Feuardent, Gaston L.; Palma di Cesnola, Luigi: Gaston L. Feuardent vs Louis P. DiCesnola: testimony of the defendant ; printed for the plaintiff from the stenographer's minutes (New York: Polhemus, 1884)

TESTIMONY OF L. P. Di CESNOLA.

23

some time after the card was shown to me, that
I saw the negatives in my room.
(2291) Q. How many were there in all—about
how many ?
A. About a hundred negatives.
Q. How long did you retain them or have
them in your possession ?
A. About ten minutes.
Q. During those ten minutes who was with
you ?
A. Charles Henckel, the janitor.
Q. Did you examine the photographs so
brought to you by him—the negatives ?
A. I did.
Q. Was there among them any negative of the
picture represented by the second photograph in
plaintiff’s card No. 1 ?
A. There was -not.
Q Have you ever seen such a negative ?
A. I never did.
Q. What did you do with, those that Henckel
had brought you after you had made an examina-
tion and had not found this one that you were
looking for ?
A. I gave them back t® Charles Henckel to be
carried back to the photographer.
Q. With what directions ?
A. To take them back to the photographer,
Mr. Pack.
Q. Then, afterwards, after that day, still later,
did you make inquiries for that negative ?
A. I believe I did.
Q. Did you make inquiries of Mr. Pach ?
A. I did.
Q. Did you receive a report or answer from
him on that subject ?
A. I did.
(2292) Q. Is this it (handing witness a paper) ?
A. Yes, sir.
Mr. Choate : I offer it in evidence.
Mr. Bangs : I object to it.
Mr. Choate : Upon what grounds do you ob-
ject ?
Mr. Bangs: I cannot think of any ground in
the law of evidence that is not applicable to this
paper ; it is argumentative ; it is second-hand ;
it is incompetent ; it is inadmissible ; it is lead-
ing ; and if there are any other grounds that
have escaped my memory, I reserve the right to
state them hereafter.
(Objection sustained ; exception taken.)
(>. What was your first step in searching for
this negative, if there was one ?
A. I inquired of the janitor.
Q. What was your next ?
A. I inquired of Mr. Pach, the photographer.
Q. And the result of those inquiries you have
already related ?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. State what the next step was.
A. My next step was to report to the Executive
Committee that I could not, find any traces of
this negative, or of this photograph having been
taken.
Mr. Bangs : I object to the answer as not
responsive, and move to have it ssricken out.
Mr. Choate : I consent.
Q. What was your next step ?
A. To get all the photographs in the Museum
together, to see whether among them I could
find any traces of that photograph.
(2293) Q. Did you succeed in finding any
traces ?
A. I did not find a single sample of a copy, or
any traces of it.
Q. Do you know how or when the torn frag-
ments of what is called the torn leaf got into the
scrap basket ?
A. I did not.
Q. Did you put them there ?
A. I did not.
Q. What was the first knowledge or informa-
tion that you have, or that it was claimed by
anybody, of the fragments having been found
there ?
A. If my recollection is correct, it is from one
of the articles in the newspapers, in the Times, or
some other papers—in reading one of the articles
in the newspapers one morning.

Q. One of those produced here in evidence ?
A. I believe so.
Q. I want to call your attention to some of
these specific objects ; in the first place, I want
! to call your attention to the Priest with the cow’s
head. No. 39—is that the statue ovei' there,
standing by the window ?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Will you please tell the jury in what con-
dition this statue was when you found it; I be-
lieve you have already stated where you found
it?
A. Yes, sir ; I found it at Golgos.
Q. What condition was it in when you found
it ?
A. Exactly as it is now, with the exception
that the feet were broken and detached from the
statue.
Q. What part of the feet were broken ?
A. The entire heels were shattered, and the
front part of the feet were just in the condition
in which they are now, except that they have
been moved back from tlieir places.
(2294) Q. Will you explain to the jury exactly
what was done to it in Fourteenth Street and talk
slowly and clearly, so that they can understand
it, and after that I shall ask you to show what
was done to it in the Park ; look at this photo-
graph that I now show you, which is said to be
the picture of it in the Hitchcock album, and
state when and where that was taken ?
A. That was taken in Cyprus by myself just in
the condition in which it actually came out of the
ground at Golgos.
Q. Does this photograph show the condition in
which you first found it, and set it up ?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. With a wooden beam behind the statue to
hold it up ?
A. Yes, sir.
Mr. Choate ; I offer this photograph in evi-
dence. (It is marked Exhibit 185, of this date.)
Q. I understand you to say that this shows the
actual condition of the statue, including the con-
dition of the base and feet, as found by you, and
set up by you in Cyprus ?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What was the necessity of putting a beam
up behind it ?
A. It was for the purpose of holding it up.
Q. It would not hold up without the beam ?
A. It was merely joined together then, liot re-
paired.
(2295) Q. Why wouldn’t it stand up without the
beam ?
A. Because the heels were gone entirely, and
it was not put together except for the purpose of
photographing it, and it would not have stood
up.
Q. Now, explain what was done to it in Four-
teenth Street ?
Mr. Bangs : Objected to on the ground that this
witness professed ignorance of what was done in
Fourteenth Street. I think the question should
be limited to the time while he was there.
Q. State what was done to your knowledge, in
Fourteenth Street, to that statue ?
A. It was temporarily mounted on a base with-
out the feet ; on a wooden base, without its feet.
Q. And how was it held up, through the base
or otherwise, as it stood in Fourteenth Street ?
A. It was held up by boards placed behind it,
as the marks on its back will now show. The
marks can yet be seen on the back of the figure.
Q. There is a hole in the back of it that you
can put your finger in. Do you know whether
that had any connection with that ?
A. No, sir.
Q. Have you a photograph of it as it was on
exhibition in Fourteenth Street ?
A. I suppose I have ; I don’t know whether I
have or not.
Q. State what was done to it in Centra! Park.
In the first place, state what was taken away from
it of what had been put on in Fourteenth Street,
—what was removed ?
A. I would like to have the statue turned so
that I can explain it more easily.
(2296) Q. Describe in words, as nearly as you

can, so that the stenographer can take it doSvn ?
A. In Fourteenth street they did not put the
feet together; they merely mounted it on a base;
they put a piece on from there to there: they
mounted it on a base of wood, and then placed
pieces of board behind it, so that it would be held
up on the pedestal.
Q. When you say from here to here, where
the boards were placed, state about the height ?
A. Where that mark is there.
Q. Now state fully what was done to it before
it was put on exhibition in the Park, all that be-
ing removed ?
A. When it went to the Park, it was one of the
statues which was put in the bath, in order to
detach everything which might have been adher-
ing to it; cleaned it thoroughly, and then the
question same up how to fix the forepart of the
feet, and its forepart of its base to the body,
which had no more the heels. The heels had
been shattered. The question came up how can
that be done in a permanent and proper manner.
Q. How much of the base was then in exist-
ence—of the original base ?
A. I will show you how much of the base was
then in existence if it is turned round again, just
as it was before. The portion of the original
base, the front portion, was about seven or eight
inches in width,
(2297) Q. From front to back ?
A. From front to back—and the forepart of
the two feet.
Q. Is it indicated there ?
A. It is indicated by the line of junction to
the front.
Q. What you call six or seven inches ?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. That was all that remained of the old base
—the front part of the feet remained attached
to that part of the old base—is that so ?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. On what part of the old base were the front
of the feet—were the remains of the front of the
feet ?
A. They were placed, as can be seen very well,
by the mark on the top of the stone.
Q. Did the left foot come forward upon the
foot mark indicated on the base now ?
A. Yes, sir.
• Q. About two inches and a half in front of the
foot ?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And the left fodt also came a half an inch
to an inch further front than it was ?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. In being in that condition, what was done
to it to put it into its present state ?
A. The question came up then how to make
that bulky piece of statuary stand up without
the heels and only with the front part of the feet
left.
Q. What did you do ?
A. The question came up how it was to be
mended. It was necessary, in order to support
such a weight as that, to have it fixed upon some
solid material. A piece of stone was taken also
from Cyprus, but that is immaterial, and was
placed under the back of the statue, where the
shattered heels had previously been. It was so ar-
ranged that it would come exactly in the centre of
the hole, which was made through the leg of the
body up to the hip; two holes were made in both
of the legs of the statue, I should say about two
feet and a half in length.
(2298) Q. To receive rods to support it ?
A. Large rods in copper, which were then in-
troduced into these legs. When that was done,
this new piece of stone, which was taken for the
' support of the statue, in fixing the statue so as to
stand it up, was placed under the ankles of the
feet and adjusted so that a hole could be bored
right through it, and fixed the back part of it, so
that the statue could be made to stand up erect.
When that was done we found that the thickness
of the stone put into the back as a support was
thicker than the base required. The reason why
it was kept thicker was because we could not
have the whole weight of the statue rest on the
feet. If the thickness of the support was not suf-