LIBEL ACTION.

Press, Volume LX, Issue 18228, 12 November 1924, Page 9

LIBEL ACTION.

AN ELECTION ARTICLE. LADY TERRINGTON SUES "EXPRESS." (BI CABLE— PES3S ASSOCIATION —COPXBIGJTr) (heutkr's TELEGBAMS.) LONDON, November 10. Lady Terrington, an ex-member of the House of Commons, was plaintiff in a libel action heard Wore the King's Bench to-day against the Express Newspaper Company, Ltd., London. She- complained of matter published on December 3rd, 1923, when the General Election was progressing. It is alleged that- the article meant that she was a vain, frivolous raid extravagant woman, unfit to be a member of Parliament. The defonce denied that tho words bore the meaning alleged or any defamatory meaning. They also pleaded that they were true so far as they were statements of fact and fair comment on a matter of public interest. Sir Ellis Hume-Williams, for Lady Terrington, said tho article quoted Lady Terrington as saying that if returned for Westminster she would wear her best clothes, ospreys, a fur coat and pearls because she did not believe in a woman politician wearing a dull little frock.

Lady Terrington denied that she ever mentioned ospreys or pearls, and denied that she made other statements attributed to her. The cross-examination bristled with bright passages in which 'Mr Justice Darling was a most lively participator.

Plaintiff denied saying that the Conservatives were snobs or that she always wore pearls. She did not possess a rope of pearls. Counsel: But here is a photograph showing two strings. Plaintiff: One is real, the other is imitation. Witness retorted "lies" and "rot" when other questions of rank and dress were mentioned. -She denied that she wore a low-necked dress in the Commons, but she had been photographed as a mannequin for the purpose of helping charity. Mr Justice Darling: It covers a. multitude of sins. Counsel: And dispenses with some clothing. Plaintiff momentarily brok© down. Mr Justice Darling: Where is the difference between a lady dressing as a mannequin and vice versa? He would have to rule whether plaintiff's dress was a matter of public interest. When plaintiff was asked whether she was a Liberal, she interposed: "It's so distinguished. There are so few of them now." The fact that Mr Cyril Asquith was plaintiff's junior counsel heightened the joke.