LIBEL ALLEGED.

Hawera Star, Volume XLVIII, 12 November 1924, Page 5

LIBEL ALLEGED.

HUMOUR FROM THE BENCH

BY CABLE—PRESS ASSOCIATION —COPYRIGHT

LONDON, Nov. 10. Further evidence in a libel action, referred to in yesterday’s . Star, in which Lady Terrington, ex-M.P., was plaintiff, was given before the King’s Bench to-day. The action was against the London Express Newspapers Company Limited. She complained of matter published on December 3, 1023, when the general election was progressing. She alleged that it meant she was a vain, frivolous and extravagant woman, unfit to be a member of Parliament.

Lady Terrington denied that she ever mentioned the ospreys and pearls, 'and denied that she made the other statements attributed to her.

The cross-examination of Lady Terrington bristled with bright passages, in which Mr Justice Darling was a most lively participator. Plaintiff defied saying that the Conservatives ■were snobs or that she always wore pearls. She did not possess a rope of pearls.

> Counsel: “But here) is a photograph showing two strings.” Plaintiff: “One is real, the other is an imitation.”

Witness retored “Lies” and “Rot” when other questions of rank and dress wore mentioned. She denied that she wore a low-necked dress in the House of Commons, but she had been photographed as a mannequin for the purpose of helping charity. Mr Justice Darling: “It covers a multitude of sins.” Counsel: “And dispenses with some clothing. ’’ Plaintiff momentarily broke down. Mr Justice Darling: “Where is the difference between a lady dressing as a mannequin and vice versa?” He would have, to rule whether plaintiff’s dress was a matter of public interest. When the plaintiff was asked whether she was a Liberal, Mr Justice Darling interposed: “It’s so distinguished. There are so few of them.” The fact that Mr Cyril Asquith, the son of Mr 11. 11. Asquith, was the plaintiff’s junior counsel, heightened the joke.