OSCAR WILDE PLAY SUBJECT OF LIBEL ACTION IN LONDON.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 18045, 4 January 1927, Page 10

OSCAR WILDE PLAY SUBJECT OF LIBEL ACTION IN LONDON.

* j AUTHORITY ON WORKS j ! DISPUTES AUTHORSHIP. (Special to the “Star.”) LONDON, November 12. " The question whether a recently dis- i covered fairy play, “ For Love of the King.” was written by Oscar Wilde, j was discussed in the King's Bench Division yesterday before Mr Justice M’Cardie. , , , . It arose in an action for libel brought by Messrs Methuen and Co., Ltd., the publishers. against Mr Christopher Sclater Millard, an author and bookseller, of Abercorn Place, Hampstead. They sought to restrain him from pub- I lishing defamatory statements in re- | gard to their publication of the work, j Mr Millard pleaded privilege, and urged that the words did not bear the meaning alleged, and that they were j true in substance and fact. : Mr Merriman, K.C., for Messrs Meth- < uen, said that Mr Millard was at one time well acquainted with Oscar Wilde, and since Wilde’s death had been regarded as an authority on his works. “ Messrs Hutchinson,” said Mr Merriman. “ published in their magazine in 1921 what they described as a remarkable literary discovery called ‘ For Love of the King,’ which purported to be a small play by Oscar Wilde. It was prefaced by a letter written to a Mrs Chan Toon from Chelsea, and purported to be signed by Oscar Wilde. “ Mrs Chan Toon was the wife of a barrister, and had been well acquainted with Wilde’s family. Later she divorced her husband and became Mrs Woodhouse Pearce. The letter made a gift of the manuscript to Mrs Pearce, and it was from her that Messrs Hutchinson and Messrs Methuen obtained the right of publication. “The letter to Mrs Pearce read: * I am sending you a fairy play entitled, “ For Love of the King,” just for your own amusement. It is the outcome of a long and luminous talk with your distinguished husband in the Temple and on the river in the days when I was meditating writing a novel as beautiful and intricate as a Persian praying rug. I hope I have caught the atmosphere. I should like to see it acted in 3*ou r garden house on some night when the sky is a sheet of violet and the stars like women’s e} r es. “ ‘ Alas! it is not likely. I am in the throes of a new comedy. I met a perfectly wonderful person the other day who unconsciously had irradiated my presence with sinuous suggestions—a Swedish baron, French in manner, Athenian in mind, and Oriental in morals. . Ilis society is a series of revelations. “ * Constance desires to be warmly remembered, while I, who am bathing my brows in the perfume of water lilies, lay myself at the feet of you and yours.— Oscar Wilde “ In the summer of 1925 Mr Millard suddenly became obsessed with the idea that the. work was not genuine. He wrote in a catalogue of books issued bv him . - “‘This work is now known to be a forgery foisted on an unsuspecting public by an unscrupulous woman and by her publishers.’ ” Mr George Ernest Webster, formerly J managing -director of Messrs Methuen, said that they submitted the play to J Mr E. V. Lucas, an authority on Wilde, J and he reported that he believed it was I genuine. 1 Mi Justice M Cardie, after the lunch- |

eon adjournment, said that he had 1 been reading the pla>*, and he thought that there was a great d&al of intensity and colpur in it. * - “ To those,” he said, “ who arc familiar with Wilde s letters there is something curiously reminiscent in those passages when compared with another letter which was discussed in some other litigation.” Mr E. V. Lucas, giving evidence, said that he was chairman of Messrs Methuen. He first saw the play in Hutchinson’s Magazine, and did not doubt its genuineness. Mr Merriman said that a note had been inserted in the book stating that since its publication a controversy had arisen about its authenticity.