“TRUMPERY AFFAIR”

Evening Star, Issue 22458, 1 October 1936, Page 13

“TRUMPERY AFFAIR”

SERVANT ENTICEMENT HOUSE OF LORDS DECISION The House of Lords gave judgment recently in a servant girl “ enticement ” case which was the subject of legal argument weeks before, says the ‘ Manchester Guardian.’ Mr Alexander Frederick Churchill Sim, of Old Barton,_ Cookham Dean, appealed from a majority decision of the Court of Appeal which had affirmed a verdict against him of £250 damages on a libel issue relating to a telegram sent by him to Mr Herbert Mercer Stretch, of Applewood, Cookham Dean. Mr Stretch had also been awarded £25 damages on the ground that Mr Sim had enticed a housemaid named Editn Saville from his employ, but no appeal was made in respect of that issue. The questions raised before the Law Lords were whether-the words contained in the telegram were libellious and whether the' damages were excessive. The telegram stated: —“ Edith ha# resumed her service with us to-day; please send her possessions and the money you borrowed, also her wages, to ‘ Old Barton,’ Sim.” The allegation of publication was that the telegram was “ published ” to various employees of the Post Office. Edith Saville, the- housemaid, had been in the service of Mr and Mrs Sim from November 22, 1933, until March 15, 1934. From then until April 12, 1934, she was employed by Mr and Mrs Stretch. On April 12 she resumed service with Mr and Mrs Sim, in circumstances which gave rise to the enticement claim, and when the case was heard before Mr Justice Talbot and a jury she was still in their service. The case then went to the Court of Appeal and from there to the House of Lords. The final appeal was heard by Lord Atkin, Lord Russell of Killowen, and Lord Macmillan. “ALLEGED INNUENDO FANTASTIC.” Delivering the judgment of the House, Lord Atkin said Mr Stretch alleged that the telegram meant that he was in pecuniary difficulties and had been compelled to borrow money from the housemaid; that he had failed to pay the housemaid her wages, and that he was a person to whom no one ought to give any credit. “It appears to me,” said Lord Atkin, “ that the alleged innuendo is fantastic, and that the words used in their ordinary meaning are incapable of being understood by reasonable persons as conveying an imputation upon the plaintiff’s financial credit. It was, in my opinion, the duty of the judge so to hold, and to withdraw the count alleging the innuendo from the jury.” In regard to the question whether the words in their ordinary significance were capable of being defamatory. Lord Atkin said the conventional Ehrase “ exposing the plaintiff to atred, ridicule, and contempt ” was probably too narrow. The question was complicated by having to consider the person or class qf persons whoso reaction to the publication was the test of the wrongful character of the words used.

There was no evidence, Lord Atkin continued, that the words wore published to anyone who had any knowledge at all of any of the facts of the case. There was no direct evidence that they were published to anyone who had over heard of Mr Stretch. The Post Office officials at Maidenhead would not bo presumed to know him. How could perusal of the telegram Jeacl jg Iqwer the plaintiff in the esti-

mation of the right-thinking peruser who knew nothing of the circumstances ? BORROWING FROM A SERVANT. “ X am at a loss to understand,” said Lord Atkin, “ why a person’s character should be lowered in anyone’s estimation if he or she has borrowed from a domestic servant. I should have thought it such a usual domestic occurrence for small sums to be advanced in such circumstances, and, with the assent of everyone concerned, to be left outstanding for some days, that the mere fact of borrowing from a servant bears not the slightest tinge of meanness. Of course, there may be special circumstances, and so large an amount may be borrowed or left so long unpaid that the facts, when know;n, would reflect on the character of the master.

“ I think no importance can be attached to the words being published by a telegram. The defendant, who had acted quite unjustifiably, repaired his wrong to some extent by giving immediate notice as to what had happened to the maid. “ It was quite natural and proper that he should ask for the maid f s possessions to be sent to a named address, and natural that he should, in the same communication, ask that the money which in fact was duo to her should bo sent to the same place. “ The truth of the case is that the whole matter is a trumpery affair, and that the alleged libel would probably never have been heard of but for the wounded feelings caused by the improper enticement. “ That juries should be free to award damages for injuries to reputation is one of the safeguards of liberty, but the protection is undermined when exhibitions of bad manners or discourtesy are placed on the same level as attacks on character and are treated as actionable wrongs.” Lord Atkin added that he was in complete agreement with the dissenting judgment of Lord Justice Slesser in the Court of Appeal—that the words were incapable of a defamatory meaning. In the result the order of the Court of Appeal and the verdict and judgment at the,trial on the issue of libel should be set aside and judgment entered for Mr Sim, Mr Stretch to have the general costs of the action, except in so far as they had been increased by the issue as to libel. Mr Sim was granted costs of both appeals.