UNIVERSITY of GLASGOW

The Corresponence of James McNeil Whistler
Home > On-line Edition > Search for People > Document Display

return to search results

Documents associated with: Huysum, Jan Van
Record 2 of 3

System Number: 01631
Date: 21 April 1885
Author: Walter A. Attenborough[1]
Place: [London]
Recipient: [none]
Repository: Glasgow University Library
Call Number: MS Whistler F563
Document Type: PD


[cover sheet:] 1885. - P. - NO. 180.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE.
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION.

FOLS. 10.]

DELIVERED 21ST APRIL, 1885.

PADDON[2]
V.
HOWELL[3].

STATEMENT OF DEFENCE.

RICHARD FURBER[4],
8, GRAY'S INN SQUARE, W. C.,
DEFENDANT'S SOLICITOR. [etc.]

'Howell[5]
Paddon'

[p. 1]
1885. - P. - NO. 180.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE.
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION.

FOLS. 10.]

BETWEEN SAMUEL WREFORD PADDON . . . . PLAINTIFF.
AND
CHARLES AUGUSTUS HOWELL . . . DEFENDANT.

STATEMENT OF DEFENCE
OF THE
DEFENDANT CHARLES AUGUSTUS HOWELL, DELIVERED THE 21ST DAY OF APRIL, 1885, BY RICHARD FURBER[6], OF 8, GRAY'S INN SQUARE, IN THE COUNTY OF MIDDLESEX, SOLICITOR FOR THE SAID DEFENDANT.

THE DEFENDANT SAYS THAT -

1. - THE DEFENDANT ADMITS THAT IN THE YEARS 1881-3 INCLUSIVE HE MADE CERTAIN PURCHASES AND VARIOUS PAYMENTS AS AND BEING AGENT OF THE PLAINTIFF AND RENDERED ACCOUNTS WHICH CONTAINED ENTRIES RELATING TO SUCH PURCHASES AND PAYMENTS BUT THE SAID ACCOUNTS ALSO CONTAINED ENTRIES RELATING TO SALES MADE BY DEFENDANT TO PLAINTIFF AND IN RESPECT OF SUCH LATTER TRANSACTIONS AND THE ITEMS IN THE ACCOUNTS RELATING THERETO THE DEFENDANT DENIES THAT HE ACTED AS OR WAS AGENT FOR THE PLAINTIFF    THE DEFENDANT DENIES THAT HE FRAUDULENTLY REPRESENTED AS ALLEGED IN PARAGRAPH 1 OF THE STATEMENT OF CLAIM THAT HE HAD PAID CERTAIN PRICES OR SUMS OF MONEY APPEARING IN THE ACCOUNTS REFERRED TO IN THE AFORESAID PARAGRAPH    HE DENIES THAT HE (THE DEFENDANT) FRAUDULENTLY REPRESENTED OR AT ALL THAT ANY PICTURES WORKS OF ART OR OTHER THINGS WERE GENUINE OR THAT HE THEREBY INDUCED THE PLAINTIFF TO MAKE ANY PAYMENTS TO THE DEFENDANT.

2. - THE DEFENDANT IN FACT DID PAY ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF ALL THE PRICES AND SUMS OF MONEY TO THE EXTENT REPRESENTED BY HIM IN THE SAID ACCOUNTS AND EACH AND EVERY OF THE SAID PICTURES WORKS OF ART AND OTHER THINGS REPRESENTED BY HIM TO BE WERE IN FACT GENUINE AND WHAT THE DEFENDANT REPRESENTED THEM TO BE    IF HOWEVER ANY PORTION THEREOF WERE NOT GENUINE THE DEFENDANT DENIES THAT HE WAS AWARE THEREOF AND ALWAYS BONÂ FIDE BELIEVED THE SAME TO BE GENUINE AND WHAT HE REPRESENTED THEM TO BE.

3. - THE DEFENDANT DENIES THAT HE FRAUDULENTLY REPRESENTED OR AT ALL THAT THE FIVE PICTURES MENTIONED IN PARAGRAPHS 3 AND 4 OF (p. 2) STATEMENT OF CLAIM OR ANY OF THEM WERE THE PROPERTY OF THE SAID VACANI[7] OR WERE PAINTED RESPECTIVELY BY VAN HUYSEN[8] OR VANDYCK[9] OR TERBURG[10] OR THAT THE SAID VACANI HAD GIVEN A LARGER PRICE FOR THE SAME THAN £280 AND £120 RESPECTIVELY OR THAT HE THEREBY INDUCED PLAINTIFF TO BUY THE SAID PICTURES OR ANY OF THEM FROM THE SAID VACANI    THE SAID PICTURES WERE NOT NOR WERE ANY OF THEM THE PROPERTY OF THE DEFENDANT AT ALL OR JOINTLY WITH VACANI NOR HAD ANY OF THE PICTURES BEEN PURCHASED BY THE DEFENDANT AND VACANI AT ALL    ALL REPRESENTATIONS MADE BY THE DEFENDANT IN THE PREMISES WERE TRUE BUT IF ANY WERE INCORRECT THE SAME WERE MADE BY HIM WITH A BONÂ FIDE BELIEF IN THEIR TRUTH.

4. - THE DEFENDANT DENIES THAT HE FRAUDULENTLY REPRESENTED OR AT ALL THAT THE CHINA MENTIONED IN PARAGRAPH 5 OF CLAIM BELONGED TO VACANI OR HAD BEEN PURCHASED BY HIM AT CERTAIN LARGE PRICES AS ALLEGED OR THAT HE THEREBY INDUCED PLAINTIFF TO PURCHASE THE SAID CHINA AS OF VACANI    THE SAID CHINA HAD BEEN PURCHASED BY THE DEFENDANT FOR £700 OR THEREABOUTS AND WAS SOLD BY VACANI TO THE PLAINTIFF FOR £325 OR THEREABOUTS.

5. - THE DEFENDANT DENIES THAT HE HAS CONVERTED TO HIS OWN USE THE PICTURE[11] OR GIRDLE OR PAIR OF SCONCES OR THE FURNITURE VASES BRACKETS OR WALL FURNITURE MENTIONED IN PARAGRAPH 6 OF CLAIM OR ANY PART THEREOF    THE DEFENDANT ADMITS THAT PLAINTIFF PAID FOR HIM THE SUM OF £21 3S. AND SAYS THAT SUCH SUM IS SUFFICIENT TO SATISFY THE CLAIM OF THE PLAINTIFF IN RESPECT THEREOF.

WALTER A. ATTENBOROUGH.


This document is protected by copyright.


Notes:

1.  Walter A. Attenborough
Walter Annis Attenborough (1850-1932), barrister [more].

2.  PADDON
Samuel Wreford Paddon (b. 1843), diamond merchant and collector [more].

3.  HOWELL
Charles Augustus ('Owl') Howell (1840? - d.1890), entrepreneur [more].

4.  RICHARD FURBER
Richard Furber (b. ca 1853), solicitor [more].

5.  Howell Paddon
These two lines were written by JW the opposite way up to the main text, in pencil.

6.  RICHARD FURBER
Richard Furber (b. ca 1853), solicitor [more].

7.  VACANI
Andrew Pasquale Vacani (b. ca 1825), art and furniture dealer, frame-maker and gilder [more].

8.  VAN HUYSEN
Jan van Huysum or Huysen (1682-1749), artist [more].

9.  VANDYCK
Anthony Van Dyck (1599-1681), artist [more]

10.  TERBURG
Gerard ter Borch (1617-1681), artist [more].

11.  PICTURE
A picture by JW, which has not been identified with certainty, was in question (see further details, [10 March 1885], #02267, and judgement, [11 June 1886], #13912).