|
Correspondence from Charles Harper [Waterhouse & Co., Solicitors for Constable & Co.] to Otto Kyllmann [Constable & Co., Publishers of Laughing Torso]
[Correspondence concerning Constable & Co.'s preparation for the libel suit brought by Aleister Crowley against Nina Hamnett and the publication of her book Laughing Torso.]
Waterhouse & Co. Solicitors 10 & 12 Bishopsgate, London, E.C.2.
23rd November 1933
CROWLEY
My dear Kyllmann,
While I was with you yesterday and unknown to me my managing clerk was having an interview with Edmond O'Connor & Co who are Nina Hamnett's solicitors and found them at last rather forthcoming.
I send you a note which he made after the interview and which will show you why they were forthcoming.
Naturally the proposal made by O'Connor will not interest you as it stands but if they really have the materials they allege it seems a pity not to ensure that they shall be used. The first thing is to see what materials they have without making any conditions and I will try to arrange for this.
If the materials turn out to be really good it may possibly be worth while to offer to take over Nina Hamnett's defence and even pay O'Connor a small sum towards their costs. If we acted for Nina Hamnett as well as for you it would not add to the expense because I am assuming that our counsel would act for her also. But I will take no step until after I have seen the documents and have consulted you again.
Yours sincerely,
Charles S. J. Harper
PERSONAL Otto Kyllmann, Esq., 10 & 12, Orange Street, Leicester Square, W.C.2.
NOTE on interview with Edmund O'Connor & Co. on Wednesday, 22nd November 1933.
Edmond O'Connor & Co. informed us that the evidence and the material for cross-examination which they had collected made it absolutely certain in their minds that the Defendants would win this action. They were, however, in the difficulty that they had not had a penny by way of costs from their client and they felt that before they went into Court they must have, say, one hundred guineas for Counsel's fees.
They wished to know whether Constable & Co. would lend their client that sum to be repaid out of any royalties to come to Miss Hamnett.
They anticipated that with the action dismissed and the resulting publicity, the book would sell "like hot cakes".
We informed them that we would put the matter to our clients but we were quite certain that if they entertained such a proposition they would wish to see statements of all the witnesses they proposed to call and the material which they had collected for cross-examination. This they readily agreed to.
N.B. Have not Constables published one or more other books for Miss Hamnett and if so could they not recoup themselves out of royalties payable to her in respect of these other books?
Our impression was that Edmund O'Connor & Co. intended to imply that if Constables refused, their client might not defend the action against herself.
|