ERROR IN COURT STATEMENT

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23810, 17 May 1939, Page 12

ERROR IN COURT STATEMENT

SINGER WINS LIBEL ACTION EIGHT NEWSPAPERS INVOLVED A libel action against eight newspapers was brought in the King's Bench Division by Mrs Frances Patricia Robinson, of Rookery road, Handsworth. Birmingham, a singer professionally known as Frances Bond. The defendants are the proprietors of the Star, News Chronicle, Daily Herald, Evening Standard, the Daily Telegraph, Birmingham Evening Dispatch, Birmingham Gazette and Birmingham Mail. Mrs Robinson complains that reports of proceedings at Brentford County Court erroneously stated that she had been divorced by her former husband, whereas she was the petitioner. Mr John Morris. K.C., for the plaintiff, said that in 1928 she married Mr Hubert John Pratt. It was not a happy marriage, and on March 28, 1933, there was a deed of separation under which Mr Pratt agreed to pay unconditionally 10s a week for his wife and child. Mrs Pratt brought divorce proceedings, and was granted a decree nisi, which was made absolute on January 29, 1934. She did not take steps in the Divorce Court to get maintenance, but relied on the separation deed. . ~>' On. September 26. 1936, said.counsel, she married Mr Robinson, with whom she was living happily, arid there was one child of that marriage. ■. . Mr Pratt fell in arrear with payments under the separation deed, and in July 1937.. Mrs Robinson secured judgment against him in Birmingham County Court for £5, with costs Execution was levied that amount, and in. January 20 1938 Mr Pratt applied' at Brentford County Court to stay execution. -J'Each party was represented solicitor, said Mr Morris. The first statement by Mr Pratt's solicitor left doubt as to the position regardmg th« divorce proceedings, but when Mrs Robinson's solicitor addressed the cpun he said that the wife was the petxMr Pratt, who had married again, gave evidence that if he pav he would be the only man in England having to keep two wives. Apparently as a result of that statement, -a reporter saw the possibility of a story. The newspapers in their reports Stated that Mrs Robinson was divorced, by her former husband, Mr Pratt, despite the fact that her solicitor had atated that she was th 6 petitioner. Mrs Robinson, giving evidence, said that after the reDorts appeared there was a change of attitude towards her on the part of friends and neighbours. Instead of a friendly " Good morning, thev pa3eed by with a nod. She agreed that corrections appeared in the newspapers, but they were not all seen by people who- had seen the original reports. She 'had brought actions against the Daily Mail and Daily Mirror, but had abandoned them. Mr Norman Birkett. K.C., for the newspapers, said the defence was that the reports were fair and accurate reports of judicial proceedings. The solicitor for Mr Pratt made a slip in his statement to the court, and the reporter heard no correction of it. Mr R. C. Politeyan, solicitor for Mr Pratt in the Brentford County Court proceedings, stated that he had told the judge that Mr Pratt divorced his former wife. He did not know then that this was inaccurate. No one corrected him, and he did not hear the wife's solicitor make any correction in the course of the case. Mr Hugh Stephen Anthony Burke, journalist, said he was sure that the solicitor for the wife made no correction of the mistake Mr Politeyan had made. ,"

Mr Justice Lawrence, summing up, said he thought tha,t to say of a woman that her husband had divorced her, did tend to lower her in the minds. of right-thinking people. Undoubtedly the solicitor fpr Mr Pratt made the erroneous statement that Mr Pratt had divorced his wife. But there was the evidence of the solicitor acting for Mrs Robinson that he had said she had been the successful petitioner. The question usually asked by people in regard to divorce proceedings was, " Did she divorce him or did he divorce her?" People generally wanted to know who was the guilty party.

The newspapers, with the exception of the Evening Standard and the Daily Telegraph, published corrections, some instantly and some within a few days. The Evening Standard and . the Daily Telegraph, having investigated the matter, thought that a correction was not necessary, as the reports were fair and accurate ones of judicial proceedings. But they must have known that an incorrect statement had been made", and one would have thought that some sort of correction could have been made stating that, while . in. their opinion the report was a fair and accurate one, they had found that an inaccurate statement had been made in court.

Mr Norman Birkett, K.C., for. the defendants, said that £SO had been paid into court in respect of each newspaper. Judgment was entered for the plaintiff, with costs up to the date of'the payment into court, defendants to have the costs after that date. Judgment was also entered for the defendants, with, costs, in the actions brought in resnect of reports in the Daily Mirror and Daily Mail, Mrs Robinson having abandoned those actions.

The damages payable were apportioned as follows: — The Evening St?ndard and the Daily Telegraph. £2O each: the Star. News Chronicle. Dailv Herald. Birmingham Evening Despatch, Birmingham Gazette, and Birmingham Mail. £lO each.