Welsh Newspapers

Search 15 million Welsh newspaper articles

Hide Articles List

39 articles on this Page

_.!The Ardiamont Mystery.

News
Cite
Share

The Ardiamont Mystery. </ j MONSON AND THE WAXWORKS EXHIBITION. Judgment Given To-Day in the Appiica- tion for an injunction Against the Tussauds. Justices Mathew and Collins this morning J*ve their decision in the cases of Monson and Tussaud (Limited), and Monson v. touis Tussaud, in which the plaintiff, Mr. Alfred John Monson, who was lately tried at Bdinburgh for the alleged murder of Lieutenant Sajnbrough at Ardlamont, when a verdict of Not Proven was returned, sought to ^ave an interim injunction granted pending the trial of the actions he had brought restraining the defendants from exhibiting- models of him in their waxworks, the former in Marylebone-road, London. and the latter in the Winter Palace 1>a.Yilion at Birmingham. It was also sought to ^strain the defendant, Louis Tussaud, from j ksuing certain advertisements in connection *ith his exhibition of the model. The Hon. Coleridge, Q.C., M.P., and Mr. Cooper Wyld appeared for the plaintiff; Mr. Finlay, Q.C., ? jlr. Percy Gye, and Mr. H. Wace for Madame fuasaud (Limited), and Mr. T. Willes Chitty tad Mr. E. Pollock for Louis Tussaud. Judgment. Mr. Justice Mathew, i. giving judgment, said this was an application to restrain the oefen- dants until the trial of the action from publish- ing. exhibiting, or causing to be exhibited, a Portrait model of the plaintiff, and advertising Monson, or placarding the same in any way to 'his injury. The ground on which the exhibit! on of which the plaintiff com- ,Plained was calculated to disgrace him and e4pose him to public obloquy and cont81llpt. It 311 was made disgrace him and been conceded in the course of the argu- ment that any right that the plaintiff had to complain depended upon the principles that pnderlay the law of libel. It was not suggested ■*oat on any other ground the exhibition of this :Portra it model could be restrained. The plain- tag was a person who was tried in Scot. hed for the murder of Lieutenant Kambrough. Itnd with him on this suspicion there was associated a man bv the name of Scott, who had tied from justice. The trial of Monson ended in the verdict by a Scotch jury of "Not Proven," and J^ter the trial, and after the verdict, this exhi- bition, of which the plaintiff complained, was "tst made by the defendants. Monson Complained that the exhibition called public attention to the fact that he had been suspected or an atrocious crime. The Cll.se for the defendants was that they had made I *o imputation whatever upon the plaintiff, but I that the plaintiff had become noto1:iou8, and Whenever a man became notorious, either for Masons creditable or discreditable, the defen- <lants were at liberty to exhibit his portrait to ftatify public curiosity with reforonce to him. III the Chamber of Horrors at Madame Tus- j^wid's there v/as the scene of the Ardiamont Tragedy, giving a view of the spot where the body of the unfortunate Lieutenant Hambrough ^&8 found. The figure of Monson, it was true, 1\ras not in the Chamber of Horrors. If it had "ean placed there, could it be contended that it *as not placed there for the purpose of Connecting it with what was called the ■Ardiamont tragedy, and suggesting that he i one of the persons suspected of the murder ? -The learned counsel for Madame Tussaud i pointed out that the figure of Monson was not llJ. the Chamber of Horrors, but eJsewhere, in a foem where there were three othcr ligures-those (Mrs. May brick, Pigott (a witness in the ftmell Commission), and Scott, the missing man. Ahere were also in the room relics of the great ^apolean and the Duke of Wellington. What !Vaa the proper inference to be drawn from this '&ct P Did it make any difference that the figure Monson did not appear in the Chamber of Uorrors F To his mind it did not. It appeared 10 him that the putting of the figure in the *joom was intended to connect Monson with a jhscreditable matter. It was near the Charn- er of Horrors where the scene of 'the tragedy was exhibited, and, therefore, it Seemed to him that the placing of the model was Attended to connect Mr. Monson with the Jaurder. Lnder such circumstances as these he houghu a jury oug'ht to find that an actionable tecng had beea done to the plaintiff; and. that Ofcing so, the only question which remained was hether the court ought to exercise that power > ;;nd restrain the further ^hioition of the model until the trial of J, e question. The learned counsel for Madame issaud stoutly resisted the suggestion that sy imputation was mode on the plaintiff by the ^hibition of the model or intended to be con- After; the trial at Edinburgh the plain- must be treated as an innocent man, and it be said it would be possible to find a jn money to relieve him from the misery v .nicted upon him by the continuing' of the exhi- Jtoon. He thought the mischief which the Jj^ntiff „ wanted to avoid would be One if between this time and the trial the actions the public were permitted to be fstantly remined that the plaintiff was the Person who was suspected of this murder. In jposs circumstances, in the case of Madame &ssaud he considered the injunction ougrht to 06 granted. The Case TOP Louis Tussaud. In the case of Louis Tussaud the facts were *°sncwhat different. The figure of Monson, fowever, was near to the turnstile lead- to the Chamber of Horrors, and his advertisement inviting the public to visit he exhibition Louis Tussaud said See Vaillant, .Qe French Anarchist; see Monson, of Ardia- mont." That was the company in which the Plaintiff was placed. Under all the circum- 'ances, the injunction would be gi-anted in this C £ lse also. Mr. Justice Collins concurred. He said the Contention was that a man might as milch be defamed by pictures and models by written and spoken words, and therefore 'he rights of the plaintiff in these cases must be Measured by the standard applicable to the ^a-ses of lib^l. What the defendants said was tht what they had dor.eg wasi not libellous, ftl1d that no imputation was conveyed. There *as unquestionably a distinction of "fact between toe two cases, and the case in London was perhaps more clear than the case at Binning- "&m. But in his judgment the facts, in so far *8 they differed, were really only the Jinge, so to speak. of the real tacts of the case. The substance of the matter fas common to both cases—that this figure of Monson was exhibited for money in an exhibi- "SOQ existing for the purpose and carried out in be manner in which Madame Tussaud's exhibi- *on was carried out. He thought under these Oreumstances that the injunction must go. Mr. Gye, for. Madume Tussaud, asked for a Itay of execution, with a view tÐ an appeal. Mr. Coleridge said he had no objection tö a ^ay jf the effigies were withdrawn until the appeal was decided. Mr. Gye I object to that. Such a. course Jfor.ld be equivalent to saying that the injunc- Olons wore pvbsohtely granted. Mr. Justice Mathew said of course leave ^ould be given to appeal, and as the matter ^Ould be disposed of, as the court had every reason to believe it would be, almost imme- jhatoly, there appeared to him be no necessity '0 direct the withdrawal of the effigies in the meantime. The application for a stay appeared 10 him to be a reasonable one, provided that all fcompfc steps were taken to have the appeals heard soon as they possibly could be. If there was delay of course that would involve certain I -°n sequences. Mr. Ernest Pollock said of course he joined on *«alf of Louis Tussaud in asking for leave to aPpeal. Mr. Justice Mathew said that leave to appeal tlould be granted in both cases. Mr. Coleridge said in view of the morbid .^riosity which would be aroused, especially in he next few days, he thought the leave to iPpeal ought to be accompanied by a direction .withdraw the effigies meanwhile. j, -*fr. Justice Mathew No, no. I hope also rjftjtt our judgment will be borne in mind, fhe appeals must be marked "urgent" and every be taken to obtain the decision the Court of Appeal without delay. If there ax any likelihood that a considerable length i time would elapse before the appeal was card we might have considered whether we ^ould order the effigies to be withdrawn, but anticipate that the appeals will be heard in days, This closed the proceedings, and the crowded was soon cleared.

rHE AMERICAN COAL TRADE.

CARDIFF SENSATION.

THE FIGHTING IN MOROCCO.

THE BRAZILIAM REV0LT.

THE ANARCHISTS ABROAD.

SCANDAL IN HIGH LIFE.

THE MITCHELL-CORBETT FIGHT.

A Troopship Overdue.

!How Crews are Shipped. .

THE MATABELE WAR.

DOG VERSUS MONGOOSE.

MR. MONSON'S PAMPHLET.

LABOUR TROUBLES IN ITALY.

CARDIFF FREE LIBRARY.

Arrested on an American Liner.

A Newport Mystery.

TAFF VAWR RESERVOIR.

ENGLISH COAL TRADE,

Mr. W. H. Meredyth at Newport.

A Singular Story.

Duke of York to Visit Worcester.

[No title]

- Marrying a Stepfather.

TO WALK ROUND THE WORLD.

Fuel Works on Fire.

POLITICAL ITEMS. 1"" 11

TO-DAY'8 SHARE MARKET.

[No title]

1111■1■.....,,-.-.-.-To -…

HER l06TH APPEARANCE.

To-day's Racing.

[No title]

The Turf Sick List.

Advertising

Yesterday's Coursing.

NEATH TRAMWAY COMPANY.

Advertising

--. The Spring Poet.