LIBEL ACTIONS

Evening Post, Volume CXII, Issue 124, 21 November 1931, Page 13

LIBEL ACTIONS

SOME FAMOUS CASES

A FARTHING DAMAGES

WHISTLER AND KUSKIN

Keceutly a woman who sued a weekly paper in Sydney for libel, claiming £3000 damages, was given a verdict for one farthing. A similar verdict

was given a month previously in another case in Sydney, in which plaintiff claimed £2500 damages. Verdicts for a farthing damages have been fairly frequent in British Courts, says the Melbourne "Age." One of the most notable cases on record is (he action in which James M'Neill Whistler,' the famous artist, sued John Buskin, the famous art critic, in 1577. At the opening of the Grosvenor Gallery, in London, which was founded by fcSir Coutts Lindsay, a well-known painter of that period, for the purpose of exhibiting works by artists who were not in favour at Burlington House, the home of the Royal Academy, a picture by Whistler, "The Falling Rocket at Crcmorne Gardens: A Nocturne in Black and Gold," was included, and was priced by the artist at 200 guineas. At that time Ruskin, who was 57 years of age, was at the height of his fame as an art critic and social reformer, and was regarded by many people as one of the greatest men of his generation. Whistler, who' was 43 years old, was then regarded by Hie old school of painters and art critics as a mountebank. He had collected round him an admiring band of young artists, who copied his eccentricities of dress, spoke of him as the "Master," and expressed worshipping awe of the grace and beauty of his pictures, and the wonderful arrangement of colours. Even his famous portrait of his mother, which was bought for the Luxembourg Gallory, in Paris, was exhibited by the artist, as an arrangement of colours, for it bears the cold, aesthetic title, "Arrangement in Grey and Black.' 5

"COCKNEY IMPUDENCE."

" Buskin was unablo to appreciate Whistler's art, and ho joined the chorus of condemnation directed against it. In criticising the pictures exhibited at the opening of the Grosvenor Gallery (the "greenery-yallery Grosvenor Gallery" of W. S. Gilbert in "Patience") he wrote: "For Mr. Whistler's own sake, no less than for the protection of the purchaser, Sir Coutts Lindsay ought not to have admitted works into the gallery in which the ill-educated conceit of the artist so nearly approaches the aspect of wilful impotence. I havo seen and heard much of Cockney impudence before now, but never expected to hear a coxcomb ask two hundred guineas for flinging a pot of paint in the public's face." Posterity has scorned Buskin's condemnation of Whistler's jvork, and enormous prices are now paid for this artist's paintings and etchings. Ono of the two pictures of Valparaiso Harbour which Whistler's friend, Sir Thomas Sutherland, was willing to purchase, but not nt the price of £700, which Whistler asked, was sold several years ago for £12,000. The Cockney impudence which asked two hundred guineas for "The Falling Socket at Cremorne Gardens" has been justified by posterity. This picture, i£ put up for sale to-day, would bring more than twenty times the amount.

WHISTLER AS WITNESS,

The verdict of one farthing damages awarded to Whistler in his ease against '.Ruskin for the latter's condemnation of "The Falling Rocket at Cremorno Gardens," was naturally regarded by the public as a victory for the critic. But Whistler's friends proclaimed it as a victory for the artist. It, is doubtful whether Whistler expected a stolid British jury to award him a substantial amount as damages. One of his objects in bringing the action was to avail himself of the publicity the trial provided for expressing his views on art to a wide circle of newspaper readers, and expressing his opinion of the old school of critics, who for years had condemned his work. He made a very effective witness, despite his wellknown eccentricities, and the AttorneyGeneral, Sir John Holker, who appeared for Buskin, failed to score off him. "How long did you take to knock off that nocturne?" asked Sir John Holker, alluding to "The Falling Socket."

"How.long did I take to 'knock off' —I think that is it—to 'knock' off that nocturne?" repeated Whistler. "As well as I can remember, about one day. I may have put in a few more 1 ouches to it the next day, if the paint was not dry. I had better say that I was two days at work over it."

"The labour of two days, then, is that for which you ask two hundred

guineas?"

"No ; I ask it for the knowledge of a lifetime."

That was a reply which Sir John Holker ought to have been able to appreciate, for he was being briefed at 100 guineas a day for his knowledge of the law, which it had taken him many years to accumulate. "Do you offer that picture to the public, as one of particular beauty, fairly worth tyro hundred guineas™" he asked.

"I offer it as a work that I have conscientiously executed, and that I think worth the money," replied Whistler.

NO USE,

''Do you think that you could make me see the beauty of that, picture?" asked the Attorney-General.

"Whistler gaged at the picture, and then at the face of his cross-examiner; his eyes went back to the picture, and back again to counsel. After a long silence he answered in a tone of judicial gravity, "I fear it would be as hopeless as for a, musician to pour his notes into the ear of a deaf man."

But the public supported Buskin's condemnation of Whistler's work, and a aubscription was raised to pay defendant's costs in the action. No one paid Whistler's costs. It was not to be expected that Whistler himself would pay them, for he lived in an extravagant fashion, owing debts on all sides. When he had money he paid his debts, and when ho hadn't, they didn't trouble him. A picture Cramer to whom he owed a large bill called at his home at Chelsea in the endeavour !o get payment. He got no money, but he was offered a glass of champagne. "I am astonished, Mr. Whistler," he said, "that you ran afford champagne and yet bo unable to pay my bill." ''Don't worry about that," waid Whistler, "the champagne isn't paid for."

He sought refuge in bankruptcy from his debts, and for (he costs in his libel action against, Buskin. White House, his home in Tito street, Chelsea, wliirh the architect E.. W. Godwin had built for him, had to be vacated. Before his departure he placed on the stone above the entrance the inscription, "Except the Lord built the house, they labour in rain that build it." (Psalms, 127:1.) "Goodwin built this."

SCULPTOR'S LIBEL ACTION.

Five years later a much greater uensation was created in art circles in England by a libel action brought by Mr. Bichard Belt, who whs enjoying a. successful career as a sculptor, against another sculptor, Mr. ChorJes Smwcs, afterwards Sir Charles Lawcs-Wiltc-wronpe. J» tliis action plain till' was awarded £5000 damages, which was the .largest amount thai- had l><?en nwnrfl- <•(] in a lihfJ action in Iho .English.

Courts up to that time. The trinl lasted 13 days, spread over a period ol: nearly six months. It was the longest civil trial that had ever taken place in JSngland, with the exception of the case of Tichborne versus Lushington, which occupied 103 days, and ended with the jury stopping the case, and the presiding Judge committing the Tichborne claimant for trial on charges of perjury. The criminal trial of the Tichborne claimant broke all records. The hearing lasted 13S days, spread over a period of nearly two years, and the summing up of Chief Justice Cockburn, who presided, occupied twenty days. Tn tho Belt versus La-wes case, plaintiff called 82 witnesses and defendant GJ. Tho testimony of witnesses lasted 32i days, and tilled 1517 pages of closly-written . notes. Speeches by counsel occupied 0J days, ami the Judge's summing up four d»y.s. l\icli;ird Belt was born in 1852, and at an early age ho devoted himself to tho study of sculpture, and became »■ student, at tho Royal. Academy in JB7L His first work was exhibited two yours la tor. He mot with rapid success in his career, and in addition to receiving numerous commissions for the execution of busts of eminent people, he executed a number of public statues and monuments. Some of the eommisions for public statues were won by him in, open competition. His numerous public works included tho Izaue Walton Memorial,' in Stafford Church, various busts of the Earl of Beaconsiield, a memorial of the Prince Imperial at AVindsor Castle, and the Byron Statue in Hyde Park.

ABTIST OK IMPOSTOR?

1n.1582 appeared an article in a weekly paper, "Vanity Fair," which declared that Eichard Belt was incapable of producing any artistic, work, and that all the sculptures which he claimed to have executed wore Iho works of other men. The following is an extract from the articles: —"After leaving Mr. Lawcs's studio in 1575 Mr. Belt Logan to do business on his own account. Ho published as his own work a statuette of Dean Stanley, of which a good deal has lately been heard. This statuette, however, was worked up for him by Mr. Brock, as Mr. Brock himself declares. In like manner the memorial busts of Charles Kingsley, and of Canon Conway, which ;dso pass as the work of Mr. Belt, weru in fact invested by Mr. Brock —as Mr. Brock himself declares —with whatever artistic merits they possess. Mr. Brock equally with Air. Lawcs declares that Mr. Belt was himself incapable of doing anything in the shape of artistic work." The article went on to say that in 1576 Mr. Belt took a Belgian sculptor, Mr. "Verltcydcu, into partnership, and. that Verheyden not only modelled the sketch which enabled Mr. Belt to win the competition for the Byron Staine-in Hyde Park, but also entirely modelled the statue itself. All the work with which Mr. Belt was credited between the years 1870 and ISSI was done by Brock and Verlieyden.

"Wo feel bound to say in the fact of the detailed statements made to us, the bare outlines of which we have set down, we find it difficult to believe," continued "Vanity Pair," "that Mr. Belt has any good claim to the authorship of the works given to the public as his, or to any. other title than that of purveyor of other men's work, an editor of other men's designs, a broker of other men's sculpture. If he declared himself to be this, there would be no harm in it. But the point is that, if our information is correct, he has systematically and falsely claimed to be the author of the works for which he was only the broker; that he presents himself as.a sculptor and artist, when in reality he is but a statue jobber and tradesman.

A DECEPTION.

"If then the statements made to us are true, Mr» Belt has been guilty of a very scanda'Jous imposture, and those who have admired and patronised him as a heaven-born genius >ire the victims of a monstrous deception. Why this deception, if it bo one, should have been allowed so long to exist is a matter which does not concern us, though we must say that :it does very greatly concern those artists and others who were aware of it. " The article concluded by asking if it were true that Belt hud been recently commissioned by Queen Victoria to execute another statue of Lord Beaconsfiield.

Belt took no action against "Vanity Fair" beyond going to the office of the paper and demanding an apology—a demand which was met with a refusal and a suggestion that he should submit his career and his work to examination by competent judges. But when Charles Lawcs sent a copy of the article to the Lorcl Mayor of London with the object of damaging Belt's prospects in a competition .for a piece of statuary ordered by tho City Corporation, Belt instituted an action for libel against Lawes, who accepted legal responsibility for the article.

Defendant's oaee relied to a large extent on the evidence of Verheyden, who claimed to hav>e executed in Belt's studio a great deal of the work credited to Belt.' Butt Verheyden's evidence was severely shsiken in cross-examina-tion, and the Judge in his summing-up plainly indicated to the jury that ho regarded Verheyden as an unscrupulous liar. A number of sculptors and painters, including the president of the Eoyal Academy and distinguished Royal Academicians, gave evidence in support of the contention of tho defence that Belt hud little, if any, artistic ability. Bute the value of their evidence was discounted as tho result of a bad blunder. Belt consented, in order that his artistic ability might bo tested, to model in Court, while the case .was proceeding, the bust of a, servant in his employ, from a terra, cotta, bust which was a;mong tKo exhibits in Court. The sculptors and painters who gave evidence: for the defence disparaged the artisiic merits of the bust Belt had done in Court, and declared that it did Jiot compare with the original bust. Bat Belt was able to produce unshakable evidence that tho original, which these sculptors and painters so much admired, was his work.

The jury took anly forty minutes to arrive at a verdict for plaintiff, with £5000 damages. Hut though Belt won his case so handsvoinely, it practically ended his career ais a sculptor. The public disparagement of his artistic ability by so many well-known artists ruined him. No- more commissions came his way, aucf he retired into obscurity. Though lived for tliirtynine more years, the public heard nothing more of his wotrk.