WAXWORKS FIGURE

Evening Post, Volume CXVIII, Issue 33, 8 August 1934, Page 7

WAXWORKS FIGURE

EFFIGY OF BAYLY

EXCLUDED FROM SHOW

CLAIM FOR DAMAGES

(By Telegraph—Press Association.) A ( UCKLAJJD. August 7. A sequel to an order for the removal of aa effigy of William Alfred Bayly, who was executed for .the Euawaro murders, from a waxworks display at the Auckland Winter Exhibition was a. claim brought' against tho Auckland Manufacturers' Association and tho Auckland Agricultural and Pastoral Association, as the proprietors of tho exhibition,, in, tho Magistrate's Court today. The 'plaintiffs, H. E. Johnson and F. E. Johnson, for whom Mr. K. A. Singer appeared, claimed £15 as tho amount of rental loss, £5 as damages for alleged breach of contract, and a further £70 which was expected as profit from the wax\yorks show. The defendant organisations were represented by Mr. V. B. Meredith.

Outlining the claim, Mr. Singer said that the plaintiffs did not commence their waxworks display until the evening of July 20, on which date Bayly, was executed, although the Winter Exhibition began two days before; ■ Although the action was unusual in some respects it was a claim for damages for alleged breach of contract. The de-" fendants had let to the plaintiffs space for a waxworks show, and a deposit had been paid as early as June 25. "The plaintiffs' display consisted of effigies of well-known murderers—l suppose one may call them," proceeded Mr.' Singer. "There was a recent trial in this city of a man named William Alfred Bayly. Effigies in thu somewhat grisly but exceedingly popular exhibition" had included a number of well-known murderers such as Coats, James, and Eggars, to mention three New Zealanderl, and.Bela Kiss, a foreigner. I understand that, on the morning of July 20 (I am careful to read the newspapers) the man who was probably ihe worst. murderer + m. this country was executed. On , tho evening of that day -'■ the • plaintiff* opened their exhibition." QUESTION OF DECENCY. Mr. Singer said he expected_ soinediscussion on the decencies, of display ing< an effigy of Bayly, but he ".eon-, sidered that if ever decencies ■ were overgone in a ease they were overgone in the Bayly case. ; The display of the effifcy had been interfered with and the only justification for- that course could have been on tho ground of • decency The plaintiffs wished to satisfy .public taste and to be up-to-the-minute, just as the proprietors of Madame .Tussaud s desired. They opened their■,exhibition at 7.30 p.m. They had added to. the display an effigy purporting to represent Bayly. 'The show wasopea for some -12, minutes only,; but dence of the eagerness of thepublie, - within that time 29s 6d had. been taken at 6d a head. The exhibition authorities insisted upon the removal of the effigy of Bayly, but it was submitted that no justification was.mado by "the defendants for the action. The defendants' attitude was, ">o. Bill Bayly, no show," continued Mr. Singer, who said that the exhibition authorities persisted, in their a'ttitudc, and the waxworks show was closed. Counsel produced a catalogue of. Madame Tussaud's exhibition in London and commented: "Merciful.Provn 'denco burnt this exhibition down someyears ago. ' Waxworks are a matter of taste.' Some people do not '.like oysters: others do not like waxworks. Henry Ernest Johnson gave evidence that with his brother, F. J. Johnson, he owned the waxworks exhibition. Mr. Singer: I understand the effigies are exclusively of murderers? ■ ■-■ Witness: Well, almost. One, "Scar, face" Al Capone, is not a murderer, (Laughter.) ■ • \" : ,'.'".'■ . Mr. Singer: We, will call hvn an alleged, murderer. "He is one who has riot been nangeaj I suppose," commented Mr. •F. K« Hunt, S.M. ■; ■ KEEPING UP TO DATE." Witness added that he believed ia being up to date with effigies. Two days after James was executed in Wellington his effigy was in the exhibition. "It made the show," commented witness, who' added that on July 19 he was asked by the secretary to the Agricultural and Pastoral Association whether it was intended to showBayly's effigy 4 Informed that such was the intention, the secretary said thafc Mr. Northeroft had asked him to desist from showing the effigy. The secretary said he would leave it to-tho showmen to do theMght thing. When the effigy was exhibited the authorities demanded that it should be -removed or the display would have to close. "While we were open people came up and asked, 'Is Bayly in ,the. show?' said witness. "When we said 'Yes. they, went in. We did not have a notice outside." Answering Mr. Meredith,., w;tnes« said that the effigy was made inFeb"You were taking time by the forelock ," commented the Magistrate. 1 Witness said -that the effigy was shown at Whakatane in May, but it was removed when exception was taken to the display. The effigy had also been shown in Wellington. Witness denied that he had been informed beforehand that the effigy could not bo shown at the winter exhibition. ANTICIPATING THE HANGING. "At Madame Tussaud>s they antici* ; pate tho hanging of a murderer, and. model the figure accordingly," stated Patrick Thomas Holland; manager ofi the waxworks. '," ' \They'■ produce thai figure at the psychological moment. Mr. Singer: When is that? Witness: When the newspapers hay« worked up public feeling: (Laughter.)'. Witness said that a constable ■ had visited the display, and had commented that the effigy was "a pretty good one" of Bayly. . Mr," Singer: That is a matter of opinion, your Worship, but I will sayj the effigies are all different. Mr. Singer produced a book about; the Bayly case written and published, in the South Island, and commented that it contained some alarming state* ments. He handed in the.book witW Madame Tussaud 'a catalogue.1 , The case was adjourned. * ' j