THE LOOKING GLASS

London, England

3 December 1910

(page 303)

AN AMAZING SECT.—NO. 4.

IMPORTANT CORRECTION.

In connection with our article under the above heading which appeared in last week’s issue, we have received a letter from the solicitors of Mr. George Cecil Jones, which appears below, as also our reply.

We need hardly say that we unreservedly accept Mr. Jones’ assurance that he has no connection whatever with Mr. Crowley at the present time, and we express our sincere regret for our mistake. At the same time we venture to congratulate Mr. Jones on the fact.

The following are copies of the letters referred to:—

Bullock and Co., Solicitors,

65, London Wall,

London, E.C.

24th November, 1910

Telegraphic address: “Billitor, London.”

Telephone: No. 5542 Central.

THE “LOOKING GLASS” PUBLISHING COMPANY, LIMITED

 

Dear Sirs,—

 

The attention of our client, Mr. George Cecil Jones, has been drawn to a most unwarrantable libel which was published in an issue of your paper, The Looking Glass, under date, November 26th, 1910, on page 268, under the heading “An Amazing Sect—No. 3.”

Unless you are willing to at once insert a full and ample apology to our client in terms to be settled by us upon his behalf, and further, to pay him a substantial sum by way of compensation, we are instructed to take proceedings against you.

Please let us hear from you by 12 noon to-morrow, Friday, the 25th inst., failing which a writ will be issued without further notice.

 

Yours faithfully,

Bullock and Co.

Oakley House,

Bloomsbury Street, W.C.

 

Dear Sirs,

 

MR. G. C. JONES AND THE “LOOKING GLASS” PUBLISHING COMPANY, LIMITED.

 

With reference to your letter of yesterday’s date, addressed to the “Looking Glass” Publishing Company, Limited, and with further reference to our telephone communication this afternoon, we think it only right to put you in full possession of the facts in so far as explaining how the paragraph came to be written in our clients’ paper.

Our clients had been placed in possession of evidence that your client did introduce Mr. Crowley to the “Rosicrucian Order,” and to that extent, therefore, had been associated with him. Coupled with this evidence came the statement from the same source that your client was still associated with Crowley. We understand, however, from your telephonic communication to-day that your client assures you that the latter statement is quite unfounded. Our clients instruct us to accept that assurance absolutely without reserve or intention to cause your client any injury. Their quarrel is with Mr. Crowley, and with him alone. This being so our clients will be only too pleased to withdraw their statement in the next issue of their paper, and will commend Mr. Jones in his having severed his connection with this man, and also apologize for any inconvenience that he may have been put to by them.

We cannot think, however, that he has suffered any damage, and therefore our clients cannot entertain any suggestion under that head; but inasmuch as they desire to prove to your client that they do not wish him to suffer in any shape through their mistake, they are willing to pay a sum of £5 as costs, but this would be purely an “ex gratia” payment.

In conclusion, our clients instruct us to state that they trust to receive from us on Monday morning the form of apology which you may consider should be inserted; but as the next issue of the paper goes to press at 12 o’clock on that day, we shall be glad if you will let us have it before that time.

 

Yours faithfully,

Broxholm and Williams.

 

Messrs. Bullock and Co.,

65, London Wall, E.C.