Crowley v. Constable & Co., Limited and Others

Publication of the Book, Laughing Torso

10-13 April 1934

In 1932 the author Nina Hamnett published a book entitled Laughing Torso. In it, she recounted several anecdotes about Crowley including a reference to him having "practised that loathsome thing known as Black Magic." Crowley considered himself to have been libeled by her and sought an injunction to cease production of the book.

On 20 September 1932, Crowley's attorney, Isidore Kerman, served a writ on Nina Hamnett's publisher, Constable & Co., to immediately cease production of Laughing Torso until the courts heard Crowley's libel complaint. Two days later in Vacation Court, Chancery, Crowley argued that Hamnett's collection of anecdotes about him were indecent, vulgar, and ignorant. They were equally untrue. and he couldn't understand how the book came to be written. On 22 September Justice Lawrence ruled that the injunction against Constable & Co. should stand until a 5 October 1932 hearing.

On 5 October, the injunction Crowley v. Constable and Co., Limited and Others came to court. After four hours' testimony and fifteen minutes' consideration, the injunction was defeated pending the outcome of the pending libel suit.

On 10-13 April 1934 the libel suit was held in the High Court of Justice, King's Bench Division, before Mr. Justice Swift and a Special Jury. On the third day the trial was paused by Justice Swift with the following words:

"Members of the Jury, a little over thirty-five minutes ago you intimated to me that you had made up your minds about this case, and that you did not want to hear any more about it. I pointed out to you that before you could stop it Mr. Eddy was entitled to address you. I also pointed out to you that you could only stop it in favour of the Defendants, and not in favour of the Plaintiff; that is to say, you cannot stop it an find a verdict against the Defendants until they have completed their cases. I also pointed out to you that before I took your verdict I must be satisfied that you understand the issues that you are trying.

 

"If you are still of the same mind, and think that you have heard enough of this case all that I have got to say to you about the issues is that the Plaintiff has got to prove that he has been libelled. The Defendants have got to prove that the libel was justified. The Plaintiff has got to prove that his reputation was damaged. If you think that the Plaintiff fails on the ground that he was never libelled, or if you think that he fails no the ground that his reputation was not damaged, or if you think that the Defendants have justified, then your verdict should be for the Defendants. You cannot, at this stage, give a verdict against the Defendants. You may, at this stage, give a verdict against the Plaintiff.

 

"I have nothing to say about the facts except this: I have been for over forty years engaged in the administration of the law, in one capacity or another, I thought that I knew every conceivable form of wickedness. I thought that everything which was vicious and bad had been produced, at one time or another, before me. I have learned in this case that we can always learn something more if we live long enough. Never have I heard such dreadful, horrible, blasphemous, abominable stuff as that which has been produced by the man who describes himself to you as the greatest living poet."

The jury stopped the case, with the foreman saying they were unanimous in finding a verdict for the defendants.

Judgment was thereupon against Crowley and given for the defendants, with costs. Crowley would later appeal the decision in this trial on 6-8 November 1934.

Additionally, as a result of personal correspondence produced as evidence by Crowley, he was later arrested on 21 June 1934 and later forced to stand trial on 24-25 July 1934 for being in possession of stolen property, namely five letters belonging to Betty May, a witness in the Crowley v Constable proceedings.