The Dewsbury Chronicle, and West Riding Advertiser. — 1894-02-03 (Dewsbury, West Yorkshire, England)

MONSON'S EFFIGIES.  APPEAL COURT DISSOLVES THE  INJUNCTIONS.  LONDON, Monday. The customary crowd packed the Supreme Court Of Judicature to-day to hear Lord Halsbury and Lords Justices Lopes and Davey deliver their deferred judgment on the arguments addressed to them last week in the appeals by Madame Tussaud, Limited, and Mr. Louis Tussaud for injunctions obtained by Mr. Monson restraining them ',Leta the trial of the action from exhibiting waxwork ildg,. les of him in London and Birmingham. Beyond lur- Willes Chitty, the Counsel engaged in the °guineas were not present. During some half an hour preceding the entrance of their LordliPe a good part of the Junior Bar L -waled away the time in listening with unsupPressed glee to the jokes of a veteran irreverently It, fled "Old Fin," who seemed to be in extra good 'lf to-day. . With more punctuality than usual the Judges took imteir seats, and Lord Halsbury began in an exceed_ly low tone, rendering it most difficult to follow in the reading of his judgment. The questions 'used in this case were he said so serious and important that the Court had taken time to consider its judgment !led the case been argued upon the materials alone fore the Divisional Court, he should have been of rdi°Pinion that its decision should be confirmed ; but the tional evidence placed before them had modified t 1,1! judgment inthat respect. On the question whether tra en inxhibition was a libel or no, he had no hesitare expressing his opinion without being afraid of orelodicing the right of the jury on the trial to kle the question, having too high an opinion that the; an average jury to suppose lodgme i nt would be warped or nfluirn4l by anything which he might say. r°;merle:ding to describe the exhibition and its sur-'"ugs, he said he should have thought it one of a treve and defamatory character by virtue of its rlsugfiestions, as much as by the actual exhibits, u it the could not be justified by privilege 1 ell), same ground as the publication in 1 INiVwsPaper of the details which had trauspired. hat li it not a reflection upon a man's character to say his be had been tried for murder? He kept it in uind that it was not the intention of the ti-1:"4,t which the Court had to consider, but , th; ito,Pression that would be created on' ih,..._ unind of any reasonable man by the te-ZPosition of the model of the plaintiff with a W.4i. 61 uf Airs. Maybrick and Scott and Pigott. el should he be placed near a convicted poisoner, oti th hed e one hand, and on the other by a man who the fteaPed justice by committing suicide? As to he eunlinary interposition of the Court, two questions c.m Leen raised: (1) It was said the Court ought not 't73 Pronounce an opinion upon a question afterwards LAt'e submitted to a jury, and (2) That the questioe 6.7 already been concluded on the authority of the cb,t which ought to be followed. But the Legisla.llll 1873 gave power to deal with the question and etZ", if it thought right have limited the „ozr. ee 0 that power. Reviewing the law on the a " Ills Lordship pointed to the protection given to 1,871's trade, and said he should have thought pie- , ez,l'e character even more important. But, libel I 4 no libel, this case must be absolutely Vooktleestion for the jury. For himself, he should have ftlat that this was a clear case of libel, and, there-7 :_t,e, tile 4 fair for the Court to restrain the exhibition 11 trial. The question remained, whether the be.* evidence introduced and not before the thlivi,, Isle"' Court did not materially alter 4- ` lie thought it did. It had been awn that an alleged agent of the plainLiz had entered into a bargain with the appellant, r_oPrietor of the Loedon exhibition, to exhibit the e',°tltlee and gun the plaintiff was wearing and using zhe he day Lieutenant Hambrough was shot, and r undertaking to give them a sitting of Monson 43kplr enable them to make the representation more ete. If this was done with Blouson's authority net:a was n absolutely an end to the question. He was :flight ious, however, not to prejudice any inquiry which hereafter be made. It was enough to know that ' a the correspondence and affidavits now before the ort how doubtful might be the finding of the jury. OollS interim injunction must be dissolved. But inasas the facts now set up by the appellants must ;1.4.11? been known to them and were not put before the trei!ional Court, he thought in Messrs. Tussaud, eetalted's appeal the costs roust be the plaintiff's in Lulutl._, event. The same course of dissolution of the iction would apply to the Birmingham case; nioition, ~,Sa the same observation did not apply to the 14 the action, the ee sts on both sides would be the costs I rd Justice Lo Lopes also in a written judgthis AezPressed his concurrence. The question for I,oart was not what had been done but whether 0,.?..5e for aia interlocutory injunction had been made ' 1844 Prior to the Common Law Procedure Act of no court could grant an injunction tilt,- a ease ot libel; but since then he h,oht certain reported cases, which he quoted, *l4l_ laid down a principle applicable to all libels hei:out linaitation. Even taking the case as it came : the Divisional Court, he did not think that (lids" Was justified in coming to the conclusion it ?et ,„ zsut now such a conflict had been with regard , to Monson's conduct, as alio Ought rendered it imperative that the facts • odbe i /Aloe,. nvestigated by a jury. It was to him an his 5 ml'int la the Case that a man who now asserted eese uxiety, to bury in oblivion the whole Ardlamont of thßileutd have been found writing a pamphlet he e case, and should have advertised, as Dubliellw said in a moment of impulse, a he same subject. However, libel tiee iluel, it must be regarded as eventually a quasiP4..ll:.:l 'r7th7jeu°..._.. and he agreed that the interim 1,20 r ,1. tuna should be dissolved on the terms announced --ir kid lia r..._ : ury. -derd Juslsbtice Davey agreed.