STRANGE THEATRICAL LIBEL CASE.

Otago Witness, Issue 2722, 16 May 1906, Page 61

STRANGE THEATRICAL LIBEL CASE.

(Fbou Ottji Ovrx Cosxisposdeht.) LONDON. March 23.

A curious libel action which has been going on for several days in the Law burts i 3 just concluded. It was brought by the ex-manager of a Manchester theatre againsf a' member of the Manchester City Council, who was formerly a member of his theatre band. Ihe alleged libel consisted mainly in the reported statement by the defendant at a meeting of the council that this particular theatre was known as '•The Harem."

Naturally, much turned on the precise meaning attached to the word '" harem." According to the dictionary, a harem is '" the division in the larger dwellinghouses of the East allotted to females" — surely harmless enough. But evidently a good deal more was implied. The defendant's father, who was one of the witnesses, when asked ' 5 What is a harem ?" promptly replied.. "The wives of a Turk." which definition was received with roars of laughter. " But," objected counsel, "A harem is a place where women are shut up, so that men cannot see them. You do not suggest they were shut up at this theatre?" ' : Oh, no!" replied the witness. " Then why did you call this theatre ■ The Harem 1 ?" not ' unnaturally asked counsel. " Because if I' had called it anything else people would not have known what I meant," answered the witness ; smartly. " Wa« it because there was a lot of voluptuous dancing?" was next asked. " I know nothing about harems," replied ; the witness primly, amid loud laughter. I "Did you talk to your son (the defendant) about 'The Havem '?" asked counsel. "I don"t talk to my children about bad things," was the se-verely proper response — a!so greeted with roars of merriment. j

The one of his children, the defendant, who gave evidence on his own behalf, is described as ''a middle-aged man, slightly bald and wearing gold-rimmed spectacles." He related various things which he had seen at the theatre, and which he deemed indecorous. The worst seemed to be that, on the occasion of a stage supper at the conclusion of the run of a piece, designing to tease or punish one of the actors, four or five lovely — and lively— chorus girls seized the young man. pulled him down on to the floor, and held him down for a considerable time, tickling him the while. The judge suggested that this might have been a perfectly innocent romp, or done jusr for a little harmless fun. The defendant, however. '" put a different construction upon it." and it was declared that the victim, so far from being amused by the proceeding or treating it as harmless fun, left the theatre in high dudgeon, when at last the girls released him, and, like Naaman. '" went away in a rage." Naturally, the- defendant was asked why he did not complain at the time of the alleged breaches of decorum. He replied with an air of ineffable reminiscent boredom, "I was so accustomed to this sort of thing going on that I became quite blase ! *" I may be a representative of a working-man's ward.'" added the "witness with much dignity, " but I hope I am a gentleman !" I regret to say that much unsympathetic laughter followed each of these dignified utterance*. But the Junny part of the affair was that the alleged victim of those pretty chorus girls when put in the witness boy "emphatically denied" that he was treated by them in the manner alleged. In the course of his summing up, the Judge said he had never had such weak evidence brought to justify so strong a slander, and the jury at once found for the plaintiff, with £50 damages.