Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

30° Novembris, 1927.]

Mr. W. B. MAXWELL and Mr. GEORGE HERBERT THRING.

[Continued.

Chairman.

€1. The main part of your case is this, is it not, that the existing state of the law not so much exposes authors to successful actions for libel, but that the existing state of the law exposes them to blackmailing attacks never intended to come into Court, but intended to extort money with a view to avoiding coming into Court?-Yes, that is exactly

so.

Mr. Kennedy.

62. The plaintiff knowing that he might think that the chances of getting a verdict against you were so great that you would settle it?-Yes, that is our experience. We imagine that the Solicitor tells this man: 66 Now, look here; you go on with this; I will get you £200 or £300, or at the worst £1,000, and 1 shall want you to say that people have noticed it," and he coaches him up, and then he gets somebody to look at the book.

Lord Stanley of Alderley.

63. Have you any list of cases settled and the cost at which they have been settled by Solicitors rather than bringing them into Court?—No, I am afraid we have not got an absolute record.

Mr. Harney.

64. That would give us some notion of the amount of injury being done?-I think quite considerable sums have in fact been paid in settling these actions, but I have not the facts.

Chairman.

65. You cannot give any specific instances of that?—No, I am afraid I cannot, my Lord; I have not the facts. Chairman.] Perhaps your Secretary may be able to give us more information about that presently.

Mr. Kennedy.

C6. Can you tell me in what way really does your case differ from the case of a newspaper proprietor, the publisher of an ordinary daily newspaper who is subjected to-day, and it may be rightly subjected, to actions which may me regarded sometimes, certainly by the newspapers, as speculative, and sometimes regarded by them as blackmailing, actions, as the result of mistakes made in a newspaper perfectly bona fide without any negligence attributable to anybody?-I would say

to

that the whole difference lies in the fact that the newspaper people are dealing with actual facts, with real people. They know they must be careful and there is no necessity for them say a disparaging remark about anybody. The novelist, on the other hand, making a fiction is obliged to deal with characters showing a little black and white; he is obliged to have his villain and his badly behaved people, and he cannot be guarded all through. He must occasionally say something which would detract from the character of the person mentioned.

67. No author of at all recent times has given more characters than Dickens? -That is so.

68. The names given by Dickens were taken by him from actual life; they were not fictitious names. Is there any real difficulty in an author protecting himself from the liability you complain of by taking care?-I have endeavoured to meet that point. I think it is almost impossible to prevent it. In the case of Dickens, Dickens admittedly was the cheery, delightful, happy novelist.

Lord Gorell.

69. He said some very unpleasant things about people?-Yes. I think if Dickens escaped when he was talking about his bad people it probably was more by luck than from any great care that he took.

Mr. Kennedy.

70. He had a long series of luck, then? -Yes.

Lord Stanley of Alderley.

71. Education was not so much developed in his day?-With regard to what has just been said, that he was generally supposed to have used real names, I am not at all myself convinced that they were all real names; for insance, Pecksniff.

Chairman.] I was just thinking of Pecksniff.

Sir William Bull.] He invented a lot; he kept a list; it was well known that he took a great delight in trying to make the names fit the characters.

Lord Gorell.] No doubt if he had lived to-day he would have been subject to some of these actions.

Sir William Bull.] No doubt he would. Lord Stanley of Alderley.] Take the case of Snodgrass; that is

a common

30° Novembris, 1927.]

Mr. W. B. MAXWELL and Mr. GEORGE HERBERT THRING.

[Continued.

enough name in some parts of the country, and I was informed the other day of a Mrs. Snodgrass who was going about the country trying to persuade a solicitor to take action against the executors of Mr. Dickens on the ground that her name had been libelled.

Lord Gorell.] Before I introduced the Bill I looked up some of the Dickensian names; you can find them in the Telephone Directory.

Chairman.

72. It is not merely a name, is it; it might be a fictitious name and yet a person might be identified by his profession or the place where he carries on his profession, or by what he is alleged to have done?—Yes, a description of him.

Mr. Harney.

73. Or he might be identified by something corresponding with the place mentioned and an incident having occurred there, and a man might say: “I happened to be there just at that time"although nobody knew he was there?Yes.

Mr. Kennedy.

74. May I put a concrete case which I remember well? It was tried at Winchester Assizes some years ago. A lady wrote a novel which she called by a

name

connected in some way with "Pinecliff-on-Sea." She lived at Bournemouth. As a prominent feature

of the book were the amours of the bandmaster of "Pinecliff-on-Sea." At that time there was a bandmaster at Bournemouth who was well known and there was a name and other circumstances connected with the story which appeared to identify him. He brought an action which was tried out, with the result that he obtained damages and an injunction against further publication of the book. Now in your view, presuming those facts, was that a blackmailing action? No, I should say certainly not. As I gather, it was a case of genuine damage done to this bandmaster.

75. The lady, of whom I have a very vivid recollection, and whose evidence was undoubtedly accepted, said she did not intend to refer to that man at all; she knew nothing about the bandmaster at Bournemouth, and it would have been difficult on the evidence to have taken a view that she had been careless. She did not refer to it otherwise than by

What

writing about "Pinecliff-on-Sea." would you say in a case like that? Is the man to have no remedy?-I would say that the bandmaster was unquestionably injured, but from the point of view of a working novelist I do think the lady should have been more careful. The moment she had got to deal with a bandmaster and his amours a really practised novelist would think, “I must take care what I am doing now," and would have been careful about the name of the place, Pinecliff," and so on. I think, in the vulgar phrase, she was asking for trouble.

[ocr errors]

Lord Gorell.

76. Might it be your view that if you do mention an actual place you must take some steps to see who is living there if you want to mention people?—Yes.

Lord Stanley of Alderley.] Under this Bill would not that action have been barred in the case of the facts as stated?

Lord Gorell.] I should say not, because she had not taken reasonable precautions.

Lord Stanley of Alderley.] What reasonable precautions could she have taken-not to describe any bandmaster at any seaside resort?

Lord Gorell.] If an author mentions a definite well-known place, and he mentions any prominent person in it, he would be able to find out whether there is any such person.

Mr. Harney.

77. Suppose there is a very nasty and injurious police court case and the genuine name of the defendant is my name, and I am very seriously injured by it, is there any difference between the case you put of a person being injured, wholly unintentionally, and that case of my being injured by actual proceedings in court taken against a man whose name happens to be mine?-I feel myself unable to see any distinction.

Mr. Kennedy.

78. Is this risk of authors an insurable risk; it apparently does not amount to very much, judging from your statement. There is a difficulty in providing any evidence of damage. Now is it an insurable risk?-I am very doubtful. Our Society have got an insurance company to prepare and issue a policy; I myself am insured in that way; but I am very doubtful as to the protection that it would give.

30° Novembris, 1927.]

Mr. W. B. MAXWELL and Mr. GEORGE HERBERT THRING.

[Continued.

79. Would you mind telling me what it is that your insurance covers? You say you yourself are insured. Is the result of that, that your insurers take all risks of libel? It is called a libel insurance, but I am not prepared to say really what security it is or what risks it does cover. The framing of the policy has been very careful from the point of view of the insurance company.

Lord Stanley of Alderley.

80. Could you put in a blank copy of an insurance form such as are taken out?— Yes. I have not one here, but we could send one.

Chairman.

81. We might be furnished with that? -Yes, certainly.

Sir William Bull.

82. Is it Lloyds or an insurance company? It is a firm of Lloyds.

Lord Stanley of Alderley.

83. And the rates in respect of such insurance no doubt you could give?— Yes, certainly.

Viscount Burnham.

84. I should like to ask whether you regard this as in any way seriously affecting newspapers as apart from authors' books?-Yes, we do. We think it is as desirable from the point of view of the newspaper editor and proprietor as from the point of view of the novelist, chiefly from the great amount of fiction that newspapers now publish, and I think the amount of fiction that they publish will increase.

in

85. If the movement progresses further most of the notable books will appear serial form before they are published in book form?Yes, I think that is undoubtedly covered now, because newspaper readers at the present time no longer demand the old-fashioned serial; they are prepared to read the novels of anybody. They do not want "Continued in our next." They do not want incidents in the higher class newpapers now; now I think it will lead to what you say, that all novels of any good will be published in newspapers first.

86. It might conceivably have affected the case of "Lord Raingo," for example, whom a great many people believed to be a member of our House?—Yes.

Mr. Harney.

87. Apart from the publishing of a serial in a newspaper is this the distinction that you draw: that it is all a question of negligence?-Newspapers, apart from the publication of stories, are dealing with actual facts of life, and therefore a far less amount of negligence on their part is necessary than would amount to negligence with reference to a story that was written; because the story-teller is dealing with fiction and so far from his wishing to avoid saying anything damaging it is part of his business to write most damaging things with regard to fictitious characters?-Yes, that is so.

88. You say you would allow negligence to apply all the time, but it would be far easier to prove negligence against a newspaper than it would be against an author?-Exactly.

Lord Stanley of Alderley.

89. I understand this Bill only applies to fiction. Any so-called libel in a newspaper dealing with facts would not in any way be protected?-That is so.

Chairman.

90. I was just going to say, so far as newspapers are concerned when they publish a serial story or any story in their newspapers, they are in exactly the same position as the publisher of a novel?Yes.

Viscount Burnham.

91. Have you known any cases in which the publishers of newspapers have been joined with publishers of booksor in some cases they may be the samegeneral printing houses?--I cannot state a case, but my belief is that they have been joined. In the old days the most substantial people were joined. It was quite unsual in the old days to bring an action against an author, because he was known to be not worth powder and shot: they would join the publisher, Messrs. Smith and Sons, and the Times Bool. Club, or anybody they could make

defendants.

92. And it is quite possible there may have been many cases which were settled, knowing, as we do--at least certainly do-the disinclination of newspapers to come into Courts of law in libel cases if they can help it?-Yes. I should think there were probably a great many.

[blocks in formation]

96. You allude to that in your statement? Yes, certainly. We will send that on.

97. What, if anything, in your view, is the amount of protection which an author obtains by the now usual notice at the beginning of a book that "All the characters in this book are fictitious "?-None whatever, I believe, my Lord.

Chairman.] Mr. Kennedy, what do you say about that? Do you think he is already protected?

Mr. Kennedy.] No, I should not think so, but it would be material for crossexamination of the plaintiff, who brings say: "I thought this referred to the Plaintiff."

witnesses to

Mr. Harney.] But if the law were that it was only necessary for the plaintiff to prove it, to satisfy the jury: "I was hit by this publication," I cannot see that it would be any answer to say: "The man who hit you said he was not going to hit you." That might come in on the question of intention, but if it was only necessary to prove the bare fact that you, the plaintiff, were damaged, I do not see that it would make very much difference.

Chairman.

98. Would it not be possible to say to the plaintiff "How can you say you have been hit by this unless you hit yourself by it"?-It would be a circumstance to go to the jury: Was he really hit, having regard to the fact that some person who read the book may have

read the opening words; but still the jury might say: "Oh, well, it is very easy to put in these opening words."

Lord Stanley of Alderley.

99. Would it not be an aggravation of damage if I published a book, obviously, describing Mr. X., and I put: "This book does not allude to Mr. X "?-Yes.

Viscount Burnham.

100. I noticed all the same, Arnold Bennett published repeated disclaimers of having aimed at any particular politician in his description of Lord Raingo, who was identified, rightly or wrongly, with a well-known member of Parlia ment, a member of both Houses, now dead? Yes, I remember that.

Chairman.

101. Perhaps we might hear now what the Secretary, Mr. Thring, has to tell us. Mr. Thring, you are the Secretary of the Incorporated Society of Authors, Playwrights and Composers?-(Mr. Thring): That is so.

102. I think what the Committee would like to hear from you is some little more details as to the numbers and nature of cases which are referred to in Mr. Maxwell's statement, if you can give them to us. First of all, with regard to the number of cases which have come to your knowledge, of authors who have been attacked in this way?-I cannot add more than Mr. Maxwell has said. I do not keep records of all people who come to me for advice, because I have, I suppose, about 30 or 40 a day who come for advice on different points.

Lord Stanley of Alderley.

103. Not on this particular point?No, but on different points, so I do not keep records, but I reckon that I have a great many people come to me for advice about libels, about what they are thinking of writing, but with regard to libels which have actually been written I do not think I can say more than Mr. Maxwell has said, that there are between half a dozen and a dozen a year.

104. Do your 4,000 members publish at least one work a year?--They are not all authors. Some of them are dramatists, some are composers and some of them are artists.

30° Novembris, 1927.]

Mr. W. B. MAXWELL and Mr. GEORGE HERBERT THRING.

[Continued.

Chairman.

105. The dramatists may be shot at?— Yes.

106. Musical composers could hardly be?-No.

107. Artists might be?-Artists might be, but I do not suppose every one of our members writes a book a year now.

108. After all, it is not only your members; it is all the authors you are concerned about?-That is so.

[blocks in formation]

published when he brought his action, and the action was dismissed. But George Moore and Mr. Heinemann had to pay over £400 in costs, and the Society of Authors assisted to a certain extent in

meeting that deficit. But there was a case where the man had no money.

Viscount Burnham.

116. What was the case?-I forget the exact title of the case, but I could send it to your Lordship.

Chairman.

117. The Plaintiffs' name was Seymour, you say?-Louis Seymour and George Moore.

118. What was the name of the book?It is in Macgillivray's Leading Cases. He brought an action against George Moore and Heinemann, who published the book. The book in question was called "Lewis Seymour & Some Women."

Lord Stanley of Alderley.] Is it not the case that almost all professions are subject to speculative actions which cost them a great deal? Doctors, for, instance, may have to resist at a cost of far more than £400 a speculative action which is finally thrown out of Court by the Jury.

Viscount Burnham.] Most libel actions are speculative.

Lord Stanley of Alderley.

an

119. And I may say most actions against doctors are speculative?I had in mind myself a very curious case the other day. We have a little magazine called "The Author," and I was reprinting an article in that which I was taking from ar American paper. It was the case of a grocery clerk who was pirating the stories of well-known authors of America, and in this article it said: "We will call her Jane Doe." The article was actually in proof when my clerk, who happened to look at the proofs said: "But there is Jane Doe who is a well-known journalist in England." She was a member of our Society. Now if I had printed that she would have had very good ground of action against the Society.

a

Mr. Harney.

120. She would have had a grievance? -Yes. I only just avoided that by chance.

« ZurückWeiter »