A GREAT ARTISTIC Libel Case.

Patea Mail, Volume VIII, Issue 1010, 16 March 1883, Page 3

A GREAT ARTISTIC Libel Case.

THE TRUE STOUT OF BELT „Versus LAwes. Five Thousand Pounds Damages* (From the Auckland -Star’s Correspondent ■ in London.) ' , >• Iti social circles conversation for the last fortnight has been principally about the swinging damages of £6OOO awarded to th& sculptor Belt-for the libel about him which appeared in “ Vanity Fair" during August, 1881. At first eight the sum certainly seems excessive* but I learn on good authority that not'one single farthing will go into the plaintiff’s pocket. The ordinary costs of the case, amounting in all to about £20,000, will (in addition to the £SOOO damages) of course be paid by Lawes, but besides these Mr Belt has to meet expenses which" will more than absorb the jury’s gift. The fees on the defendant’s side alone amount to £SOBO, and as Belt employed the AttorneyGeneral, bis will probably be more. I did not refer to this collosaal libel case whilst it was in progress, because I felt the story would be easier told after the verdict had been given. Various versions are naturally narrated by the opposing sides, but the true story, which contains . several incidents only recently made public, will, I tbittkj be found as follows ; Belt* the plaintiff, is a “self-made” p»an,Jhaving raised himself from the lower

classes to his present distinguished position without either monej' or influence. Early in the young sculptor’s career, his brother artists made a “ dead set " at him. He was “ much over rated,” “ an imposter,” “ no gentleman,” “incapable of good work,” and so on. Undoubtedly bis own independent behaviour was the main cause of this dislike. Had Belt respectfully worshipped tbe notorieties of the artistic “ring,” and been content tositat the feet of Sir Frederick Leighton, Mr Millais, Mr Thorneycroft and others, and whilst styling them “Masters,” affect to follow in their footsteps afar off, it is to be feared these eminent academicans would have viewed his busts and statues with widely different eyes, Tbe youth, however, allowed success to turn his head. He imagined himself a heaven born genius, like Phidias, ridiculed the big men of the profession ; went far too much into society, and became the pet and protege of sundry philandering noblemen. Despite these palpable faults, however, good work came from Belt’s studio. Orders poured in, and they were promptly executed—so promptly, in fact, that by-and-bye it was whispered Belt accepted more help from his pupils and assistants than was permissible. This rumour grew rapidly, when a discharged assistant, a Belgian, named Yertyden, declared that ho and not Bell had executed most of the busts from his studio, and that the famous Byron statue in Hyde Park—for which MiBelt won the order—was, in reality, his (Vertyden’s) work. Now,’ amongst Belt’s most hitter and uncompromising enemies, was a young sculptor named Lawes, the son of a millionaire manure manufacturer, and an unsuccessful competitor for the execution of the Byron statue. This worthy (to whom money is no object) undertook to ruin and expose Belt, and by way of opening the hall, he enlisted Vanity Fair in the good work, and on the 20th August 1881, published therein a letter, branding the young fellow as a humbug or an imposter, unable to execute even the simplest professional work. To this Belt, (who happened to be ill in bed at the time) made no repty, and his silence being taken as a confession of guilt, Lawes renewed the attack with increased acrimony, daring Belt to submit his manner of work to scrutiny, and, challenging him to clear his character (if he could) in a Court of Law. Belt delayed some time, rather too long perhaps, before he took action in the matter ; yet, his hesitancy was quite natural. Compared with Lawes he was a mere pauper, moreover, against him were arrayed some of the most famous artists of the Eoyal Academy. If he fought, he fought for reputation, honour, character, almost life itself, and it was quite a question whether time would not justify him presently equally well. The idea of being assumed an imposter by the world atla.ige, eventually, however, drove him to tbe law, and in August last year the famous trial, which has excited so much discussion and occupied forty-three working days, commenced. Before the plaintiff’s case closed, the long vacation intervened and stopped the progress of the trial ; but even then it was the unanimous opinion of the bar that Belt would be awarded damages. You see the defendant’s contention was that the plaintiff barely understood the rudiments of his art, and was quite incapable of producing a decent bust of any sort without assistance. Well, very early in the action, scores of independent witnesses and persons whose credibility could not be doubted, swore to having had their busts executed by the plaintiff not only in their own houses but in their own presence, and when neither Yertyden nor any other assistant could possibly have been within hundreds of miles. These busts were exhibited in court, and being mostly fair likenesses, demonstrated unmistakeably that the sculptor possessed some ability. Tbe tactics of the defence throughout were singularly foolish and shortsighted. Had they merely alleged Belt was a much over rated man, who consistently accepted from clever but poor assistants more help than was honest or right, they would not have had so much to prove. In addition, however, to the accusations of gross imposture and utter professional, incapacity, several charges wholly foreign to the issue were introduced, Lawes, for example, declared Belt had stolen a cheque from him ; in fact, everyone soon saw the hope of the defence was not to chivalrously unmask an artistic pretender for the sake and cause of art but to destroy root and branch the pretensions of a successful rival, smutch his. honour, and drive him for ever from the society of ladies and gentlemen. As this unpleasant fact became more and more evident, popular sympathy on Belt’s behalf was aroused, crowds of witnesses came forward to give evidence in his favour, and the cross-ex-aminers failed wholly to shake any important testimony. The crucial test, moreover," was first suggested by tbe defence.. Amongst the cleverest busts exhibited in Court, was one of a Mr Pagliatti, which Lawes’ counsel alleged was really the work of Yertyden. Well, Mr Pagliatti offered to sit again to Mr Belt, and, in a side room of the Court, in the presence of policemen, officers, &c., the libelled sculptor executed another bust of the same iinan. It' would, I think, have been excusable,. and proved nothing, if, under such, extremely trying conditions, young Belt had failed. As a matt'er of fact, he succeeded signally, and produced such a striking likeness, that when the new bust was exhibited in Court, side by side with Mr Pagliatti and the old one, friends and,; enemies alike broke out into loud applause. This, in reality, gave the coup de grace lo Mr Lawes, who, however, called the President of the Eoyal Academy (Sir Frederick Heighten), Mr Millais, Mr Thorneycroft, Mr Alma Tadema, and many more famous artists to swear (hat the new and the old busts of Mr Pagliatti could not by any possibility be by the same hand, and the latter was as full of “feeling,” “colour,” “tone,” and other vague beauties, as Mr Belt’s admired work was “ crude, “ coarse,” and generally objectionable. The testimony of these experts proved so singularly unanimous on every possible point as to suggest doubts about their love for the plaintiff, and more than one had reluctantly to admit that he “ felt very strongly on

the question.-t 'The clima®; however, did not arrive till Mr Belt’s counsel began to call rebutting evidence, when Mr Arnold Morris, and MrMalempre, both well-known men in artistic circles, boldly came forward and swore to having seen Belt executing and also finishing the very bust which the Acdamicians so unanimously opinioned was the work of another and more experienced hand. Long before the case terminated, the defence abandoned their initial standpoint, and admitted that Belt possessed superficial ability, though he was unable without resistance, to “invest a statue with artistic merit.” Neither judge nor jury, however, were impressed by the change of front, and on the 43rd day of the trial the jury, after a few minutes’ absence, found a verdict for MiBelt ; damages, £SOOO. The costs of the trial (both sides) are estimated at a total of not less than £20,000, so that Mr Lawes’s beneficient attempt “to unmask an imposer in the cause ofartv” will cause him, or rather the mature millionaire (his father), the trifling sum of £25,000. “He dug a pit for his enemy, and he has fallen into it himself.” Hurrah ! say I. There is still a libel action on Belt’s behalf against Vanity. Fair pending, and Yertyden will perhaps, he (criminally proceeded against for perjury. Such cheers have seldom been heard in Westminster Hall as broke out when the verdict was made known.