Wednesday 3rd March 1915

A Gardener's Claim to a Peerage

Unsuccessful Libel Action

Tooth v. News of the World (Limited).

(Before Mr. Justice Avory and a Special Jury)

     The jury found a verdict for the defendants in an action which George Tooth, who had put forward a claim to the Waterford peerage and estates, brought against the proprietors of the News of the World, to recover damages for alleged libel.

     Mr. McCall, K. C. and Mr. Russell Davies appeared for the plaintiff; and Mr. R V Bankes, K. C. and Mr. Hugh Fraser for the defendants.

     Mr. McCall, in opening the plaintiff's case, said that the action was brought to recover damages for an alleged libel contained in a report of judicial proceedings  published in the News of the World, which the defendants claimed to have a circulation of two million copies a week.

     The plaintiff was a gardener, who claimed to be entitled to the Waterford estates. That was a claim which it was not necessary to do more than indicate, but what the plaintiff said was that if he had his rights he would be the sixth Marquess of Waterford, as being the legitimate child born in 1872 of the fifth marquess and his wife, who had formerly been a Mrs. Vivian.

     The plaintiff's claim having been put forward, the trustees of the estate and the infant marquess in 1913 began an actio0n in the Chancery Division for the perpetuation of testimony. In those proceeding a Mrs. White was examined as one of the witnesses.

      She had been in the employment of the fifth marquess and his wife, and she gave evidence tending to show that the plaintiff was not the son of the marquess, but was the illegitimate son of a girl names Tooth, whose sister had been employed in the establishment of the marquess.

     After that evidence had been given the plaintiff was ill-advised enough to bring an action against Mrs. White for slander, and the allegation he made against her was that, in giving her statement to the solicitor representing the trustees, she spoke and published  of the plaintiff what was defamatory.

      As a matter of fact, that statement was privileged. An application was made on behalf of Mrs. White to strike out the action on the ground that it would not lie.

     The Master made an order striking it out, and his order was eventually affirmed by the Court of Appeal, the proceedings being reported at The Times Law Reports.

Accusations of Perjury and Murder

     When the decision of the Court of Appeal was given the plaintiff naturally felt that a stop had been put on proceedings which he thought would have decided his claim to the Waterford estates.

      In his despair at that decision he took a course of which nothing could be said except words of condemnation. He wrote to Mrs. White in the form of three postcards a most serious accusation that she had been guilty of perjury and murder.

     Mrs. White or the trustees of the Waterford estates, prosecuted the plaintiff for a criminal libel.

      He was brought before a magistrate ad committed for trial to the Central Criminal Court, where the case came before the Recorder and a jury. In a criminal prosecution for libel there was only one possible defence, i.e. justification, and that could only be relied on in a criminal court when the defendant delivered a plea of justification, with particulars showing that the statement made was true.

      In this case such a pleas could not be framed, and therefore there was no defence to the charge made, and the plaintiff, acting under the prudent advice of his counsel, pleaded 'Guilty' and was ordered by the Recorder to enter into his own recognisance's to appear and receive sentence if called upon, and to keep the peace for 12 months.

     No evidence was given before the Recorder, but a statement was made by the prosecuting counsel in which he detailed the proceedings leading up to the prosecution, and stated the effect of the post cards which the plaintiff had written to Mrs.White.

     Mr. Russell Davies, who appeared for the plaintiff on that occasion, explained the position in which the plaintiff had been placed, and the Recorder then pronounced the sentence of the Court, taking care in what he said to separate the question of the libels written by the plaintiff from the question of his claim to the Waterford Estates, with which he (the Recorder) said that he had nothing to do with.

     Every newspaper was entitled to publish a fair and accurate report of those proceedings, and most London newspapers did so.

     The defendant company apparently had no representative at the trial, but some one in the office composed a report based upon the reports appearing in the Morning Post and the Morning Advertiser, adding certain headings and comments of which the plaintiff rightly and properly complained.

     That report which appeared in the issue of the News of the World of September 13 1914 was headed: Lies Nailed Down. Sequel to Gardener's Claim to Peerage. It contained a passage which said that by his plead of 'guiltily' the plaintiff could no longer support his claim to the peerage.

     A transcript of the official shorthand not of the proceedings at the Central Criminal Court was read by Mr. Davies, and the plaintiffs case was closed.

     Mr. Bankes said that he did not propose to call any evidence on behalf of the defendants.

     Mr. Davies addressed the jury on behalf of the plaintiff.

The Defendants Contention

     Mr. Bankes on behalf of the defendants, submitted that the report published by them was a perfectly accurate one, and that the comments made were fair.

     The plaintiff, according to his account was born in 1872 and if that was true he came of age in 1893, 22 years ago.

     During the whole of that time no proceedings had been taken by the plaintiff to establish his suggested rights.

     The result was that in 1913 the trustees of the Waterford estates were bound to take the evidence of old witnesses might die before the plaintiff instituted his proceedings.

     When the action for the perpetuation of testimony was brought by the trustees the Waterford family actually paid for the plaintiff to be represented by counsel.

     After those proceedings were over and Mrs. White had given her evidence, the plaintiff wrote post-cards to her, saying that she was a wicked liar and murderess, signing them 'Sixth Earl of Waterford.'

     At the Central Criminal Court the plaintiff admitted that the statements made on the post cards were untrue.

     If Mrs. White's evidence stood, it was vital to the plaintiffs claim because unless he could dispose of her evidence, his chances of being sixth Marquess of Waterford were about as great as his (Mr. Bankers) of being the next Emperor of Germany.

     Mr. Justice Avory having summed up the case, The Jury returned a verdict for the defendants, Judgement was given accordingly.

Solicitors - Messrs. Turner and Co; Messrs. Smith Rungell, and Dods.

News of the World March 3rd 1915 

The Times November 13th 1917 

The Times 30th January 1918 

The Times 1st February 1918 

Times Editorial February 2nd 1918 

The Times February 2nd 1918 

The Times Law Report February 26th 1919 

The Times A Solicitors Bill February 27th 1919 

Ada Gertrude Hudgell 

George Tooth