TEACHERS OF DANCING.

Observer, Volume 6, Issue 137, 28 April 1883, Page 83

TEACHERS OF DANCING.

It seems that after having been exposed in the Argus, and driven out of Melbourne, Mr and Miss Roberts expect to find a refuge in Auckland, and advertise themselves ma" preliminary " flourish in the back page of Saturday's Star on December 22nd, 1880. Mr W. H. Roberts, dancing master, was plaintiff in a libel action against Mr J.JB. Lowe, in. respect to a paragraph in the Lorgnette, extracted from the Argus, referring to literary piracies of this precious Roberts, and the plaintiff was compelled lo fidinir. ' p.v.ti: ■ -rin ('■■•. tliat be ha-l polarised "'.i.- nri a vv: :• ->r ,;;■,. .■;,,„ _-„_• -< Colamis.''. Tii;- Argi<s,o : ;~ijw;m\*. 2iirJ ■ '--riO- -.v:, : ;*/- hntm^ IX-&/yK'-''V''.-UV'" i r"''i.t'ii-'t-t.>v < -ii. ! vV;..iiit.i! 1 ' i.h«; ism vs.-.- fully established, and the .Bench, without < --J -lliug apou Mr Lowe for any defence, dismissed the case." The Argus of date October 28th, 1880, says, that " the greater part of Roberts' book " was an impudent, wholesale, and inexcusable plagiarism of the work of " Celarius," and that accordingly it was an act of literary dishonesty deserving of exposure and contempt. The Argus of September 16th, 18S0, proves the plagiarism in parallel columns, and concludes as follows : — " We have marked upwards of twenty other plagiarised passages ; but we think those we have already cited will suffice to convict the Messrs. Roberts of an act of literary larceny of the most discreditable character." In addition to original copies of the Argus we have seen a schedule of " William Henry Roberts, Insolvent," in which the assets are " nil " and the liabilities £1500. The point that strikes us in this schedule is the ingenuity displayed in the transfer of accounts. We don't think Mr William Henry Roberts, late of Melbourne, will have a large field for his peculiar industry in Auckland.