|
ALEISTER CROWLEY v THE SUNDAY REFEREE PUBLISHING COMPANY
4 October1935
On 4 October 1935 Crowley lost a court case in the Mayor’s and City of London Court. He had claimed seventy guineas damages against the Sunday Referee Publishing Company in respect of alleged breach of contract. He claimed he had an oral contract to write eight articles for the newspaper but was denied publication after the first article. The 5 October 1935 article below from the Manchester Guardian newspaper explains the case.
THE MANCHESTER GUARDIAN London, England 5 October 1935 (page 9)
NEWSPAPER SUED.
Mr. Aleister Crowley Loses Contract Claim.
Mr. Edward Alexander Crowley, the author, known as Aleister Crowley, claimed seventy guineas damages against the Sunday Referee Publishing Company, Ltd., before Judge Dobson, at the Mayor’s and City of London Court yesterday, in respect of alleged breach of contract.
Mr. Minty, for Mr. Crowley, said that the claim was in respect of seven of eight articles which Mr. Crowley was to write for the newspaper. In April 1934, Mr. Crowley brought an action for libel arising out of the publication of a book called “Laughing Torso.” Mr. Minty added: “He was very severely cross-examined, and the judge who tried the case did say some strong things about him. This was nine months before the agreement was made, and the newspaper must have known all about it.”
Mr. Crowley, who wished to re-establish himself in the literary world, went to the newspaper office, said counsel, and an oral agreement was made whereby he was to contribute eight articles. He drew up a synopsis for them and was paid ten guineas for the first, but later was informed that the managing director had forbidden publication of the others.
Crowley, in evidence, said that the literary editor of the paper suggested that he should write a series of articles vindicating himself in the eyes of the world. He had already been vindicated in the eyes of the law. There was never any suggestion that the articles should be discontinued if the readers did not like them. There was nothing in his life that would not bear the closest examination.
Mr. Lightman (for the company): Have you not been making up a completely untruthful story to found this action?—No.
Is it not characteristic of you to take any steps, honourable of dishonourable, in order to found or advance an action of yours?—No.
Have you not done so in the past?—No.
Mr. Lightman asked if there were not some criminal proceedings arising out of the manner in which Crowley fought the action which had been mentioned, and he replied: “There was a frame-up against me.”
Mr. Lightman: Were you found guilty?—I suppose I was, technically.
A woman, who said she had been formerly secretary to Crowley and was described as “Miss B.” said that the literary editor of the newspaper told her that a letter he had written to Crowley was as good as a contract.
William Edward Hayter Preston, literary and foreign editor of the “Sunday Referee,” said that he told Crowley that an account of his mystical experiences might be interesting. In no sense was this work to be a full-length autobiography. Crowley was told there might be a series if the first proved acceptable to readers, but there was a bad reaction to his first article.
Mark, Goulden, the editor of the “Sunday Referee,” said that he accepted a test article. He had a number of letters heartily condemning the appearance of Crowley’s name in the paper. He saw another article which dealt with black magic and esoteric subjects not suitable for any paper, and decided that the experiment must be discontinued. There was no mention made of a contract.
Judgment was given for the defendants, with costs.
|