Not a Mannequin

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 886, 1 February 1930, Page 22

Not a Mannequin

SN the ground that certain newspapers had said that she was about to become a mannequin, the Countess of Erroll was awarded £l2O damages for libel in an action in the King’s Bench Division. Her action was brought against Sir ; W. C. Leng and Company (“Sheffield ; Telegraph”), Limited, the Cheltenham j Newspaper Company, Limited, the j North-Western Newspaper Company, i Limited, Mr. T. B. Forman (“Notting- j ham Evening Post”), the “Manchester j City News” Company, Limited, and the Counties Press, Limited, of Oxford. For the defence it was contended that the words published were not defamatory.. Sir Patrick Hastings, K.C., for Lady Erroll, said that the Countess was the daughter of an old family; her father was the Earl De La Warr, and before she married her name was Lady Idina Sackville. She married the Earl, of Erroll, whose title was even older than her father’s and so far as birth and surroundings were concerned she was a lady of social position. Dealing with the alleged libel, Sir Patrick said there was no shadow of a suggestion that the words complained of were true. Yet Lady Erroll was pilloried by papers all over the country. If she were staying at a i country house people would no doubt i say: "Is not that the woman who | has got a job as mannequin?” “What does it mean?” her friends would ask. “Is she penniless, and has she got to earn her own living?” The

Countess Secures Damages

remuneration of mannequins was extremely small, and one could imagine the effect of the libel upon Lady Erroll was to make her an object of ridicule. Social Position Cross-examined by Mr. Norman Birkett, K.C., Lady Erroll agreed that the calling of a mannequin was a mostrespectable and honourable one. Is it a calling to which many Society girls are attracted? —I do not know any of my friends who are mannequins. For the defence, Mr. Norman Birkett, K.C., said no one would contend that it was a libel to say of a girl in an ordinary position in life that she was about to become a mannequin, and what was not a libel on an ordinarj’ person did not become a libel because of the social position of Lady Erroll. As the actions were consolidated, the judge entered judgment for £2O against each of the newspapers, and apportioned costs accordingly.