KAISER’S LIBEL ACTION

Grey River Argus, 8 September 1930, Page 5

KAISER’S LIBEL ACTION

' HE WINS THE CASE Damages Awarded against newspaper EDITOR. (Aus. & N.Z. Cable Assn.) (Received September 6 at 5.5 p.m.) BERLIN. September 5. In the case in which the ex-Kaiser sued for libel Ewald 31cndel, the editor of the Ullestein newspaper “Morgan Post,” the defendant was fined £75, or in default three month’ imprisonment, the Court deciding that it was a waste of time for the defendant to tall his witnesses. The court held that, wliihe the exI Kaiser h<d admittedly acted harmfully in many aspects, there was no proof in the present case that he acted against Germany’s interests. The ex-Kaiser’s demand for the imprisonment of defendant without the option of a fine was rejected because 3lundel had acted bona fide. Kaiser’s Title Questioned HIS INTEREST IN KRUPPS. (Received Sept. 7 at 5.5 p.m.) BERLIN, September 5. There was a dramatic incident in the ex-Kaiser’s libel action, already cabled, when Herr Manroth, the solicitor for the defence, declared that Herr Bloch, ex-Kaiser Wilhelm’s solicitor did not possess any power of attorney under the Republican law, which hud abolished the title of Kaiser, recognising Wilhelm only as the Prince The Court President was unable to get the parties to compromise on a document which read: “His Imperial and Royal Majesty, former reigning German Emperor. King of Prussia, Wilhelm 11., without occupation, living at the House of Doorn: Signed, Wilhelm, Iniperator Rex.” The Court decided that Herr Bloch’s power of attorney was legally in order, and | hat the signatory was identical with Prince Wilhelm of Prussia. Counsel for the defence declared that half of Wilhelm’s wealth was comprised of Krupps’ debentures, in--1 herited from his grandfather, and that this financial interest had influenced him not to allow Krupps to | manufacture a new gun superior to a j French arm. thus acting prejudicially to the German national interest.