STRANGE THEATRAICAL LIBEL CASE.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 13586, 7 May 1906, Page 10

STRANGE THEATRAICAL LIBEL CASE.

(FSOlt OIIJI OWK COWIESPOKDEHT.)

.■ . , LONDON,,March 23. A curious libel action which has been going oil for several days in the Law Courts is just concluded. It was brought by the. ex-manager of a Manchester theatre against a member of (ho Manchester City Council, who was formerly a member of his theatre band. Tho alleged libel consisted mainly in the reported statement by the. defendant, at a meeting of the council that this particular theatre was known as ' The Harem."

Natufally, much turned 011 the precise meaning attached lo the won] "liareni." According to. the dictionary, a harem is "the division in the larsrer dwellinghouses of the East allotted "to females surely harmless enough. But evidently a good deal more was implied. The "defendant's father, who was one of the witnesses, when asked " What is ai harem V promptly replied, " The wives of a Turk," which definition was received with roars of laughter. '• But," objected counsel, " A harem is a place whore women are shut up, so that men cannot see them. Yoii do not suggest they were shut up at this thoatre?" "Oh, no!" replied the witness. "Then why did you cull this theatre ' The Harem' ?" not unnaturally asked counsel. "Because if I had called it anvthing clso peoplo would not have known what I meant." answered tho witness smartly. "Was it because there was a lot of voluptuous dancing?" was next asked. 'I know nothing about harems," replied the witness primly, amid loud laughter. " Did you talk to your son (the defendant) about ' The Harem' ?" asked counscl. " I don't talk (o my children about bad things,' was the severely proper response also greeted with roars of merriment. Tho one of his children, the defendant, who gave evidence on his own behalf, is described as "a middle-aged man, slightly bald and wearing gold-rimmed spectacles." He related various things which he had seon at the theatre, and which he deemed iudeoorous. The worst seemed to be that, on the occasion of a stage supper at the conclusion of the run of a piece, designing to tease or punish one of the actors, four or five lovely—and lively—chorus girls seized the young man. pulled him down on to the door, and held him down for a considerable time, tickling him the while. The judge suggested that this might have been a perfectly innocent romp, or done just for a little harmless fun. The defendant, however, "put a different construction upon it," and it was declared hat the. victim, so far from being amused y the proceeding or treating it as liarm'ss fun. left the theatre in high dudgeon, 'ion at last, the girls released him, and,

like Naaman. " wont away in a. rage." Naturally, Hie defendant was asked wlij he did not complain at the time of the alleged breaches of decorum. He replied wit.ii an air of ineffable reminiscent, boredom. "I was so accustomed to—this sort of tiling ?oinfr on that I became quito blase! "I may bo a representative of a working-man|s ward," added the witness

with much dignity, "but I hope I am a gentleman!" I regret to say that much unsympathetic laughter followed each of these dignified utterance?.

But the funu.v part, of the affair was tliat the alleged victim of those pretty chorus girls when put in the witness box " emphatically denied" that he was treated by them in the manner alleged. In the course of his summing up, the Judge sai.d he had never had such weak

evidence brought to justify so strong a slander, and the jury at oncc [omul for the plaintiff, with £50 .damages.