“FOUL, CRUEL LIBEL”

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 80, Issue 279, 24 November 1937, Page 7

“FOUL, CRUEL LIBEL”

Damages Paid To Duke Of Windsor BELIEVED TO BE ABOUT £lO,OOO (By Telegraph—Press Association—Copyright! Received Nov. 23, 9.5 p.m. LONDON, Nov. 22. The Daily Mail believes that the Duke of Windsor's damages in his libel action against William Heinemann, Ltd., in connection with the publication of Geoffrey Dennis’ book “Coronation Commentary,” are in the neighbourhood of £lO,OOO. Sir William Jowitt, who represented the Duke of Windsor, said that the action was concerned with a libel contained in “Coronation Commentary." The abdication of King Edward VIII. was an event with which one chapl.,.- of this book dealt. It was perhaps inevitable in regard to such a matter that rumours should originate and grow. It undoubtedly was a fact that many statements with no justification whatever were made in regard to the abdication. “At the same time,” he said, “it should be clearly understood that no writer giving further currency to unfounded rumours can protect himself by a mere assertion that rumours existed before the book was published. Nejther is he entitled to publish such rumours, even though he adds, as this author, frequently does, that there is no evidence or that there is insufficient evidence, to support them. The very fact that rumours are repeated by responsible and respectable persons makes them the more serious. It is impossible to disregard the book, which in the main was written before the abdication, and contains a chapter entitled ‘The abdication’ which, it would appear from the publisher's note, was written at a later date, possibly under pressure in order to be ready for publication on the eve of the Coronation. Statements Refuted. “It is only fair to the defendants to say that in the main reports, rumours and suggestions are referr d to only for the purpose of discrediting them, but the chapter certainly was written without due consideration, for it contains such defamatory and utterly groundless allegations of fact as to make it necessary for the Duke of Windsor to take this action.” In the first place,” he continued, “a rumour was repeated in the book to the effect that the lady who is now the plaintiff’s wife occupied before her marriage the position of his mistress. No suggestion could be more damaging and more insulting to the lady' who is now the Duchess of Windsor. The suggestion is entirely untrue, and could not be supported by a shred of evidence, and the defendants do not justify it. Secondly, the chapter in question deals with a suggestion that the real cause of the abdication was not marriage but that Ministers wanted to get rid of him for other misdeeds.

“Had it _ been necesasry for us to proceed with this action we would have been ir a position to call persons occupying highly responsible posts who could have shown that there is no sort of foundation for the suggestion that the proposed marriage was used as a mere excuse to get rid of a monarch who had shown himself unsuitable in other respects. It is said that the Duke of Windsor had at times recourse to othesources of courage. It is utterly untrue to say that at any time he was giving way to drink. The book went on to deal with suggestions why his Ministers wanted to be rid of him—■things left undone'—'duty neglected’ —‘muddling’—‘fuddling’ ‘meddling’ —‘the day with Ataturk'—‘the day in Athens. Gossip or r.ot, there is no truth in these suggestions." Humble Ape gies. Mr. Valentine Holmes said he was instructed by Wm. Heinemann, Ltd., to make a sincere and humble’ apology to the Duke of Windsor for the publication of those parts of the book of which he -amplained. They had published the book believing it was a valuable review of an important period of contemporary history, recording the reactions of ordinary people to great events with which they were imperfectly acquainted, and recording, too, current rumours without which the reactions could not be understood. Sir Harold Morris, K.C., for Mr. Dennis, said that the author wished most wholeheartedly to apologise and to express sincere regret for the pain he had caused the Duke of Windsor. Mr. Dennis wished to emphasise that his intention in writing the book was not to give currency to false and libellous rumours, but. as a humble admirer, to discredit them. Chief Justice's Comment. Lord Hewart, in consenting to the withdrawal of the action, said: “In my opinion it is remarkable that any man should have permitted himself and any publisher to publish the foul and cruel libels of the subject matter in this action. There is not even in the pleadings any attempt to allege that the libels are true in substance or fact. These particular libels a jury might think appear almost to invite a thoroughly efficient horsewhipping.” Stating that reluctantly and hesitantly he allowed the action to be withdrawn, the Chief Justice observed, “It might well be that a criminal prosecution will follow. I don't know.”