Curious lawsuits.

Te Aroha News, Volume IV, Issue 204, 21 May 1887, Page 6 (Supplement)

Curious lawsuits.

Some curious lawsuits have recently been tried in the great metropolis, and the journals are of opinion that such ridiculous cases ought not to be allowed to block the calendars. Thus "The Sporting Times" was sued in relation to a paragraph, in its dramatic column, in which the young ladies of the chorus of the Avenue Theatre were described as •'tarts.*' Miss Violet Dashwood resented this statement as implying that this term really meant a person of immoral character, and brought the suit to vindicate, not only her own reputation, but also that of the entire chorus. The defence claimed that in the article in question, mention was made of real jam and thence came the term tarts. That a tart was a term of endearment among lovers. In the Pacha of many tales by Marryab is the following elucidation of the word; "The beauteous Babe-li-bo-lu, for such was the name of the princess, implied' the. CreamTart of 'Delight." The Justice remarked that the offering of a delicious tart at dinner could scarcely be regarded as a slander, except in case of acute indigestion, and so, amid shouts of laughter, the case was withdrawn. Another case in point was an action brought by Mr Brett against the proprietors of the Holborn Restaurant for alleged damages through swallowing a needle while consuming spinach and quail at that establishment. It was a curious face that the plaintiff did.not notice the presence of the needle while masticating his food, and that the thread of his discourse was not interrupted by the thread attached to the needle. For the defence it was shown that needles were not required by the cooks in the preparasion of such dishes; that.no such articles were on the bill of fare on the day mentioned, and assuming that the needle was swallowed at the restaurant, it was much moro probable that it had dropped from the plaintiffs coat into the dish than that it had been sent from the kitchen. The verdict, it is almost needless to say, was in favour of the defendant. |3till another ridiculous suit was that of Mr Dolby against the editor of " Tit Bits " for a paragraph in which the noted agent for the lectures of Charles Dickens \yas stated humorously as possessing " a .noble, British stomach and an unimpeaphablq digestion. " The case could not hold, for, there are. thousand^, of

miserable dyspeptics who would rejoice in* the truth of a similar accusation. Sucht cases afford a great deal of amusement to< the Court, jury and spectators, and many persons prefer such a pleasure to that of a - theatrical representation.