Skegness Magazine

1918
Shorthand in Three Days
Alleged Libel Action
DUTTON v PITMAN
Dutton’s System Written at 150 Words a Minute
Verdict for the Plaintiff

Before Mr Justice Darling and a Special Jury

Mr Reginald John Garfield Dutton, the inventor of Dutton’s shorthand system, claimed damages for alleged libel from Sit Isaac Pitman and Sons (Limited). The defendants denied that the words complained of constituted a libel and they pleaded fair comment on a matter of public interest.

Mr Lewis Thomas, KC, and Mr Patrick Hastings appeared for the plaintiffs; Mr McCall, KC Mr Douglas Hogg, KC, Sir Hugh Fraser, and Mr J A Slater for the defendants.

[Picures: above, Mr George Dutton; below, Sir Isaac Pitman.]

Mr Lewis Thomas, in opening the case, said that Mr Dutton was a member of the Institute of Journalists and of the Royal Society of Arts. In early days he represented in East Anglia the Central News and London newspapers. He studied Pitman’s shorthand, but he was never able to master it. Later he took up the Script system of shorthand and became a teacher of it. He gave attention to shorthand from a scientific point of view and he came to the conclusion that it was possible to construct a system better than any in existence. In 1916 he published his system. He contended that by learning 29 characters and six simple rules a person could acquire his system in three days. He never meant that a person could take down a rapidly spoken speech after three days’ study. Mr Dutton did not complain of criticism, but he did complain of unfair and untrue criticism. The defendants had the monopolist spirit of old-established interests, and as soon as the system threatened to be a successful trade rival they employed a Mr Cope to write a criticism of Dutton’s shorthand, which would pour ridicule on Mr Dutton and smash him by suggesting that his was a useless and deceptive system. Three thousand copies of the criticism were printed in the form of a booklet and were distributed not only in England but in New York and Melbourne. The criticism contained the passage:
“If we are to credit the claims made in abundant newspaper advertisements and in extensively distributed circulars, it is now possible for us all to be delightfully and easily hustled into shorthand in the remarkable brief space of three ordinary days! The prospect is truly fascinating! On Monday morning you wake in entire ignorance of any system of shorthand! On Thursday morning you wake with the glorious consciousness that you are a real, genuine, bona-fide shorthand writer! Miraculous, isn’t it?
“But – and that quarrelsome little conjunction will intrude to mar the most charming of impressions – what is it that you can acquire in three days? Can you by any conceivable process or with any conceivable scheme become a shorthand writer in that extremely limited period? … Well, if you are prepared to devote eight hours out of every twenty-four to the study of any subject you can make appreciable progress. You could learn to add, subtract, multiply and divide, and you could commit to memory a good deal of the multiplication table by steadily working at the task for eight hours daily on three successive days. In a sense that would be “Arithmetic in three days.” … In twenty-four hours study spread over three days you could get a knowledge of the consonants and vowels of the French words, and acquire a score of the commonest French phrases. This in a sense would be “French in three days.” But you could not read Moliere or Anatole France, and you could not write a letter or hold a conversation in the language. By assiduously bending all your energies to it you could in three days gain a good general knowledge of the consonants and vowels, the use of the hooks and circles, and the prefix and affix signs of Pitman’s shorthand. This in a sense would be “Pitman’s shorthand in three days.” But unless you were an excessively boastful or an excessively simple person you would not at the end of that period attempt to pose as a shorthand writer.

“The fact is you can do something in three days. You can do something in three hours. And we shall undoubtedly see the announcement one of these days, “Shorthand in Three Hours.” Why not?

“Already the experienced writer will see alarming possibilities of confusion! He will see more of them when he penetrates further into the surprising developments that are to be crowded into three thrilling days of “sheer delight,” … Its ambiguous alphabet; its use of a hook to represent short e, i, u, oo, t, or d; its resort to lengthening to add either l or r and to thickening to add s, z, n, or ing; and its vague rule for general abbreviation combine to give it a unique capacity for producing hopeless illegible characters … It may be true that the system can be acquired in three days. But of what use will it be afterwards? The competent shorthand writer aware of the real requirements of actual shorthand work will have no difficulty in supplying the answer, and in supplying it promptly and emphatically.”

The Plaintiff’s Evidence

The plaintiff, in evidence, said that many of his pupils were now engaged in Government Departments.
Mr Justice Darling: I believe that there is also a system – though not one of shorthand – by which you can become a general or and admiral in a very short time. (Laughter).

The witness added that the booklet containing the alleged libel was sent to him by a clergyman whom he had never met.

Mr Hastings: Is it not very difficult for one person to read another’s shorthand?
Mr Justice Darling: I should think so. It certainly is so in longhand. (Laughter.)

The witness said that his system was less likely to lead to confusion than other systems. He wrote a number of words on the blackboard, and explained his system.

Mr Justice Darling: Will you write a word that any reporter might have to write – Ludendorff, for instance.
Mr Hastings: That word will not be wanted much in future. (Laughter.)

Mr Lewis Thomas: Rub it out, like its owner. (Laughter).

The witness said that he had seen one of his pupils write at the rate of 200 words a minute. The average pupil could attain from 120 to 140 words a minute, which was sufficient for business. Reporting in the Press Gallery of the House of Commons required a speed of from 160 to 200 words a minute.

Cross-examined by Mr McCall, the plaintiff said that he only claimed to teach the theory of his system in three days. After that the more people practised the less they had to think when writing.

Mr Justice Darling: Is it your object to add to the number of persons who write without thinking? (Laughter).

Mr Arthur Vinden, one of the reporters of the Official Debates in the House of Commons, said that he had been a writer of Pitman’s system for 25 years. He had studied Mr Dutton’s system. He acquired the theory in 38 hours working intermittently. Recently he tested one of Mr Dutton’s pupils and she wrote at 160 words a minute with ease. She transcribed the notes quickly and accurately.

Mr Justice Darling: There will have to be another gallery for ladies in the House of Commons now. They will soon be in the Press Gallery.

The witness added that in his view Mr Dutton’s system was a good system which could be very easily acquired.

Cross-examined by Mr McCall: He had spent about 38 hours learning Mr Dutton’s system. He was able to master all the forms within that time in the second edition of “Dutton’s System”, not the “Shorthand in Three days”. He could not say at what speed he could write after 38 hours, as he did not try for speed. He could not write Dutton’s shorthand at any speed because he not had any practice. He considered it could be acquired quicker than Pitman’s system, which he had used for 25 years.

His lordship decided to give witness a test. and. looking at some law books, remarked, “Let us make sure it is something he does not know by heart.” {Laughter.) He then gave witness a dictation from “Chitty on Contracts.”

After taking down a few words, witness put down his pencil and said “I cannot take it at that speed.”

His lordship then took up another book on trade union contracts, and started to read a passage, but witness said he could not write at the speed his lordship was reading.

Mr Lewis Thomas: Your lordship was reading at a rate of 120 words a minute.
His Lordship: Oh, no.

Eventually witness occupied two minutes in making an extract from the book. He was then asked to read over his notes, but he was unable to decipher certain words.

Re-examined by Mr Thomas: His familiarity with Pitman’s system would somewhat hinder him in studying Dutton’s, as some of the forms clashed with Pitman’s.

Further evidence was given by former lady students of plaintiff. They included Wrens, WAAC’s and Members of the Royal Air Force.
Mr Ernest George Dixon, Principal of the Hammersmith Institute of the London County Council, said that in 1917, owing to inquiries as to the Dutton system, he obtained official sanction for classes for teaching it. In May 1918, there was an examination in all systems of shorthand, and three of the pupils among the first four had taken the Dutton papers. In an examination at the Birmingham Educational Institute, for which he examined, pupils attained 140 words a minute with the Dutton system. The system, after it had been acquired, would be useful, but three days’ work would not give and result of value to a shorthand writer.

Cross-examined by Mr McCall: Promising students might attain a speed of about 80 words a minute in one session of 30 weeks with an average of three hours a week at work, or 96 hours.

Miss Frances Nina Frith, secretary to Mr Dutton at the Skegness Institute, examined by Mr Thomas, said that she became a student of Mr Dutton’s system in March 1917, and she applied for a certificate in an examination of the National Union of Teachers for testing speed. The examination was held at Skegness towards the end of April. She obtained a certificate for the rate of 80 words per minute. At the Royal Society of Arts examinations at South Kensington she had obtained a certificate for 140 words a minutes. She had obtained other certificates at examinations of the same kind, and had reported a speech of a member of the Government at the Mansion House.

Mr Patrick Hastings at this point read a passage from a law report and the witness took it down for a minute at the rate of 150 words a minute, and she read the passage from her note to the jury.

Cross-examined by Mr McCall: She had known something of the Script system before she learned the Dutton system, but she had never attained any speed, and she only knew the theory. She began the theory of the Dutton system in the textbook “Shorthand in Three Days. ” Her work covered about 17 hours, and she could write 80 words a minute in about sis or seven weeks. Other pupils have approached the same standard. There were women at the Skegness Institute who wrote 120 words a minute with the Dutton system.

Mr McCall submitted at the close of plaintiff’s case that there was no case to go to the jury. He said that the claim as to slander of title had been dropped, as admittedly there was no evidence or special damage. There remains nothing now but the personal libel and he submitted that there was no evidence of libel.

Mr Lewis Thomas agreed that there was no case with regard to the slander suit.

His Lordship said that he would not withdraw the case from the jury, but would consider the law when the evidence was closed.

THE CASE FOR THE DEFENCE

Mr McCall then addressed the jury on behalf of the defendants. He said that the only question was whether the article complained of was a fair criticism of a book which, on the face of it, had expressly invited public criticism. A book might be criticised more freely and severely than conduct and character, and even where literary criticism was wrong the right of criticism was valuable. Lord Bramwell said that admirals and generals and writers of books were all subject to criticism, and were all the better for it. Every book might be criticised strongly, for it invited criticism. The case did not raise a question of rival systems. If they found that the criticism on Dutton’s system was applicable to other systems it was quite immaterial. The question was whether the criticism of Mr Cope, the writer of the article on Mr Dutton’s system, was honest. The plaintiff has put in the instructions given to Mr Cope by the defendants, and it was not suggested that the instructions were improper or that there was any malice in them. Mr Cope knew nothing of the Dutton system, and he examined it without bias, except that so far as he was a student of Pitman’s system he might be unconsciously biased. The scientific principal of any shorthand or very similar forms should not readily mean two different things. The criticism of Mr Cope was that the same word, the same form, written by fast writers might mean a number of things, and such precautions as were taken in Mr Dutton’s system were what Mr Cope called hand-racking devices. The only question for them was whether Mr Cope’s criticism was fair and without malice.

Mr Edward Albert Cope, the writer of the article, called by Mr McCall, said that he was a shorthand writer and journalist and president of the Incorporated Photographic Society. He was taken by Mr McCall through many technical details which differentiate systems of shorthand. He received instructions to write the article; he had no ill will against Mr Dutton.

Cross-examined by Mr Thomas: Mr Dutton’s system was of value up to the point of enabling a note to be taken quicker than by longhand. The system was not workable. The advertisements of Mr Dutton could not be said to be absolutely true or untrue. In a sense they were untrue; like most advertisers, he exaggerated. His (the witness’s) instructions from the defendants were not to criticise the book but to criticise the system; but the system had no existence outside the book, and he could not get the system anywhere else. He did not know whether Messers Pitman wanted the article because, as they said in the instructions, there were many inquiries as to the Dutton system; nor did he know whether they wanted it to be advantageous to their system or not. He saw the article through the press and read the proofs. He did not know that the article had been sent to Australia and America. He had written about other systems of shorthand. He had said that the Dutton system was worthless, though he admitted that after the exhibition of the woman’s skills in Court he could not maintain that view unless he had further opportunity of closely examining her writing. He was paid 50s for the article.

Mr Ellis Powell, who is the Editor of the “Financial News” and a member of the Bar, said that for 32 years he had been a writer of shorthand. He agreed generally with the defendants’ criticism of the plaintiff’s system. In Mr Dutton’s system confusion might arise between the two sentences: – “He took his sweetheart for a walk in the dingle” and “He took her for a walk along the dunghill,” as the last word in each had the same outline. There would be the same outline for “Zeppelin”, “prison” and “person”. There was the same outline for “curse” and “caress”.

Mr Thomas, cross-examining, asked the witness if he had ever heard of the Pitman shorthand writer in the Courts who took down the sentence, “He was digging in the trenches” and afterwards read it as “He was digging in the Attorney-General.” (Laughter).

The witness: He must have been an escaped lunatic, not a shorthand writer.

Mr Thomas: I suppose that some escaped lunatics practise Pitman’s shorthand as well as other systems?

The Witness: There are escaped lunatics at the Bar. (Laughter).

Mr Thomas: Well, you have escaped from the Bar. (Laughter.)

Mr Ellis Powell admitted in cross-examination that in certain cases if the student followed the position rules correctly the mis-transcriptions he had quoted would not occur.

Mr Charles Baker, editor and proprietor of the “Newspaper World”, said that Mr Dutton’s system was not an accurate phonetic system of shorthand whereas Pitman’s was. He came to the conclusion that it was not a system which he could advise the readers of his journal to adopt for rapid reporting.

Mr George Emery said that he had been engaged in shorthand writing in the Law Courts and elsewhere since 1887. He agreed generally with the criticism of Mr Dutton’s system. He himself wrote the Purton’s system. He could trace the history of that system to 1804 when it was taught in a college at Pentonville.

Mr Justice Darling: Not the college at Pentonville that you are thinking of Mr McCall. (Laughter).

Counsel then addressed the jury on behalf of their clients.
Mr Justice Darling, summing up, said that the alleged libel was on the plaintiff’s personally, and not on his system of shorthand. It was complained that he had been ridiculed. Many people were ridiculed every week in “Punch” and some were hardly ever omitted. As regarded the latter. He could not help thinking that they would be very much distressed if they were left out, because it would indicate that nobody was taking any interest in them. (Laughter.) But ridicule of that sort was not actionable. A person could not say anything about the discovery of America without saying something about Christopher Columbus. It did not follow that because a man’s system was ridiculed the man himself was ridiculed. A man might condemn a system in very strong language, using irony, caricature, sarcasm or exaggeration, but none of these forms must be used unfairly. If a person did not misstate the facts he might absolutely condemn a thing. But if a man used a weapon to defend himself, as he has a right to do, he must not use it unfairly. Lord Esher, when Master of the Rolls, dealing with a summing-up of Mr Justice Field, said if criticism was “no more than fair, honest, independent, open, even exaggerated,” then the verdict must be for the defendant. Again Lord Bowen said, “The criticism is to be fair – the expression is to be fair – the only limitation is the expression”.

In the present action it was the expression of the opinion which was to be fair; the opinion could not be complained of – in other words, was the unfavourable opinion fairly expressed or maliciously expressed.

After deliberating for an hour and a half, the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, awarding one farthing damages.

His lordship said that the damages were really contemptuous, and very much doubted whether it could be accurately said that an attack had been made upon the plaintiff’s character. It could only be by a very strained interpretation of the words used that they got a libel upon the plaintiff as distinct from a very drastic criticism upon his system of shorthand, In these circumstances, he thought there really was no ground for bringing the action. The right to criticise was very extensive, and people who claimed that their goods were better than anybody else’s must be prepared for pretty plainspoken criticism.

Judgement would be entered for the plaintiff but without costs. With the respect to the claim under slander of title which had not been proceeded with, there would be judgement for the defendants.

Photo below: an advert for Pitman’s Shorthand which appeared in a 1920 Skegness newspaper.