191
THE ESTATES GAZETTE
Febeuary 4, 1899.
IMPOUNDING GOODS.
IS A “ MAN IN POSSESSION ” NECESSARY?
In the Queen’s Bench Division, on January 25, before Mr. Justice Lawrance and Mr. Justice Chan®ell, was heard the case of “Jones v. Bernstein.” [Estates Gazette, October 15, 1898.]
This was an appeal by the plaintiff from a decision of his Honour Judge Addison m an action under the Distress for Rent Act, 1837, for treble damages for pound breach. It appeared that the plaintiff was the owner of No. 151, Eentiman-road, Clapham, which was let to a tenant. On Wednesday, July 13, 1893, the rent being in arrear, the plaintiff put in a distress, when everything required to make a good distress was done, and the bailiff left a man in possession. The goods seized were almost entirely the property of the defendant, who was a furniture dealer, being in the possession of the tenant under a hire-purchase agreement. On the nights of the Thursday and Friday the man in possession went home to sleep about 10 o’clock, returning next morning, as there was no sleeping accommodation in the house. On the Friday and Saturday the defendant was trying to get possession of the goods to the knowledge of the man in possession, provided he could do so without breaking what he supposed to be the law. On Saturday the man in possession left the house between 8.30 and 9 p.m., saying he would not be back until Monday morning, “as they were not likely to come again.” The defendant came in half an hour after, heard this story, and took possession of the goods. This was the pound breach complained of. The learned County Court Judge held that the bailiff’s man had not any reasonable necessity for his absence, and therefore that he had abandoned possession, but that he intended to return on Monday, so that he had not abandoned the distress, and might be considered in constructive possession if that was sufficient. He held, however, that to support the action as against the true owner of the goods real possession was necessary. He therefore gave judgment for the defendant; but he stayed execution pending an appeal, and assessed the damages in case his decision should, be reversed.
Mr. Crawford appeared for the appellant, and Mr. Green, Q. C., and Mr. Schwabe for the respondent.
The Court allowed the appeal.
Mr. Justice Lawrance said that the only question was that stated by the learned County Court Judge in his note—namely, whether, as against the true owner of goods taken in distress, real possession is necessary to found an action for pound breach. On that question the learned Judge, had, in his Lordship’s opinion, come to a wrong conclusion. The goods having been seized and impounded, it was absolutely clear, on the authority of “Bannister v. Hyde” (2 E. and E., 627), that it was׳ not necessary to keep anybody on the premises. The goods were then in the custody of the law. For these reasons, without going into all the cases that had been cited, and without deciding what was necessary to constitute impounding, it was sufficient for the decision of this case to say that the learned County Court Judge was wrong in holding that there must be a man in possession all the time. The appeal must be allowed and judgment entered for the plaintiff.
Mr. Justice Channell said he was of the same opinion. The action was for pound breach, and it was therefore necessary to show that the goods were in the custody of the law. The question raised in the County Court was whether it is necessary in order to keep the goods in the custody of the law that the party distraining should retain actual possession. It was, however, clear that if the goods were once put into the custody of the law by something amounting to an impounding, continued actual possession by the party was not necessary. If the party went out of possession the question might arise whether he had abandoned his distress ; but the mere temporary abandonment of possession as distinguished from abandonment Of the distress did not take the goods out■ of the custody of the law. For that the judgment of Mr. Justice Crompton in “ Bannister v. Hyde” was distinct authority. Consequently there was no difficulty once it was assumed that the goods were actually impounded. As to what constituted impounding, there was considerable difficulty and a curious absence of authority. But in this case that question did not arise. The learned Judge had assumed that there was an impounding, and that left only the question of the necessity of continued actual possession. In the conclusion he had come to on that question the learned Judge was wrong. If further support was wanted for his opinion he might point out that, though the point was not argued, the case of “ Kemp v. Christmas ” (79 L.J., 233) proceeded throughout on the assumption that continued actual possession was not necessary.
Leave to appeal was given.
tion, which, though mounted with satyr-masks in the style of Berain, has the upper part of its side panels inlaid in woods on which is repeated the mask design.
Perhaps the most imposing specimens of Boule’s work are the tali armoires, of which there are specimens in the Jones Collection and at Windsor Castle. No. 405 at Kensington is undoubtedly one of the royal pieces, as it has the Louis cypher of the LL on the centre panel. It is 8ft. 6in. high, and 5ft. 4in. wide, and is constructed of ebony with tortoiseshell panels inlaid with arabesques in brass and white metal on a blue ground. It is from Berain’s designs, and cost Mr. Jones nearly £5,000; while a similar pair realised £12,075 when sold at Christie’s dispersal of the Hamilton Palace collection.
Among other specimens of Boule at Kensington are the pair of tables (No. 391), which have their tops inlaid with tortoiseshell, copper and white metal on brass, while the tripod bases are inlaid with metal and coloured shell; the table, No. 392, with inlay of brass and white metal on tortoiseshell fluted legs, and stretcher supporting a small vase.
The pedestal, No. 393, is of ebony with Buhl inlay of brass, white metal, and tortoiseshell, and is noteworthy for its heavy mounting of masks, bands, and angle pieces in chased ormolu. The console table, No. 400, nas Buhl work of scroll form, and the top inlaid with brass in the form of a triumphal car, while the sides are ornamented with scrolled foliage, and the legs shaped like terminal figures. The coffer, No. 719, has its lid inlaid with copper, brass, mother-o’-pearl and ivory. It has four feet decorated in chased ormolu, and its height is 13in.
Minor examples are the barometer, No. 367, which is of Buhl work, with mountings of chased^ ormolu; and the inkstand, No. 702, which is in blue Buhl with brass scroll inlay.
No. 409 is an interesting adaptation of Buhl work of the Louis XV. period. The door and sides are formed in panels of Japanese lacquer, while the top is a marble slab. The mountings are later additions. This cabinet comes from the Stowe collection.
The “ Sun,” a favourite device of Louis XIV., and used as a mark of the earliest porcelain, appears on many of Boule’s cabinets in the form of a shell-shaped semi-circle of rays crowning the grotesque masks.
(To be continued.)
Hlnstxtntinn.
At the ordinary general meeting, held on Monday, January 23, the President (Mr. Robert Vigers) in the chair, the following donations to the library were announced : —G. W. Sayer’s “ Notes on the Building and Engineering Practices of the Straits Settlements,” 1898, by the author; J. W. Parry’s Pamphlet on “ The Buildings of Oxford from an Engineer’s point of view,” by the author; “ Lockwood’s Builders, Architects, Contractors and Engineers’ Price Book,” 1899, by the Publishers; “Journal of the Royal Institute of British Architects,” Session 1898-99, No. 5, by the Council of that Society; “Journal of the Sanitary Institute,” Vol. 19, Part 4, by the Council of that Society ; “Transactions of the English Arboricultural Society,” Vol. 4, Part 1, by the Council of that Society.
Also donations to the Library Fund from Messrs. C. R. Field and H. N. Gray.
A vote of thanks was unanimously passed to the donors.
It was announced that the following Members, having passed the requisite qualifying examination, had been transferred by the Council from the class of “ Professional Associates ” to that of “ Fellows ” of the Institution : —-George Turville Brown, 34, Great George-street, S.W. ; Sydney George Oarnell, Rush-ton, Wellington, Salop; Frederic Kersey Debenham, 80, Cheapside, E.C. ; Philip Gordon Grover, Boveney, Sandgate-road, Folkestone, Kent; Lawrence Richard Wilson, St. Andrew’s-chambers, Albert-square, Manchester ; Ernest William Malpas Wonnacott, A.R.I.B.A., 74, Torbay-road, Brondesbury, N.W.
It was also announced that the following, having passed one of the examinations exempting candidates from the preliminary examination of the Institution, had been enrolled by the Council: —As ,Student, Cecil Edward Chesterton, 11, Warwick-gardens, Kensington, W.
The next ordinary general meeting will be held on Monday, February 6, 1899, when the adjourned discussion on the paper read by Mr. W m. W eaver (Fellow) at the meeting of December 12, 1898, entitled “ The London Building Act, 1894, and the Official Supervision of Buildings,” will be resumed. The chair will be taken at eight o’clock.
The ESTATES GAZETTE can be obtained of our City Agents, Messrs. POTTLE and SONS Koyal Exchange.
were among Boule’s richest productions ; there is one at Windsor Castle which is valued at £2,000.
Though Boule worked in different styles at diverse periods of his life, he was compelled in his latter days to mingle his styles in meeting a general demand. In addition to this he adopted the grotesque scrollwork of Berain, in whose designs there is sometimes a suggestion of Chinese influence.
The most important work entrusted to Boule was the decoration of the Dauphin’s suite of apartments at Versailles, which Louis XIV. delighted to display to princes and ambassadors, and for these rooms he constructed some of his choicest cabinets to receive the collections of porcelain and gems formed by the Dauphin. The entire work of Bo-ule in these saloons was deemed the artistic marvel of Versailles. Next to these were 14 cabinets with figures of Religion and Wisdom, for the Tuileries. His beautiful pieces were also sought by Philip V. of Spain, who ordered bureaux and commodes for Buen-Retiro ; the Dukes of Savoy and Lorraine also gave him orders, as did the Elector of Cologne.
Boule died in 1732 at the age of 90, and soon after his death connoisseurs commenced competing for his works. M. Julienne, who died in 1767, had 15 pieces by Boule ; Deselle, treasurer of the Marine in 1761, four specimens ; de Boisset, Receiver-General of the Finances in 1777, 17 specimens; Dubois, a jeweller, who died in 1784, 11 examples ; and Lebrun himself in 1791 11 specimens of the best quality.
English collections, as the Hertford, the Jones at South Kensington, and that at Windsor Castle, are indebted for their wealth in the best work of Boule to the great sale of the Versailles furniture during the Revolution, which sale commenced August 25, 1793. This auction, which comprised upwards of 17,000
comprehensive lots, lasted just upon a year. Many of the choicest pieces of furniture went for a mere song; others were exchanged with the makers for new pieces. Payments were made in assignats, and these, nominally for 25 francs, were actually worth less than one franc. Much was given away to members of the Government and their friends. The taste for bulkier furniture then prevalent in France caused the purchasers to realise abroad; hence there is more of the royal furniture in foreign countries than in France. The chief part of the French national furniture of to-day consists therefore of such as was confiscated from the nobility, or had been previously purchased by humbler connoisseurs.
In spite of his own versatility, then, Boule sometimes availed himself of the designs of Jean Berain, who lodged near him at the Louvre, and was commissioned to decorate the King’s bed-chamber and cabinet (private study). Berain, who was born at Paris about the year 1636, had studied with Charles Lebrun, from whose studio came so many talented artists. In the pages of Berain’s book are found many of the arabesques and grotesques which Boule employed. Gillot was another designer associated with the school of Berain; and through him the favourite painter Antoine Watteau came to adopt in his ־works the grotesques as monkeys and birds which distinguished the numerous efforts of Berain. Among ether artists occasionally associated with Boule were Domenico Cucci, of the Gobelins, who designed figures and bas-reliefs for the cabinets ; Warin, who made models in ־wax for him ; and the sculptor Van Opstal.
The art learned by Boule from his fathei was that of inlaying in wood, as is shown by the relics of the elder Boule’s work, destroyed by the fire of 1720. Thus Andre Charles Boule would commence with ebony cabinets having panels of wood inlay, and that he maintained this branch of the art to the close of his career is proved by a late cabinet in the Jones collec-
Jftmtito Olir anb Jieto.
XXIII.
ANDRE CHARLES BOULE.
Boule’s system was to take a basis of oak or other seasoned wood and cover the stiles and panels with a veneer of rosewood or ebony, then to cover these large surfaces with a veneer of tortoiseshell inlaid with thin plates of brass or white metal, which were enriched with elaborate graving by the burin, and cut out■ from a design which mingled arabesques, foliage, flowers, animals and cupids.
In his perfected process, Boule superposed two plates of tortoiseshell and metal, traced the design, and cut the whole four with one operation of the saw; thus obtaining four proofs, two having hollow spaces, and two convex fronts. The process being repeated for the reverse side, the metal was fitted into the shell. There resulted two different pieces of furniture, the first part, or Buhl, having a tortoiseshell ground with metal application; the second part, or “counter,” being applique metal with tortoiseshell arabesques. The first part, the metal design and shell groundwork, were generally used for the best parts, while the shell design with metal ground was employed for the ends. But at other times Boule simultaneously employed Buhl and counter in suitably balanced masses, as may be seen in the Armoire, No. 405 at Kensington. In these cases the work was accompanied by bas-reliefs in bronze, chased and gilt, masks, scrolls, mouldings, entablatures forming framework and detail of luminous points to prevent the bewilderment of the eye.
This marvellous process, however, was only reached after much experience and thought; its chief advantage was economy of time combined with swiftness of execution. The inventory of the Crown furniture of France under Louis XIV. comprises upwards of one thousand cabinets, tables and gueridons or stands; and, seeing that each monarch was anxious to encourage manufacture, and that Louis XIV. had special requirements for his palace at Versailles, it may be taken for granted that there was great activity at the Gobelins and other places of manufacture.
Louis attached Andre Charles Boule to the Gobelins factory; and conferred upon him a patent which names him architect, sculptor and engraver, or more fully, Architect and Painter, Sculptor in Mosaic, artist cabinet maker and designer and engraver of the Royal Seals.
He appears to have provided designs for the Hotel Conti and the Hotel des Monnaies, besides numberless decorative subjects; but all attempts to find engraving executed by him have hitherto failed, except as regards the medallions frequently repeated on his buffets and cabinets. While these sufficiently justify the title of engraver, the excellent style of his bas-reliefs and figures justifies the appellation of sculptor.
The solidity and good workmanship of the furniture made by Boule have ensured their transmission in numerous instances unaltered to our own times ; and where renovations have taken place, they but serve to show the superiority of Boule’s handicraft.
It is impossible to say what■ Boule would have turned out as a painter ; but when he had once given in to his father’s wish that he should follow in his own steps as a cabinet maker, he seems to have quelled his penchant for painting, and worked quietly in his father’s workshop. But as soon as he began to receive liberal payments from the king, he became a collector, among his treasures being 60 portraits by Van-dyck, a Rubens MS., and a fine collection of designs for theatrical costumes by Della Bella, with portfolios of designs in painting, sculpture and engraving, valued at 60,000 livres; 48 drawings by Raphael; 40 pictures by Correggio Berchim, Snyders, and other Dutch masters. He constantly borrowed to enable him to continue purchasing. The greater part of these were destroyed in a fire kindled by an incendiary at the Louvre in 1720, a thief who had been caught and punished. The loss in works of art was estimated at 208,750 livres, and in his own furniture and ■seasoned wood 162,020 livres, or in all 370,770 livres.
During the latter half of his long life, in fact, Boule was constantly in difficulties. In 1704 Pontchastrain, writing to Mansart, the Master of the Works, explains that Boule’s creditors wish to levy upon him in the Louvre, and says that the king has ordered him to find out if anything be still due to the great ebenist. Not being able to become a painter, it would seem as though he were bent on collecting art treasures at all costs.
Boule himself was the centre around which moved a whole system of first-rate artisans, such as Rabby and Baillon, who made the movements for the clocks for which he himself designed the cases, the ornaments and the pedestals. Here, too, he embodied his taste for the highest art, as in balancing a pendulum with reductions of the Night and Morning of Michelangelo. Some of the clocks, in fact,