STUDIO LEFT IN MESS

Chronicle (Levin), 23 August 1949, Page 7

STUDIO LEFT IN MESS

Press Association)

Young Man Charged Witfa Mischief

(Per

AUCKLAND, August 22. , Damaged portraits were exliibited in a ease lieard in the Magistrate's Court when Dennis John Cobbe, aged 26, radio engineer (Mr. Snedden) was charged with eommitting mischief on July 12 by damaging paintings, compositions and picture frames of a total value of £155, the property of Dennis Keith Turner and others. Turner, in evidence, said he was a portrait painter and artist. His room in a Princess Street apartment house • he used as his studio. He returned to his room o/i July 13 to lind it in disorder. Several portraits and picture frames had been destroyed. Of the paintings destroyed six were not his property, having been sold by him previously. These had been loaned to him by the owners for the holding of an -exhibition at the Auckland Society of Arts. To Mr. Snedden witness said several of the paintings were of Cobbe 's wife. He had not been living with Cobbe Ts wife: Witness had painted portraits of' her between April and July. These liad been done at Titirangi and at his 6t.udio. Witness said he felt that theie was an inference nn the words living with accused's wife. Witness said he was served with papers in divorce naming him as co-respondent. In these papers accused was petitioner and his wife respondent. The proceedings Were instituted on the grounds of accused 's wife 's adultery with witness. "I have often seen accused's wife in a room across the passage from me, " continued Turner. "She had the run of my room along with most of the other painters in Auckland. Mrs. Cobbe and I both denied the allegation. I have since been informed that. proceedings have been dropped because there is no case. There is no proof. The allegations are t'alse. I had no idea that accused's wife had promised to go back and live wUh him." An engineer, Frederick Cahn, who lived in the same apartment house, said he lieard a disturbance in Turner 's room on the night of July 12. This was about 9.55 p.m. He went iu and found accused destroving pictures. He was in the act of putting his foot

through a painting whfen wituess eutere'd. Witness said: "I asked accused what was going on and he repiied, 'Don't you know that fellow has stoleu iny wife?' L cauglit hold of accused and tried to get him out of the room. He tried toJight me. Accused was very agitated but iie was not drunk. ' ' Detective Moore said the room was a complete mess when he visited it about a quarter past ten that night. The room was strewn with broken glass,, picture frames and torn paper. ' ' I saw accused in another room. He said ' that man stole my wife. 1 admit breaking thiugs up'. " Detective Moore said accused was not drunk. He had com suiued liquor. Accused would not dis cuss the matter further with him and would not make a written explauation at the poliee station. Accused pleaded not guilty and was committed to the Supreme Court fox trial. He was allowed bail ih his own recoguisance in the sum of £50.