Posted By: Mark Thatcher

VICTORIA AHEARNWed Nov 8, 6:05 PM ET

TORONTO (CP) - Art experts downplayed the significance of a 1959 catalogue from a prestigious New Brunswick gallery on Wednesday, telling a hearing that it does not prove the gallery owned the works.if(window.yzq_d==null)window.yzq_d=new Object();
window.yzq_d['k0QgGkSOxKA-']='&U=13avi1md8%2fN%3dk0QgGkSOxKA-%2fC%3d395435.9565244.10291714.1559897%2fD%3dLREC%2fB%3d2807620';

"I would never take a catalogue of this nature as proof of ownership," said Freda Matassa, a museum consultant from London, England. "It can't be taken as gospel because there are so many interpretations of the word 'catalogue.' "

Matassa was speaking on behalf of the U.K. Beaverbrook Foundation on what was the last day of testimony in the case over millions of dollars in disputed art.

The British Beaverbrook Foundation, headed by Lord Beaverbrook's grandson, Max Aitken, is claiming that 133 artworks housed at the Fredericton gallery are on loan and subject to immediate return.

Supporters of the gallery say the original Lord Beaverbrook donated the masterpieces, worth about $100 million, as a gift to the city and Canada.

Toronto-based art expert Joyce Zemans told the arbitration hearing Tuesday that the absence of the letter "L" on the 1959 numbering records of the Beaverbrook works indicated they were gifts, not loans.

She also argued that the mere name "Beaverbrook Art Gallery Catalogue" implies the items belonged to the gallery.

But Matassa said it's not "absolute proof" of ownership, adding records varied from gallery to gallery at the time and were "amazingly casual" when it came to loans.

"There were no contracts for loans in the '50s," she said, noting she has seen some art pieces go on long-term loan to galleries and museums for 50 years without proper documentation.

The first official loan contracts were issued in 1960, the hearing has been told.

However, David Young, a lawyer for the gallery, flipped through several pages of letters between Beaverbrook staff and other galleries regarding items that were on loan at the time.

He also pointed to correspondence between the foundation and another gallery, outlining specific details of the loans it was making during that time.

Young noted there were no such documents between the foundation and the Beaverbrook Art Gallery.

Norman Palmer, a museum consultant in London, told the hearing he's seen countless cases in which museum staff simply aren't aware of the potential legal obligations of properly documenting loans.

"There's quite a degree of ignorance" on the part of museum staff with regards to legal matters, said Palmer, a professor of antiquities and law at King's College London.

Palmer also said there are 12 factors that must be considered when determining art ownership and he felt that the compilers of the Beaverbrook catalogue did not address all those factors.

Former Supreme Court justice Peter Cory is the arbitrator in the case, which covers paintings by Botticelli, William Hogarth, John Singer Sargent, Graham Sutherland, Cornelius Kreighoff, Lucian Freud and J.M.W. Turner.

Closing arguments will start later this month in Fredericton.

The hearing is the second dispute over Beaverbrook items at the gallery.

In the other case, the Canadian Beaverbrook Foundation is suing the gallery over ownership of 78 other paintings it says were only on loan. That case is expected to be heard in New Brunswick next year.

The information reported above is property of Yahoo! inc. and reprinted or modified with legitimate permission.