disappearance.
• Private detectives also conducted a search but found no clue.
• It suggests the case may be decided by the Suffolk Superior Court and the painting's originality is in question, being possibly a custom piece by a great artist rather than an original Rubens.

To the right of the clipping is handwritten text stating "Christian Science Monitor June 19, 1946," indicating the source and date of the article.

This image shows a newspaper article clipping. The article's headline reads "Officials at Harvard Silent On $100,000 Painting Suit." Below the headline, there is a date and a source attribution indicating it's from the "Christian Science Monitor June 19, 1946."

The article discusses legal and investigative circumstances regarding a $100,000 lawsuit over a painting. Harvard University officials are mentioned as being tight-lipped about the suit filed by Mrs. Jean Butt Darlington of West Chester, Pennsylvania, claiming ownership of what is described as a "missing painting." The article includes details of the case, noting that a former ambassador, a William Bullitt, and Mrs. Darlington are involved, and it touches on the provenance and the history of the painting, as well as various efforts made concerning its situation.

The clipping is angled diagonally on a pale-colored background, emphasizing the text in a clear, readable manner. The article appears to be quite detailed, continuing onto another section which is not fully visible in the image.

The image is a scanned page from the Christian Science Monitor dated June 19, 1946. The page features a news article titled "Officials at Harvard Silent On $100,000 Painting Suit". The article discusses a legal dispute involving a valuable painting valued at $100,000, which is missing and the subject of a lawsuit.

Key Details from the Article:

1. Headline and Context:

   • The headline indicates that Harvard University officials and private detectives are tight-lipped regarding the case, which involves a missing painting worth $100,000.
   • The painting in question is a Rubens masterpiece that was originally purchased by Mrs. Tessaro in 1921 and later brought to Harvard University for an exhibition.

2. The Painting's History:

   • The painting was originally purchased by Mrs. Tessaro and then brought to Harvard University in 1921.
   • It was exhibited in many European art galleries, where it was identified as an original Rubens masterpiece.
   • The painting was loaned to Harvard University by Mrs. Darlington, a former Harvard student, in 1942. It was given to the University to a Newbury Street art dealer, Alan Burroughs, who kept the painting in his gallery.

3. The Disappearance:

   • The painting disappeared after being exhibited at Harvard. Mrs. Darlington claims she had no prior approval to act as an agent for the painting and that it was taken without her knowledge.
   • Investigators have found no clues, and the case remains unsolved.

4. Legal Action:

   • Mrs. Darlington, through her cousin George A. McLaughlin, has filed a lawsuit against Harvard College, alleging breach of contract and conversion.
   • The case is expected to come before the Suffolk Superior Court in the fall, unless settled out of court.

5. Harvard's Position:

   • Harvard officials have remained silent on the matter, and the University is expected to argue that it is not liable for the painting.
   • The article notes that Harvard, as an educational institution, may not be held liable for the painting, which was loaned rather than purchased.

6. Additional Context:

   • The painting was examined by art authorities, who stated that several paintings attributed to Rubens were believed to be genuine originals of the famous scene.
   • It was customary for great artists to paint several pictures on the same theme, and the missing painting was one of these copies.

Visual Elements:

• The page has a clean, typed layout typical of newspaper articles from the mid-20th century.
• The headline is prominently displayed at the top in bold, serif font.
• The article is structured with subheadings and paragraphs, providing a clear narrative.
• The source ("Christian Science Monitor") and date ("June 19, 1946") are visible at the bottom right of the page.

Summary:

The image depicts a news article from the Christian Science Monitor detailing a high-profile legal dispute involving a missing Rubens painting valued at $100,000. The painting, originally purchased by Mrs. Tessaro and later loaned to Harvard University, disappeared under mysterious circumstances. Mrs. Darlington has filed a lawsuit against Harvard, alleging breach of contract and conversion, while Harvard officials remain silent on the matter. The case is expected to proceed to court unless settled out of court.

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. Jean Bullitt Darlington against Harvard University for damages to a missing painting by the artist Reubens. Mrs. Darlington claims that the painting, which she believed to be an original masterpiece, was damaged during its exhibition at Harvard. The article also mentions that Harvard officials have been silent on the case, and that private detectives have been unable to find any clues regarding the painting's disappearance.