RASPUTIN FILM APPEAL

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22355, 31 August 1934, Page 6

RASPUTIN FILM APPEAL

COURT UPHOLDS £25,000 AWARD K.C. ON AN IMPOSSIBLE FIGURE. (From Otm Own Correspondent.) LONDON, July 20. The appeal of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Pictures, Ltd., against the award of £25,000 damages to Princess Youssoupoff for libel was dismissed with costs after three days’ hearing, but the Court of Appeal granted a stay of execution pending an appeal to the House of Lords on condition that a further £SOOO was paid to the Princess. Princess Youssoupoff, a niece of the late Czar, alleged that she had been libelled in the film “ Rasputin, the Mad Monk.” The defence was a denial that Princess Youssoupoff was so portrayed, because Natasha, the character in the film, was purely fictional. Giving judgment on the conclusion of counsel’s addresses, Lord Justice Scrutton dealt with the question of identification. He said: “ I can quite see there is a great deal of evidence on which the jury could take the view that Princess Youssoupoff was identified reasonably with Natasha. “Undoubtedly the jury were led to the conclusion that Natasha represented Princess Youssoupoff by the defendants’ own description of the film, and that a few of the characters were still alive. “It has been contended that to say of a woman that she has been- ravished by a man of very bad character is not slander. That has been solemnly put before 1 the jury. “One wonders what.they thought of it because, it seems to be one of the most 'legal’ arguments that could be put before a body of sensible men. I have no language with which to express my opinion of such an argument. “ I therefore come to the conclusion that there is no ground for interfering with the verdict of the jury, assuming, as I have, that identification of . the Princess with Natasha has been established.” JURIES AND DAMAGES. Dealing with the question of damages, his Lordship said it was the law in regard to libel that the plaintiff had not to prove any special damage in order to receive a verdict. The jury being the tribunal as to the question of libel and the damages, the Court of Appeal would seldom interfere. The jury was the best possible tribunal because it represented the public. The courts would only interfere if the amount of the damages was such that, in all the circumstances, no 12 reasonable men could have given the amount. He thought it quite impossible to say that the amount of the damages in his case was such that no reasonable jury could have given it. “ Taking all matters into consideration,” concluded his Lordship. “I see no ground for disturbing this verdict and judgment because of the judge’s summing up. The appeal must be dismissed with costs.” Lords Justices Greer and Slesser concurred. APPEAL TO THE HOUSE OF LORDS. Mr Wallington (for the film company) asked for a stay of execution pending an appeal to the House of Lords; £SOOO of the £25,000 had been paid to the Princess’s solicitors or to her, and the balance into court. After discussion, Lord Justice Scrutton said the court proposed to take account of the fact that the defendants had now been beaten twice, and there was, therefore, some slight presumption that they were wrong. The court would give* effect to that presumption by ordering that another £SOOO be paid to the Princess, making £IO,OOO altogether, the costs to be taxed and paid on the usual undertaking to return. The appeal must be entered within three months, and, if the conditions he had mentioned were complied with,, there would be a -stay of execution until the hearing of the appeal. “ ENORMOUS DAMAGES.” Opening the appeal on behalf of the appellants, Sir W. Jowitt, K.C., said he thought it was the first libel action concerning a talking film. It was tolerably plain to anyone taking an intelligent interest in the film that Natasha was ravished violently and never gave herself to Rasputin. The jury had awarded the enormous damages of £25,000. That £25,000, if invested in Government securities, would bring in an income of £750 a year, leaving the capital intact. “ Supposing that, in each of the other 250 actions—against theatres outside London which showed the film —which the Princess has threatened to bring, she gets £IOOO damages, there will be £250,000 damages in addition. I submit that that sum of damages is impossible.”