“FOUL, CRUEL LIBEL”

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 58, Issue 37, 23 November 1937, Page 5

“FOUL, CRUEL LIBEL”

THE DUKE OBTAINS DAMAGES. “CORONATION COMMENT.” “ALMOST INVITED HORSEWHIPPING.” SINCERE APOLOGftf TENDERED. (United Press Association—Copyright-., • (Received This Day, 9.5 a.m.) LONDON(, November 22. The Duke of Windsor’s action against W. Heinemann and Co., publishers of Geoffrey Dennis’s book “Coronation Commentary” has been withdrawn with costs, apologies and damages which the Duke is handing over to charities. The Lord Chief Justice described the book as a foul, cruel libel which the jury might think invited ,a thoroughly efficient horse-whipping. The amount of damages was not disclosed. Sir William Jowitt, K.C., representing the Duke, said the action concerned a libel contained in “Coronation Commentary.” The abdication of King Edward VIII was an event with which one chapter of the book dealt. It was perhaps inevitable that in regard to such matters rumours should originate and grow. It was undoubtedly a fact that many statements with no justification whatever were made in regard to it. At the same time it should be clearly understood that no writer giving further currency- to unfounded rumours could protect himself by the mere assertion that rumours existed before the book was published. Neither was he entitled to publish such rumours even though he added, as this author frequently does, that there was no evidence or insufficient evidence to support them. The very fact that the rumours were repeated by responsible, respectable persons makes them moie serious and impossible to disregard. The book, which was in the main written before the abdication, contained a chapter entitled “Abdication,” which, it would appear from the publishers note, was written a£ a later date, possibly under pressure, in order to be ready for publication on the eve of the Coronation. It was only fair to defendants to say that in the main the reports, rumours and suggestions were referred to only for the purpose of discrediting them, but the chapter was certainly written without due consideration, for it contained such defamatory, utterly groundless allegations of fact as made it necessary for the Duke of Windsor to take action. Sir William Jowitt continued: "In the first place, a rumour was repeated in the book to the effect that the lady now plaintiff’s wife occupied before her marriage the position of his mistiess. No suggestion could be more damaging and more insulting to the lady, now the Duchess of Windsor. The suggestion is entirely untrue and cannot be supported by a shred of evidence, and defendants do not justify it. Secondly, the chapter in question deals with the suggestion that the real cause of the abdication was not the marriage, but that Ministers wanted to get rid of him for other misdeeds. Had it been necessary for us to proceed in this action, we are in a position to call persons occupying highly - responsible posts who could show that there was no sort of foundation for the suggestion that the proposed marriage was used as a mere excuse to get rid of a monarch who had shown himself unsuitable in other respects. It was said that the Duke of Windsor had at times -to recourse to other sources of courage. It is utterly untrue to say that at any time he was giving way to drink. "The book went on to deal with suggestions why his Ministers wanted to he rid of him—things left undone—duty neglected—papers held up—papers curiously nei - Kaiserishly annotated muddling fuddling meddling the day with Ataturk—the ,day in Athens. "Gossip or not, there was no truth whatever in these suggestions.’’ Mr Valentine Holmes said he had been instructed by William Heinemann, Limited, to make a sincere and humble apology to the Duke of Windsor for the publication of those parts of the book of which he complained. They published the book believing it to be _ a valuable review of an important period of contemporary history, recording the reactions of ordinary people to great events with which they were imperfectly acquainted, and recording, too, current rumours without which the reactions could not be understood.

Mr Morris, K.C., who appeared for Geoffrey Dennis, said that Dennis wished most wholeheartedly to apologise and express sincere regret for the pain he had caused the Duke of Windsor. Dennis wished to emphasise his intention in writing the book was not to give currency to false and libellous rumours but as a humble admirer to discredit them.

The Chief Justice (Lord Hewart), consenting to withdrawal of the action, said: “In my opinion it is remarkable that any man should have permitted himself/and any publisher to publish, the foul, cruel libels of the subject matter in the action. There is not, even on the pleadings, any attempt to allege that the libels are true in substance or fact. These particular libels, a jury might think, appear almost to invite a thoroughly efficient horsewhipping.” x .. , Stating that, reluctantly and hesitantly, he allowed the action to be withdrawn, the Chief Justice observed: “It might well be that a criminal prosecution will follow. I do not know. THE AMOUNT OF DAMAGES. (Received This Day, 1.40 p.m.) LONDON, November 22. “The Daily'Mail” believes, that the damages obtained by the Duke of Windsor are about £IO,OOO.