LOVE AND LIBELS

Greymouth Evening Star, 12 September 1927, Page 4

LOVE AND LIBELS

OLD MAN’S OBSESSION. On giving a solemn undertaking that he wojild not repeat the wrong he had done two people, an elderly man, who “had been carried away by an obsession,” and had written “wonderful love letters,” met with lenient treatment at the Old Bailey. The appearance in the dock of William James Bromley, 6S, independent, a well-known native of Coventry, whose address was given as the Park Lane Hotel, Piccadilly, led to the disclosure of a singular story of infatuation and folly. A well-groomed man, with tanned face and grey hair, Bromley was charged with publishing three defamatory libels on Grace Helen Sheppard, and one on Albert Emile Wise. Wise is the head waiter of a well-known West End restaurant, and the letters to Miss Sheppard were addressed to this restaurant. Before the magistrate it was stated that Miss Sheppard, who lived at Finsbury Park, started proceedings for libel against Bromley in 1921. She was then awarded £250 • damages, with an injunction against him further libelling her. An extract read from one of the letters at Marlborough Street was: You talk of love: what do you care about it? Did my love for you ever have any weight with you ?

On the postcard to Wise was: You told your girl you would smash me. Why, you couldn’t smash eggs, let alone a man. When Bromley entered the dock at Old Bailey and pleaded not guilty, Mr Justice Swift called the attention of defending counsel to the depositions. “There is not, and could not be,” commented his lordship, “any plea of justification, and if there was a plea that the letters were true — and there is not —I cannot see how it could be said that these publications were for the public benefit. Sir Henry Maddocks, K.C., defending: I respectfully agree. Judge: If that be so, there is no answer to the charge, and I think it would be well to point that out to your client. Sir Henry consulted Bromley, and, on returning, announced that he would plead guilty to the charges.

Mr J. D. Cassels, K.C., prosecuting, observed that as this course had been adopted there would be nothing useful in describing the defamatory communications sent by Bromley to Miss Sheppard and Mr Wise. He need only say that the woman had been on friendly terms with Bromley for the great part of the period since 1910. Similar letters to those complained of, some anonymous and some definitely addressed to her had been written over a long series of years. The only object of prosecutors was that the annoyance and molestation should cease. They had no desire Bromley should be punished so long as he entered into a binding undertaking to stop annoying them in this way. Sir Henry Maddocks declared that there had been friendship between Bromley and Miss Sheppard for many years. She then left the Midlands and camo to London. Relations became strained, complaints being made about anonymous postcards, of which he denied being the author. Whatever the cause, the differences were

made up, and the two resumed their friendship. After publication of one of the letters, there were letters from her of an affectionate character. Sir Henry held up a bundle of letters, and exclaimed: “Wonderful loveletters of a man of 68, and replies from a woman of mature years.” “At any rate,” commented counsel, “there was a great deal of wordy affection between them.” Sir Henry went on to express Bromley’s deep regret for having written the letters, explaining that he had been carried away by an obsession. He undertook never to repeat them. “It is one of those matters,’” counsel added, “difficult to understand, and the older a man is, I am told, the worse is his condition.” Judge: I am not sure that the best course for the condition that makes a man write libellous letters of this sort is not a term of imprisonment? Sir Henry: I hope your lordship will not take that course, and will accept his assurance that the letters will never be repeated, and that he will never again interfere with or molest this woman. At this point Bromley interrupted: “May I say a word?” Sir Henry: Leave it to me. Bromley: Nothing has been said as to what the lady has done to me, and I am in the dock.

Judge: Whatever she has done does not justify you in writing libels of this character. But speak if you wish. Bromley remained silent, and the judge proceeded: “I am much influenced by the representations which have been made to me by Mr Cassels on behalf of the two people you have persecuted, and I have decided to fall in with the course suggested. Will you promise never to write another letter of this sort? Bromley: If she doesn’t to me. Judge (sternly): Without any qualification. Bromley: Very well, I promise without qualification never to write to the lady or Mr Wise again, or to anyone else about them. Judge: You have done a wicked thing, for which there could be no justification whatever. Having regard to what has been said on your behalf and the very generous line taken by these two people you have wronged, I will not send you to prison on this occasion. If ®you do not keep the promise you have made, you will be brought back here and sent to prison for this offence, in addition to which

if you write another of these letters you will go to prison for a long time.” Bromley was then bound over in his own recognisance of £2OO and in two sureties of £lOO each not to repeat the libels, and ordered to pay the costs of the prosecution. The judge also directed that Bromley should remain in custody until his sureties had entered into their bonds.