Mr. Gallop:

Mr. Gallop said that the book "Laughing Torso," was the work of Miss Nina Hamnett, who was a defendant to the action. The other defendants were the publishers and printers.

Mr. Crowley was an author who wrote under the style of Aleister Crowley, and he complained of passages in the book, "and in particular," said Mr. Gallop, "of passages which I have not the slightest intention of reading in this court, unless obliged to do so.

"There is not a word of truth in what is written. It is indecent, vulgar, and ignorant. Mr. Crowley has sworn an affidavit that only within recent days has his attention been drawn to passages in the book, and he denies that there is a word of truth in the book."

"I am instructed that this book has some vogue," said Mr. Gallop. "Apparently there are people who find it interesting, and the sale of the first edition has been exhausted, or is in the process of exhaustion, and apparently there is in contemplation a second edition.

Mr. Gallop said that the printers and publishers had filed no evidence and, as he understood, were not going to do so. Against them he asked for a continuance of the undertaking. Miss Hamnett had filed an affidavit, but he (counsel) submitted that the position of the publishers and printers was quite distinct from that of the author, and he asked the learned Judge to deal with the matter forthwith.

Mr. Upjohn:

Mr. Upjohn, on behalf of the publishers, said they had originally published the book in good faith and had no knowledge of its contents. Prima facie, he would have to admit that some of the passages were defamatory, and for that reason his clients had suspended further publication of the book and had given the undertaking over to-day in order that the matter might be investigated. There was the evidence of the plaintiff that certain passages of the book were libellous, and there was an affidavit by Miss Hamnett justifying all her statements. He submitted that on the authorities the Court would not grant an injunction against Miss Hamnett because she justified, and that it would be open to his clients also to justify if they so desired.

Mr. Upjohn said that within ten minutes of their being served with the writ and the notice of motion, Messrs. Constable suspended its publication. He was willing to give an undertaking not to continue publication until further order, and he hoped that the matter might be disposed of without further troubling the court.

With regard to the printers, they had printed and delivered to Messrs. Constable all the copies it was proposed to print. As to the future sale of the book, he was instructed that it had not been proposed to issue a second edition.

So far as the publishers and printers are concerned I am content with the undertaking.

Mr. O'Connor:

Mr. Martin O’Connor submitted on behalf of his client that every word published in the book about the plaintiff was true and would be justified at the trial. In her affidavit Miss Hamnett said that the plaintiff was known to her for a number of years; she could speak about him and about the matters referred to in the book as being within her knowledge. He (counsel) submitted that truth was a complete answer to libel in whatever way the claim was made.

Mr. Gallop:

Mr. Gallop said, on behalf of the plaintiff, that he did not want the impression to go abroad that there was any shadow of truth in the statements made in the book. He submitted that the Court could only deal with the matter on the evidence. The publishers must say what their attitude was, whether they intended to justify or not. So far as Miss Hamnett was concerned, he (counsel) must face the possibility that the Court would conclude that no order should be made against her, but the publishers, as well as she, were concerned in the financial side of the venture. They had a duty, before they published what was obviously defamatory, to make inquiries into the matter.

Mr. Martin O'Connor for Miss Hamnett, asked that the motion against her might stand over for a week as the solicitor instructing him had only been consulted the previous day, and it was desired to have time to consider the matter.

"If a certain course cannot be taken with regard to substantial justification," said Mr. O'Connor, "I could not resist the granting of an injunction."

Mr. Justice du Parcq:

If the publishers give the undertaking there will be no further sale of the book.

Mr. O'Connor:

Mr. O'Connor said Miss Hamnett was not disposing of any copies, and had none to dispose of.

Mr. Upjohn:

In reply to his Lordship, Mr. Upjohn said he was not willing to-day to give any undertaking. If the Court granted an injunction it was a matter which he could not avoid. And further he said that he did not make any statement to-day whether he was going to plead justification or not. There was a considerable body of evidence which suggested that a plea of justification might succeed. In these circumstances his clients would have to consider their position very carefully.

Mr. Gallop:

Mr. Gallop said that if the undertaking were forthcoming he had no objection to a week's delay

Mr. Justice du Parcq:

I have come to the conclusion in this case that I cannot at this stage grant the relief which the Plaintiff asks and I think the less I say about the facts the better because the Court is dealing with a matter pending trial the public sometimes misunderstand what is said and think a final decision is =being given when the reverse is the fact.

This is a Motion by the Plaintiff Mr. Edward Alexander Crowley to restrain the further publication by the Defendants Constable & Company, Limited, who are publishers, Charles Whittingham & Griggs, Limited, printer, and Miss Nina Hamnett, who is the writer of a book, of libels concerning himself. It is not in dispute that there are two passages in the book in question which are defamatory of Mr. Crowley. He complains of these libels and he says, and has sworn, that there is not a word of truth in them. The publishers in effect say, through their learned Counsel, that they do not know at this stage whether the words which are undoubtedly defamatory are true or not. Miss Hamnett, the writer of the words, says that every word she has written is true. With regard to one of the passages that appears later in the book there may be a little doubt as to what she means by that because there she has related various stories introducing them by words "He was supposed" and "It was said" and so forth. It may be doubtful whether she means it is true it was supposed, and it is true it was said, these things happened, or whether she means that such things really have happened. However that may be I think from some points of view that may be the less serious libel, according to one construction of the words, at any rate, and she certainly does say that speaking generally as to the course of the Plaintiff's life at the place with which she is dealing, and at the time with which she is dealing, in that later passage he was guilty of acts which would mark her account of him a comparatively slight one, according to at least one construction of it. As to the earlier passage in the book it is perfectly plain that she swears it is true, so there is a conflict of testimony, the Plaintiff swearing it is not true, the Defendant swearing it is true. In those circumstances if the action were brought against Miss Hamnett only to restrain her from further publication of these words, I think that on the facts I have stated it would be quite impossible to grant an injunction against her because if the words are true, then, so far as the Plaintiff is concerned, he cannot stop her from continuing to publish by any proceedings in this Court, nor can he of course recover any damages in respect of them in those circumstances.

It is said, however, that the publishers and printers might be restrained. I am not going to lay down any general rule. It may be that there are cases in which a publisher might be restrained where he is not prepared to swear to the truth of the words he published although the author might, but in this particular case it does not seem to me to be right at this stage to grant such an injunction. The author has sworn that the words are true. She has an interest, I have no evidence I think that she has a financial interest, in the number of copies sold, it may well be that she has, but apart from that she has an interest as an authoress in the publicity which is given to her book and it seems to me it would be wrong, subject to something I will say presently, to stop the publication of this work at the present moment in the face of her affidavit. I am bound also to notice this. It is sworn, though the affidavit is extremely unsatisfactory on this point because it gives no details and does not exhibit the documents to which it refers, but it is sworn in the affidavit of Miss Hamnett that other publications have made similar allegations against the Plaintiff and he has taken no steps about them. A paper was produced in Court which seems to show that some such allegations have been made. Although I entirely agree with Mr. Gallop that a man is not to be prejudiced because he wisely sometimes allows things to be said by papers he may regard as of so little repute and influence that they may safely be disregarded, still it is something I think to be considered when one is considering whether through the weeks or months which will elapse before the case can be brought to trial any great additional damage will be done to the Plaintiff's reputation. I do not say that for a moment to belittle his reputation, of course it will be an extremely wrong thing if it is true, but ut is a matter which has to be considered in dealing with this that as each publication having apparently and admittedly, as I understand, said things of this kind, the fact that this book may be read by a few more people is not perhaps so serious as it would be in the case of a man against whom no such word had ever been uttered until now. In those circumstances I feel constrained to hold that no injunction can be granted at this stage.

I must add this. It has been said by Mr. Gallop in addressing me that these are disgraceful libels and I take him to mean that with regard to some of what he said at any rate it would not be fit matter for publication even if it be true. I express no opinion about that, but assuming defamatory words amount to an obscene libel, assuming they ought not to be published and that the Criminal Courts would prevent their further publication if an appeal was made to an injunction to the Plaintiff where in the case of words which were on the face of them free from any impropriety an injunction would not be granted. I think the true answer is if these words could be said to constitute an obscene libel there is a way of preventing their further publication. I have nothing to do with that, and I express no opinion whatever about it. I have decided this case exactly as I should have decided it if the words were written which no one could suggest had any taint of impropriety about them and against which the only complaint was they were defamatory of the Plaintiff.

Mr. Upjohn took up the attitude on behalf of the publishers that his clients must wait before they made up their minds whether they are going to justify, and he is not prepared to give any undertaking. I think in the circumstances he is entitled to take that view. It is obviously the fact that if at the trial the plea of justification fails and damages are awarded to the Plaintiff, Messrs Constable and the printers having taken up that attitude, run the risk of having to pay damages very greatly in excess of any they would have to pay of they had at once withdrawn the book from circulation. On the other hand they are quite entitled to act on the view, if they form it, that the words are justifiable and there will never be any damages awarded. It is for them to consider and not for me what is the true and proper course for them to take. I say nothing more about that. I have endeavoured not to say too much, and I only say that I must refuse the application on this Motion. The costs of the application will be costs in the cause.

Mr. Gallop:

If your Lordship pleases.

Mr. O'Connor:

My Lord, this is essentially a King's Bench action, a question of libel or no libel. Will your Lordship order its transfer to the King's Bench Division?

Mr. Justice du Parcq:

I cannot do that. It is not a matter for the Vacation Judge.