AMUSING LIBEL ACTION.

Colonist, Volume LV, Issue 13809, 25 August 1913, Page 3

AMUSING LIBEL ACTION.

FULLER V., "THE TRIAD."

The action in which John Fuller, tenor, claimed £501 damages from "Tho Triad" for alleged libel at the Auckland Supremo Court, ended in a verdict for defendant.

The article complained of was as follows:—

"The. Theatre," Sydney's - bright little organ, of mummerdum (and the thickest flapdoodle of laudation regarding actors), some time ago looked as if it might pick up and become a critical paper in a small way. But that time is no more. To-day everything is grossly praised and fulsomely beslobbered. Even poor old John Fuller has it ladled,out to him. It is not fair to encourage an old man like that in the delusion that he has a voice, because the more fully he is persuaded that he has one, the more likely he is to make a fool of himself in public in tho future seme time. But "The Theatre" talks the wildest nonsense about John's voice. The fact of the matter is that while John had a shrill and tuneful enough little pipe years ago, it is now not much more musical than a pig's whistle. He never was a singer of any j special merit because his voice was never properly trained, and he never knew just what;-to do with it. Otherwise John Fuller is an original and most humorous old bird, and when he wastes a penny or runs the risk of losing sixpence* you may expert to see the stars drop. Some months ago in Auckland he stopped a well known journalist in the street. "Come up and hear me sing," ho said. Old John knew [in his heart of course that the writing ! man could not possibly want to hear him sing. However that may be, the writer said he would call up. "I'm pretty busy," he said, "and I've been pretty seedy. Still, I'll try to look in on Saturday night." At that John pursed his lips. "Rather big business on Saturdays." Now John Fuller is perhaps the only man now prominent in the show business in Australasia that could be capable of quite that depth of managerial meanness. But that is John all over, and John will never change this side of the rolling Jordan. His elose-fistedness doesn't matter, because that is, after all, his own affair; but, ah, if somebody could only persuade him not to "sing any more."

_ Tho plaintiff gave evidence illustrative of his career as a vocalist, and describing his recent tour in Australia. He explained what occurred in the interview between Mr Baeyertz (who had expressed regret) and himself in Wellington in April. On that occasion plaintiff said that his attitude would depend on whether an apology appeared in tho "Triad." Mr. Baeyortz replied in a very precise manner, "There will be no apology." The action for damages followed. Mr McGregor: How does your singing compare now with earlier times ? —-Much better.

Sir J. Findlay (for defendant): Will this article injure you in your professional engagements?— Certainly. To tell tho public that my voico is like a pig's whistle —

Sir John Findlay: To writo in a bantering tone — Plaintiff (indignantly) : Banterijng I. Bantering! It is the most malicious thing I have over road in my life! Sir John Findlay: Well, you are the mosfc sensitive musician -I hovo ever met.

His Honour: Do you suggest that you lose anything at all by reason of this publication? Plaintiff: If the articlo has been widely road, certainly.

His Honour: You have been singing at your own theatres for five or "ten years, and do you say that your engagements will suffer? Plaintiff: What I suggest your Honour^—

His Honour: Answer my question. Do you suggest that your engagements yvill be affected ?

.'.Plaintiff: If I had no theatres no manager would engage me> on reading that article.

His Honour: You aro not answering my question, sir, and have gone very near to contempt of Court. l rou must answer my questions when I command you to. Howevor, you refuse to answer and I will leave tho jury to draw their own inference.

Th© question was repeated, and plaintiff sr.kl the view ho took was that if h& was bankrupt to-morrow, his voice would not be an asset. Ho denied that his voico was thkt and nagal^ jind that hia production was bad. "H CoHil-P outvery easily," he declared. Sir John Findlay: Like the song of a bird?

Plaintiff: Yog, like the eong of a bird.

Sir John Findlay: If anyone said j your voico was thin and nasal, how would you prove it was not? Plaintiff: I. would sing to him. (Laughter.) Sir John Findlay: Do you know what a pig's whistle is? Plaintiff: It, is very objectionable. Sir John Findlay: Do you know that, its dictionary meaning is a "low whisper"? Plaintiff: I don't, -and I won't admit that tho author is right. Sir John Findlay: You should have looked np the,meaning of the word before claiming £501 damages. Replying to furthor questions, tlio plaintiff contended that tho article objected to was not criticism, but meroly abuse. It was a reference to comment in another paper for the purpose of bringing in the plaintiff's name. When the cro&s-examination of plaintiff had concluded, Mr. McGregor proceeded to call expert evidence as to the quality of the plaintiff's voico. This was ruled out on Sir John Findlay's objection, tho ground for disallowing being virtually that experts could bo got in equal numbers to pronounce an opinion either way on the matter. No moro witnes&es wero called ior the plaintiff, whose case was'closed. No evidence was called for the de-fence...-At tho judge's direction tho claim was amended so that half of tho damages was claimed in respect of each imputation complained of. His Honour, in summing up, stated that tho, first statement complained of was no libel, and secondly to imply managerial meanness was fair comment. (:

After a retirement of twenty minutes the jury returned a verdict for defendant on both issues, judgment being entered accordingly, with costs.