BARBED TONGUE OF SCANDAL

He Spoke Out of Turn and Slandered Woman 's Name and Reputation

DAMAGES AWARDED HOUSEKEEPER

(From "N.Z. Truth's" Special Christchurch -Representative.)

If there is one man m the South Island who should subscribe to the theory that big.things originate from small beginnings, it is Thomas Bowen, a farmer, of Ward Street, Cheviot. The first day of March is one he will have cause to remember, as, from a small discussion about a few bottles of beer, Bowen was involved m a financial outlay of over £100.*

BOWEN is not the average type of irian. who takes his liquor like a gentleman and goes quietly home. On the night m question he became obscenely voluble, lost control of his tongue m a fit of anger, and attacked the character of a defenceless woman within the hearing of herself and two other residents of Cheviot. Some Aveeks later Bowen was fined £20, the maximum penalty, for indecent language, and he was ordered to pay another £50 m the Christchurch court a few days ago when the woman, Dorothy Ethel Nicholls, successfully sued him for slander. \ \ The plaintiff, a married woman, is engaged as housekeeper for Lancelot Harold Pruden, proprietor of the Cheviot brewery. . On the evening of March 1, Bowen called at Pruden's house and endeavored to purchase some' beer, and on being refused became abusive. When he got out on to the i-oad, Bowen adopted the role of traducer, describing m most vile and objectionable, terms the character of Mrs. Nicholls, and commenting obscenely on her position m Pruden's household. Pruden accompanied Bowen down the road where a fight occurred and

Lot of Trouble

took what he thought was his share out of Bowen's hide. As the result of the incident, both men', were brought before the court, Bowen being fined £20 for indecent language, and Pruden being convicted and discharged for assault. When Mr. C. S. Thomas opened the case for the woman, who claimed £300 damages against Bowen for slander, he told Mr. H. P. Lawry, S.M., that he had never heard a more disgusting slander m his life. N With this view the magistrate concurred, and added that when he had heard the indecent language charge against Bowen at Cheviot' he would have sent him to gaol without the. option had it not been for particular private circumstances. For that reason he had inflicted the maximum fine; Mrs; Nicholls stated m crossexamination by Mr. W. J. Hunter, counsel for Bowen, that she did not hear Bowen use her name m connection with the words, but he must have been referring to her as she was' the only woman m the house. She admitted" that she' jvas 'separated from her husband, who was a stock buyer m Nelson. Mr, Thomas: I object to this line of cross-examination. My friend is trying to get indirectly that- these words were- true and therefore 'there was no slander. . ' Mr. Hunter: We can't prove any-

thing against her character _m general terms and we are not going to try, but I submit that the character of plaintiff is relevant m mitigation of damages. Mr. Thomas submitted that m a case where- chastity was questioned, the words themselves were actionable without proof of. damage. Some days after the incident Bowen, ,thrbugh his solicitor, wrote to Mrs. Nicholls offering £25 and a public apology, but the woman considered this was insufficient to heal the wounds inflicted by the barbed tongue of slander. Mr. Hunter mentioned this fact to the court, stating that his client had done his best to obviate a court action. Mrs. Nicholls stated m reply to further questions that m October, 1927, her husband had commenced divorce

proceedings against her and had cited Pruden as' co-respondent on the grounds x>f impropriety, but the petitipn and* allegations had been withdrawn by 'leave of, the court. • ! Subsequently a deed of separation had been - drawn up under which her husband took the children and paid her £1 a week maintenance. She had been staying with Mrs. Pruden • from September till November, 1927, and it was during this period 'that Nicholls alleged that impropriety had occurred. In October, 1928, after Mrs. Pruden and her bjusband. had separated, Mrs. Nicholls took the position* as .: housekeeper to Pruden. ..._ ' . ; \ ; ..■ , . Mrs. Nichblls! told Mr. Hunter that Bowen's slanderous attack on her on the .night of the incident had caused trouble all over Cheviot. '„ She admitted that she had no women friends m the place and that she had not lost her position.

Mr. Hunter suggested that had it not been for the police court action against Bo wen and Pruden no one m the place- except Harris and Clark, two men who overheard the words, would have known anything about it. Mrs. Nicholls said she did not think £25 and a public apology were sufficient recompense for the damage she had suffered. Mr. Hunter: Well, what more did you want? Mr. Thomas: Would you have any women you knew called what this woman was called and 'take , the same terms m settlement? When re-examined by counsel, Mrs. Nicholls said her husband had withdrawn his charges of impropriety against her. Constable Frederick T. Poole, stationed a.t Cheviot, was called to prove that Bowen was not drunk on the night of the incident. The constable stated that Bowen had called at the police station at 9.45 p.m. an«d he thought he was m quite a fit state to drive his car away. He had had liquor and was excited, and looked as though he had had a fight. He described Bowen as a decent

"Beer and Abuse?"

chap, certainly v not a drunkard, but given to occasional drinking bouts. . Sidney Arthur Clark, an employee of the Cheviot Motor Company, and John Thomas Harris, a laborer, living m a whare near the scene of the incident, both heard the words complained of. Clarke said -Pruden was very annoyed with Bowen and gave him a good hiding after he used the words. Mr. Hunter intimated to the court that he did not propose to call any evidence. x Mr.Thomas: Won't you put him m the box and let me have a go at him? ' . "Mr. Hunter submitted as a defense that Bowen, after being refused the beer, became abusive and anything he said >vas drunlcert abuse and not intended to maligjn the woman whom, he "actually did. not know. .'He had been by Pruden and fined £ 20. by. the court, and counsel suggested, 'that, he had adequately punished. "It was purely a. case of a drunken man using foolish words m the heat of passion." " > t Mr; Thomas intimated that though his client had claijned £300, he under-r stood that she bbuid not. hope to obtain judgment for that amount. The magistrate dispensed, a monetary balm of £50 with which the plaintiff can soothe her injured feeling, and an amount of over £14 was added as legal etceteras.