LIBEL ACTIONS.

Waikato Times, Volume 113, Issue 18849, 20 January 1933, Page 5

LIBEL ACTIONS.

SOME FAMOUS CASES

A FARTHING DAMAGES. WHISTLER AND RUSKIN’. Reoently a woman who sued a weekly paper in Sydney for libel, claiming £3OOO damages, was given a verdict for one farthing. A similar verdict was given a month previously in another case in Sydney, in which plaintiff claimed £2500 damages. Verdicts for a farthing damages have been fairly frequent in British Courts (says the Melbourne Age). One of the most notable cases on record is the action in which James McNeill Whistler, the famous artist, sued John Ruskin, the famous art critic, in 187 i. At the opening of the Grosvenor Gallery, in London, which was founded by Sir Coutts Lindsay, a well-known painter of that period, for the purpose of exhibiting works by artists wno were not in favour at Burlington House, the home of the Royal Academy, a picture by Whistler, “The Falling Rocket at Cremorne Gardens: \ Nocturne in Black and Gold,’ was included, and was priced by the artist at 200 guineas. At that time Ruskin, who was 57 years of age, was at the height of his fame as an art critic and social reformer, and was regarded oi many people as one of the greatest men of his generation. Whistler, who was 43 years old, was then regarded by the old school of painters and art oritics as a mountebank. He had collected round ITim an admiring band of young artists, who copied his eccentricities of dress, spoke of him as the “Master,” and expressed worshipping awe of the grace and beauty of Ills piotures, and the wonderful arrangement of colours. Even his famous portrait of his mother, which was bought for the Luxembourg Gallery, in Paris, was exhibited by the artist as an arrangement of colours, for it bears the oold, aesthetio title, “Arrangement in Grey and Blaok." • “Cockney Impudence."

Ruskin was unable to appreciate Whistler’s art, and he joined the ohorus of condemnation directed against it. In criticising the piotures exhibited at the . opening of the Grosvenor Gallery (the “greenery-yallery Grosvenor Gallery” of W. S. Gilbert In "Patlenoe”) he wrote: "For Mr Whistler's own sake, no less than for the protection of the purchaser, Sir Coutts Lindsay ought not to have admitted works Into the gallery in whioh the ill-educated ooncelt of the artist so nearly approaches the aspect of wilful Impudence. I have seen and heard muoh of Cockney impudence before now, but never expected to hear a ooxoomb ask two hundred guineas for flinging a pot of paint in the public’s face.” Posterity has scorned Ruskin’s condemnation of Whistler’s work, and enormous prloes are now paid for this artist's paintings and etchings. One of the two piotures of Valparaiso Harbour which Whistler’s friend, Sir Thomas Sutherland, was willing to purchase, but not at the price of £7OO, whioh Whistler asked, was sold several years ago for £12,000. The Cookney impudence whioh asked two hundred guineas for “The Falling Rooket at Cremorne Gardens” has been Justified by posterity. This picture, if put up for sale fo-day, would bring more than twenty times that amount.

Whistler as Witness. The verdict of on 9 farthing damages awarded to Whistler in his caso against Ruskin for the latter’s condemnation of "The Falling Rocket of Cremorne Gardens," was naturally regarded by the publio as a victory for the critic. But Whistler’s friends proclaimed it as a victory for the artist. It Is doubtful whether Whistler expeoted a stolid British Jury to award him a substantial amount as damages. One of his objects In bringing the action was to avail himself of the publloity the trial provided for expressing his views on art to a wide circle of newspaper readers and expressing his opinion of the old school of critics, who for years had condemned his work. He

made a very effective witness, despite Ills well-known eccentricities, and the Attorney-General (Sir John Holker), who appeared for Ruskin, failed to score off him. “How long did you take to knock off that nocturne?" asked Sir John Holker, alluding to "The Falling Rocket.” “How long did I take to ‘knock off —I think that is It—to ‘knock off’ that nocturne?” repeated Whistler. ‘‘As well as I can remember, about one day. I may have put in a few more touches to It the next day, If the paint was not dry. I had better say that I was two days at work over it.’ “The labour of two days, then, Is that for which you ask two hundred guineas?” “No; I ask for it the knowledge of a lifetime.” That was a reply which Sir John Holker ought to have been able to appreciate, for he was being briefed at 100 guineas a day for his knowledge of the law, which it had taken him many years to accumulate. “Do you offer that picture to the public as one of particular beauty, fairly worth two hundred guineas?’ he asked. “I offer it as a work that I have conscientiously executed, and that I think worth the money,” replied Whistler.

No Use. "Do you think that you could make me see the beauty of that picture?" asked the Attorney-General. Whistler gazed at the picture, and then at the face of his cross-examiner; his eyes went back to the picture, and back again to counsel. After a long silence he answered in a tone of judicial gravity: “I fear it would be as hopeless as for a musician to pour his notes into the ear of a deaf man.” But the publio supported Ruskin’s condemnation of Whistler’s work, and a suLforiptlon was raised to pay defendant’s costs in the action. No one paid Whistler’s costs. It was not to be expected that Whistler himself would pay them, for he lived in an extravagant fashion, owing debts on all sides. When he had money he paid his debts, and when he hadn’t they didn’t trouble him. A pictureframer to whom ho owed a large bill called at his home at Chelsea in the endeavour to get payment. lie got no money, but he was offered a glass of champagne. “I am astonished, Mr Whistler," he said, "that you can afford champagne and yet be unable to pay my bill.” “Don’t worry about ■that," said Whistler, “the champagne isn’t paid for.” He sought refuge in bankruptcy from his debts and for the costs in his libel action against Ruskin. White House, his home in Tite Street, Chelsea, whioh the architect E. W. Godwin had built for him, had to be vacated. Before his departure he placed on the stone above the entrance the Inscription, “Except the Lord build the house they labour in vain that build It." (Psalms 127, 1.) “Godwin built this.”

Sculptor’s Libel Action

Five years later a much greater sensation was created in art circles in England by a libel action brought by Mr Richard Belt, who was enjoying a successful career as a sculptor, against another sculptor, Mr Charles Lawes, afterwards Sir Charles Lawes-Witte--wronge. In this action plaintiff was awarded £SOOO damages, which was the largest amount that had been awarded in a libel action in the English Court up to that time. The trial lasted 43 days, spread over a period of nearly six months. It was the longest civil aotlon that had ever taken place in England, with the exception of the oase of Tichborne versus Lushington, which occupied 103 days, and ended with the jury stopping the case and the presiding Judge committing the Tichborne olaimant for trial on charges of perjury. The criminal trial of the Tichborne claimant broke all records. Thj hearing lasted 188 days, spread over a period of nearly two years, and the summing up of Chief Justice Cockburn, who presided, oocupied twenty days. In the Belt versus Lawes case plaintiff called 62 witnesses and defendant 61. The testimony of witnesses lasted 324 days, and filled 1517 pages of closely-written notes. Speeches by counsel occupied 64 days and the Judge’s summing-up four days. Richard Belt was born in 1852, and at an early age he devoted himself to the study of sculpture, and became a student at the Royal Academy in 1871. His first work was exhibited two years later. He met with rapid

success In his career, and in addition to receiving numerous commissions for the execution of busts of eminent people he executed a number of publio statues and monuments. Some of the commissions for public statues were won by him in open competition. His numerous public works included the Izaao Walton Memorial in Stafford Church, various busts of the Earl of Beaconsfleld, a memorial *f the Prince Imperial at Windsor Castle, and the Byron Statue in Hyde Park.

Artist or Impostor? In 1882 appeared an article In a weekly paper, Vanity Fair, which declared that Richard Belt was incapable of producing any artistic work, and that all the sculptures which be claimed to have executed were the works of other men. The following' is an extract from the articles: "After leaving Mr Lawes' studio in 1875 Mr Belt began to do business on his own account. He published as his own work a statuette of Dean Stanley, of which a good deal lias lately been heard. This statuette, however, was worked up for him by Mr Brock, as Mr Brock himself declares. In like manner the memorial busts of Charles Kingsley and of Canon Conway, which also pass as the work of Mr Belt, were in fact Invested by Mr Brock — as Mr Brock himself declares —with whatever artistic merits they possess. Mr Brock, equally with Mr Lawes, declares that Mr Belt was himself incapable of doing anything in the shape of artistic work.”' The article went on to say that in 1876 Mr Belt took a Belgian sculptor (Mr Verheyden) into partnership, and that Vorheyden not only modelled the sketch which enabled Mr Belt, to win the competition for the Byron Statue in Hyde Park, but also entirely modelled the statue itself. All the work with which .Mr Belt was credited between the years 1876 and 1881 was done by Brock and Verheyden. "We feel bound to say, in the face of the detailed statements made to us, the bare outlines of which we have set down, we find it difficult to believe,” continued Vanity Fair, “that Mr Belt has any good claim to the authorship of the works given to the public as his, or to any other title than that of purveyor of other men’s work, an editor of other men’s designs, a broker of other men’s sculpture. If he declared himself to be this there would be no harm in it. But the point is that, if our information is correct, he has systematically and falsely claimed to be the author of the works for which he was only the broker; that he presents himself as a sculptor and artist, when in reality he is but a statue jobber and tradesman.

A Deception. "If, then, the statements made to us are true, Mr Belt has been guilty of a very scandalous imposture, and those who have admired and patronised him as a heaven-born genius are the victims of a monstrous deception. Why this deception, if it be one, should have been allowed so long to exist is a matter which does not concern us, though we must say that it does very greatly concern iii-ose artists and others who were aware of it.” The article concluded by asking if it were true that Belt had been recently commissioned by Queen Victoria to execute another statue of Lord Beaconsfleld.

Belt took no action against Vanity Fair beyond going to the office of the paper and demanding an apology*—a demand which was met with a reffisal and a suggestion that he should submit his career and his work to examination by competent judges. But when Charles Lawes sent a copy of the article to the Lord Mayor of London with the obje.ct of damaging Belt’s prospects in a competition for a piece of statuary ordered by the City Corporation Belt instituted an action for libel against Lawes, who accepted legal responsibility for the article. Defendant’s case relied to a large extent on the evidence of Verheyden, who claimed to have executed in Beit’s studio a great deal of the work credited to Belt. But Verheyden’s evidence was severely shaken in crossexamination, and the Judge in his summing-up plainly indicated to the Jury that he regarded Verheyden as an unscrupulous liar. A number of sculptors and painters, including the president of the Royal Academy and distinguished Royal Academicians, gave evidence in support of the contention of the defence that Belt had little, if any, artistic ability. But the whole of their evidence was discounted as the result of a bad blunder. Belt consented, in order that his artistic ability might be tested, to model in Court, while the case was proceeding, the bust of a servant in bis employ, from a terracotta bust which was among the exhibits in the Court. The sculptors and painters who gave evidence for the defence disparaged the artistic merits of the bust Belt had done in Court, and declared that it did not compare with the original bust. But Bell was able to produce unshakable evidence that Ihe original, which these sculptors and painters so much admired, was his work.

The Jury took only forty minutes to arrive at a verdict for plaintiff, with £SOOO damages. But though Belt won Ills case so handsomely it practically ended his career as a sculptor. The public disparagement of his artistic ability by so many well-known artists ruined him. No more commissions came his way, and he retired into obscurity. Though he lived for 39 more years the public heard nothing more of his work.