THE MOUL ASSAULT CASE.

Daily Telegraph (Napier), 19 March 1883, Page 4

THE MOUL ASSAULT CASE.

At the Melbourne Police Court on February 26 James E. Moore (a brother of the actress Miss Mair-ie Moore) wasch irged with having assaulted Mr Alfred Moul, the well-known musical critic. The evidence ot 3lr Moid and a number ot other witnesses conclusively proved that on the evening of the 17th instant, just as Mr Moul was leaving the Opera House, he was met by the defendant, who, without the slightest provocation, struck him iv a most cowardly manner in the face and below the left ear, which so completely staggered Mr Moul that he was unable to defend himself. Some of the defendant's acquaintances were prosent and urged on in his unmanly attack_by crying out " Give it to him, Jim." After the defendant had committed the assault he disappeared. Mr Purvcs, who appeared for the defence, asked Mr Moul if he would be willing not to press the charge if the defendant made him a public apology and paid his costs to which Mr Moul most generously assented. The Bench, however, insisted on the case coiim , on, and at its conclusion the presiding Magistrate slated that they had intended to imt rison the defendant, but as Mr Moul had agrjed to accept his apology they would fine him £10 10s, with £10 10s costs.

Commenting on the case, the Age says : —"Wo join our voice with that of Mr Panton and the Bench generally in protesting against any attempt to interfere with the riirlit of free criticism in the Press in any such high-handed style. If criticism is to be of any service to the public it must be free, for the critic who writes in fear of bodily violence writes with manacles on his wrists. From what has transpired, it seems that Messrs Williamson, Garner, and company have conic to the conclusion that _ a verbal quill is a purchasoable commodity in Melbourne, and that by withholding their advertisements or keeping a prize-fighter in their establishment they can either wheedle or force the newspapers into giving them what they want. The Age is not the only local newspaper on which those tactics have been tried ; and from the complaint receutly made in the columns of a morning contemporary it would look- very much as if these speculative eiitirpnneurs had determined upon striking out a system of bribery or intimidation for themselves. If they have, we feel certain that they will fail in the long run. Threats or cajolery may prevail inoric instance, but the public will very soon sec through the practice, and rise up "in revolt against it. No independent newspaper will submit to dictation of nuy kind, and least of all will it allow its critics to be bought or to be bullied with impunity. It was a gross piece of impertinence on the part of the Theatre Royal management or auy of their employes to assume that Mr Moul necessarily wrote the articles in dispute." Under the heading " Moore Blackguardism," the Sydney Bulletin of the 21th iust. has the following comments on the case: — "From accounts received respecting the assault by Moore, the theatrical ' treasurer,' upon Alfred Moul, the musical and dramatic critic of the Melbourne 'Age,' it is very evident that a brutal and cowardly attack was made. Mr 3loul's criticism was just severely true, and it is the business of a theatrical critic to give the play-going public his honest opinion as a guide for them in their investment in entertainments.

. The vocal exigencies of the part can on 1 }- be competently discharged by a cultivated artist, and, lyrically considered, Maggie Moore has no pretensions to be anythimr of the sort. The blows of Moore, although thoy bruised only the face and limbs of Ml- .Mini, were, in reality, aimed at the entire Press. Mr Moul was evidently pitched upon to be made an example of, because he dared to tell the naked truth. TliePrevs has been far too indulgent to a certain mountebank section of the profession, and they, like Jeshurun's ass, are_ waxing fat and'kicking, while genuine artists who cultivate a capacity for giving expression to to the conceptions, literary and lyric, of genius, suffer corresponding neglect. The proper retort by the entire Prcssof the colonies to Moor's ruffianism and intimida-. tion would be to suspend its habitual good nature and perpetual allowances, and, in noticing performances by the crowd to which Moore is attached, to tell the naked

truth without favor or extenuation."

The Sydney Echo refer* to subject in the following , terms : —"The assault committed upon Mr Moul, musical critic of tlio Age newspaper, has interest for all people" who have any care or concern for either noAvspnpers or theatre*. Mr Moul, dealing in his capacity us critic with the singing and acting of Miss Maggie Moore as prinia donna in the opera of 'La Maseotto,' said that she was incompetent to sing the music of the part, and also that she vulgarised the author's conception. It is not necessary to discuss the merit of the criticism. The only question to be argued is. Was it justifiable': , and if not, Was the acrgressor justified in the brutal assault for which he is now under arrest ': As to the first point, it seems easily settled. The criiie sits as judge. If he perceives incompetence and fails to pronounce upon it, he is open to a charge of partiality or negligence. He is also judge of the manner of the acting ; and if it seems to him vulgar, ho is just as much bound to pass censure as, were it refined lie would be to bestow praise. The aggressor, however, took another view, and because Mr Moul had spoken on that which he deemed to be the truth, assaulted and beat him in the vestibule of the theatre. Most unfortunately for the lady concerned, this aggressor happens to be her brother, iiud, as treasurer of the theatre, a leading employe of the firm in which her husband is the chief shareholder. It is to be most sincerely desired that she will be able to show that the assault was committed without her knowledge or consent, and it may well bo demanded, both on behalf of the Press and the public, that the management of the theatre, or rather the theatrical combination which has just now a monopoly of theatrical profit in Australia, will mark their sense of the insult and outrage in an unmistakeablc manner. Unless this is done it wi 1 surely be regarded as connivance on the part of that combination in an effort to int micLii to or coerce criticism—a thing which will hardly be endured by a Press that values its independence or regards its honor as a commodity which is not to be bought or sold/