LIBEL ACTIONS

Lake Wakatip Mail, Issue 4033, 12 January 1932, Page 7

LIBEL ACTIONS

SOME FAMOUS CASES

WHEN WHISTLER SUED RUSKIN

Recently a woman who sned_ a weekly paper in Sydney for libel, claiming £3,1)00 damages, was given a verdict of one farthing. A similar verdict was given a month previously in another case in Sydney, in which plaintiff claimed £2,500 damages. Verdicts for a farthing damages have been fairly frequent in British courts, says the Melbourne ‘Ago.’ One of the most notable cases on record is the action in which James 31‘Neill Whistler, tho famous artist, sued John Ruskin, the famous critic, in 1877. At tho opening of (ho Grosvenor Gallery, in London, which was founded by Sir Coutts Lindsay, a well-known painter of that period, for the purpose of exhibiting works by artists who were not in favour at Burlington House, the home of the Royal Academy, a picture by Whistler, 1 The Falling Rocket at Creniorne Gardens: A Nocturne in Black and Gold,’ was included, and was priced by the artist at 200gs. At that time Ruskin, who was fifty-seven years of age, was at the height of lus fame as an art critic and social icformer, and was regarded by many people as one of the greatest men of Ins generation. Whistler, who was forty-throe years old, was then re garded by the old school of painters and art critics as a mountebank. He had collected round him an admiring band of young artists, who copied his eccentricities of dross, spoke of him as the “ Master,” and expressed worshipping awe of the grace and beauty of his pictures, and the wonderful arrangement of colours. The famous portrait of his mother, which was bought for the Luxembourg Gallery in Paris, was exhibited by the artist as an arrange ment of colours, for it bears the cold, a-sthctic title, ‘ Arrangement in Grev and Black.’

Ruskin was unable to appreciate Whistler’s art, and he joined the ehorus of condemnation directed against it. In criticising the pictures exhibited at the opening of the Grosvenor Gallery (the “ greenery-yallcry

Grosvenor Gallery” of AV. S. Gilbert, in ‘Patience’) lie wrote: “For Mi Whistler's own sake, no less than foi the protection of the purchaser, Sir Contis Lindsay ought not to have admitted works into the gallery in which the ill-educated conceit of the artist so nearly approaches the aspect of wilful impotence. 1 have seen and heard much of Cockney impudence before now. but never expected to hear a oxcomb ask 2UUgs for flinging a pot of paint in the public’s face.” Posteiity

has scorned Buskin’s condemnation of

Whistler’s work, and enormous prices arc now paid for this artist’s paintings and etchings. One of the two pictures of Valparaiso Harbour which Whistler’s friend, Sir Thomas Sutherland, was willing to purchase, but not at the price of £7OO, which Whistler asked, was sold several years ago for £12,000. The Cockney impudence which asked 200gs for ‘ The Falling Rocket at Cremorne Gardens ’ has been justified by posterity. This picture, if put up lor sale to-day, would bring more than twenty times that amount. WHISTLER AS WITNESS

The verdict of one farthing damages awarded to Whistler in his case against Ruskin for the latter’s condemnation of ‘ The .Falling Rocket at Cremorue Gardens,’ was naturally regarded by the public as a victory for the critic. But Whistler’s friends proclaimed it as a victory for the artist. It is doubtful whether Whistler expected a stolid British jury to award him a substantial amount of damages. One of his objects in bringing the action was to avail himself of the publicity tbe trial provided for expressing bis views on art to a wide circle of newspaper ’ aiders, and expressing tbe opinion of the old school of critics, who for years had condemned his work. He made a very effective witness, despite his well-known eccentricities, and the

Attorney-General, Sir John Holker, who appeared for Ruskin, failed to score oil him. “How long did you take to knock off that nocturneP” asked Sir John Holker, alluding to ‘ Tbe Falling Rocket.’

“ How long did 1 take to ‘ knock off ’ —I think that is it—to ‘ knock off ! that nocturne P” repeated Whistler. “ As well as I can remember, about one day. i may have put in a few more touches to it the next day, if the paint was not dry. I bad better say that 1 was two days at work over it.” “ The labour of two days, then, is that for which yon ask two hundred guineas?” “ No, 1 ask it for the knowledge of a lifetime.”

That was a reply which Sir John Holker ought to have been able to appreciate, for lie was being briefed at lOOgs a day for his knowledge of tho law, which it had taken him many years to accumulate. “Do you offer that picture to the public as one of particular beauty, fairly worth two hundred guineas r’’ he asked.

“ I offer it as a work that i have conscientiously executed, and that J think worth the money,” replied Whistler.

“Do you think that you could make me see the beauty of that picture Y" asked the Attorney-General.

Whistler gazed at the picture, and then at the face of Ids cross-examiner; his eyes went back to the picture, and hack to counsel. After a long silence lie answered in a tone of judicial gravity, “• 1 fear it would be as hopeless as for a musician to pour his notes into the ear of a deaf man.”

But the public supported Buskin's condemnation of Whistler's work, and a. subscription was raised to pay defendant's costs in the action. No one paid Whistler's costs. It was not to he expected that Whistler himself would pay them, lor he lived in an extravagant fashion, owing debts on all sides. When he had money he paid his debts

and when he hadn’t, they didn't trouble him. A picture framer to whom he owed a large hill called at his home at Chelsea in the endeavour to get payment. lie got no money, hut he was offered a glass of champagne. “ 1 am astonished. Mr Whistler,” he said, "that you can afford champagne and vet be unable to pay my bill,” " Don't worry about that,” said Whistler. “ the champagne isn't paid for.”

lie sought refuge in bankruptcy from his debts, and for the costs in his libel

action against Huskin. White House, i lus home in Tile street. Chelsea, which

tho architect, 10. W. Godwin, had built for him, liad to ho vacated. Before his departure he placed on the stone above tho entrance the inscription, “ Except the Lord built the house, they labour in vain that build it.” ('Psalms, 127, 1) “ Goodwin built this.”

Live years later a much greater sensation was created in art circles in England by a libel action brought by .Mr Richard Belt, who was enjoying a successful career as a sculptor, against another sculptor, Mr Charles Lawes, afterwards Sir Charles Lawes-Witte-wronge. In this action plaintiff was awarded £5,000 damages, which was the largest amount that had been awarded in a libel action in the English courts up to that time. The trial lasted forty-three days, spread ov r a period of nearly six months. It was tho longest civil trial tint had ever taken place in England, with Lie exception of the ease of Tich'iorne versus Lushington, which occupied 103 days, and ended with the jury stopping the ease, and tho presiding judge committing the Tiehhorne claimant for trial on charges of perjury. The criminal trial of the Tiehhorne claimant broke all records. The hearing lasted 188 days, spread over a period of nearly two years, and the summing up of Chief .Justice Coekhurn, who presided, occupied twenty days. In the Belt versus Lawes case plaintiff called eight-two witnesses, an 1 defendant 01. The t •timony of witnesses lasted 32i days, and filled 1,517 pages of closely-written notes. Speeches I ■ counsel occupied Of days, and the judge’s summing up four days. Richard Belt was horn in 1852, and at an early age ho devoted himself to' Ihe study of sculpture, and became student at the .Royal Academy in 1871. His first work was exhibited two years later. He met with rapid success in liis career, and in addition to receiving numerous commissions for the execution of busts of eminent people, he executed a number of public statues and monuments. Some of the commissions for public statues were won by him in open competition. His numerous public works included tho Lsaac Walton .Memorial, in Stafford Church, various busts of the Earl of Beaconsfield, a memorial of the Prince Imperial at Windsor-Castle, and the Byron Statue in Hvde Park.

ARTIST OR LAirOSTOR ?

in 1882 appeared an article in a weekly paper, ‘ Vanity Fair,’ which declared that Pickard licit was incapable of producing any artistic work, and that all the sculptures which he claimed to have executed were the works of other men. The following is an extract from the article:—“ Alter leaving Mr Lawcs's studio in 1875 Mr licit began to do business on h : s own account. Ho published as his own work a statuette of Dean Stanley, of which a good deal has lately been heard. This statuette, however, was worked tip for him by Mr Brock, as Air Brock himself declares. In like manner the memorial busts of Charles Kingsley, and of Canon Conway, which also pass as the work of Mr Belt, were in fact invested by Air Brock —as Air Brock himself declares —with whatever artistic merits they possess. Air Brock equally with Air Lawes declares that Air Belt was himself incapable of doing anything in the shape of artistic work.” The article went on to say that in 1870 Air Belt took a Belgian sculptor, Air Verheydeu, into partnership, and that Verheyden not only modelled the sketch which enabled Air Belt to win P’G competition for the Byron statue in Hyde Park, but also entirely modelled the statue itself. All the work with which Air Belt was credited between the years 1876 and 1881 was done by Brock and Vcrheyden.

“ We feel bound to say in tbe lact of the detailed statements made to us, the bare outlines of which wo have set down, we find it difficult to believe,” continued ' Vanity Fair,’ “ that Mr Belt has any good claim to the authorship of the works given to the public as his, or to any other title than that of purveyor of other men s work, an editor of other men’s designs, a broker of other men’s sculpture. Ji he declared himself to he this, there would be no harm in it. But the point is that if our information is correct bo has systematically and falsely claimed to bo the author of flic works foi which lie was only the broker; that ho presents himself as a sculptor and artist, when in reality he is but a statue jobber and tradesman.

“ if, then, the statements made to ns are true Mr Belt has been guilty of a very scandalous imposture, and those who have admired and patronised him as a heaven-horn genius are the victims of a monstrous deception. Why this deception, if it he one, should have been allowed so long to exist is a matter which docs not concern us, though we must say that it docs very greatly concern those artists and others who wore aware of it.” The article concluded by asking if ii were true that Belt had been recently commissioned to execute another statue of Lord Beaccnsfield.

Belt took no action against ‘ anity Fair ' beyond going to the office of the paper and demanding an apology—a demand which was met with a refusal and a suggestion that ho should submit his career and his work to examination by competent judges. But when Charles Fawcs sent a copy of the article to the Ford flavor of Fomlon with the object of damaging Belt's prospects in a competition for a piece of statuary ordered by the City Corporation, Belt instituted an action for libel against Fawcs, who accepted responsibility lor the article.

Defendant's case relied to a large extent, on the evidence of Verheyden. who claimed to have executed in Belt s studio a great deal of the work credited to Belt. But Verheyden s evidence was severely shaken in crossexamination, and the judge in his sum-ming-up plainly indicated to the jury that he regarded Verhaydeu as an unscrupulous liar. A number of sculptors and painters, including the president oi the (loyal Academy and distinguished lloval Academicians, gate evidence in support of the contention ol the defcme that Belt had little, if any. artistic ability. But the value oi then evidence was discounted as the result of a had blunder. Belt consented, in order that his artistic ability might hi' tested, to model in court, while the ease was proceeding, the bust ot a servant id his emplov trom a terra cotta bust which was among the exhibits in court.

u iflcuee for the defemv disparaged the iriislic merit - of t lie bust licit had ] n in- iii court, and deehtred that. it did iol compare with the original bust.