“ALMOST INVITE HORSEWHIPPING.”

Horowhenua Chronicle, 24 November 1937, Page 8

“ALMOST INVITE HORSEWHIPPING.”

LIBELS ON DUKE OF WINDSOR. JUDGFPS STERN COMMENT. ' (By Telegraph-Press Assn.—Copyright) LONDON, Nov. 22. The Lord Chief Justice consented to the withdrawal of the Duke of Windsor’s suit for libel against the author, Geoffrey Dennis, and publishers, Heinmann’s, of the book “Coronation Commentary.” It is understood that an arrangement for the settlement of the claim was reached outside the Courts. In reluctantly agreeing to the withdrawal of the suit, the Lord Chief Justice commented: “These particular

libels, a jury might think, would appear almost to invite a thoroughly efficient horsewdiipping .... It might well be that a criminal prosecution will follow. I don’t know.” The amount of damages is not disclosed. Sir William Jowitt, K.C., representing the Duke, said that the action concerned libel contained in the book “Coronation Commentary.” The abdication of King Edward VIII. was an event with which one chapter of the book dealt. It was perhaps inevitable with regard to such a matter that rumours should originate

and grow. It was undoubtedly a fact that many statements with no justification whatever were made with regard to it.

At the same time it should be clearly, understood that no writer giving further currency to unfounded rumours could protect himself by the mere assertion that the rumours existed before the book was published. Neither was he entitled to publish such rumours, even though, he added, as this author frequently did, that there was no evidence or insufficient evidence to support them.

“The very fact that the rumours were repeated by responsible and respectable persons makes them more serious and impossible to disregard/’ Sir William added.

“The book, which in the main was written before the abdication, contains a chapter entitled ‘The Abdication’ which, it would appear from the publisher’s note, was written at a later date, possibly under pressure, in order to be ready for publication on the eve of the Coronation.

“It is only fair to the defendants to say that in the main reports, rumours and suggestions are referred to only for the purpose of discrediting them, but the chapter was certainly written without due consideration, for it contains such defamatory and such utterly groundless allegations of fact as to make it necessary for the Duke of Windsor to take this action.” The Duchess’s Position.

Sir William continued: “In the first place a rumour was repeated in the, book to the effect that the lady who is now the plaintiff’s wife occupied before her marriage the position of his mistress. No suggestion could be more damaging of more insulting to the ladv who is now the Duchess of Windsor. .The suggestion is entirely untrue and could not be supported by a shred of evidence, and the defendants did not justify it. “Secondly, the chapter in question deals with the suggestion that the real cause of the abdication was not the .Duke’s marriage but that his Ministers wanted to get rid of him for other misdeeds. Had it been necessary for us to proceed in this action, we should have been in a position to call persons occupying highly responsible posts who could have shown that there was no sort of foundation for the suggestion that the proposed marriage was used as a mere excuse to get rid of a monarch who had shown himself unsuitable in other respects.

“It is said in the book that the Duke of Windsor had at times recourse to other sources of courage,’’ Sir William added. “It is utterly untrue to . say that at any time he was giving away to drink.

“The book went on to deal with suggestions as to why his Ministers wanted to get rid of him —things left undone —duty neglected—papers held up — papers curiously and neo-Kaiserishly annotated muddling fuddling

meddling—the day with Ataturk —the day in Athens. Gossip or not, there is no truth whatever in these suggestions.” Mr. Valentine Holines said he was instructed by Win. Heineman, Ltd., to make a sincere and humble apology to the Duke of Windsor for the publication of those parts of the book of which he complained. They had published the book believing it was a valuable review of an important period in contem-

porary history, recording the reactions of ordinary people to great events with which they were imperfectly acquainted and recording, too, current rumours without which these reactions could not be understood. Author’s Apology.

Sir Harold Morris, K.G., for Dennis, the author, sale! that Dennis, wished most whole-heartedly to apologise and express his sincere regret for the pain l he had caused the Duke of Windsor. Dennis wished to emphasise that his intention in writing the book was not to give currency to false and libellous rumours but, as a humble admirer, to discredit them.

The Chief Justice, Lord Hewart, in consenting to the withdrawal of the action, said: “In my opinion it is remarkable that any man should have permitted himself and any publisher to publish foul, cruel libels of the subjectmatter in the action. There is not even on the pleadings any attempt to allege that the libels are true in subject or in fact. These particular libels, a jury might think, appear almost to invite a

thoroughly efficient horsewhipping. ’ ’ Stating that reluctanly and hesitantly he allowed the action to be withdrawn, the Chief Justice observed: “It might well be that a criminal prosecution will follow. I don’t know.”

DXTKE BELIEVED TO HAVE WON £IO,OOO DAMAGES FOB LIBEL. LONDON, Nov. 23. The Daily Mail believes that the Duke of Windsor secured damages in the neighbourhood of £IO,OOO in his action for libel based on statements in the book, “Coronation Commentary.”..