ALLEGED LIBEL.

Auckland Star, Volume XXV, Issue 149, 23 June 1894, Page 5

ALLEGED LIBEL.

A COUNTRY SCHOOL CASE,

CLAIM FOR £200 DAMAGES.

At tha Supreme Courb sittings yesterday afternoon, a somewhat interesting libel action was opened before Hia Honor Mr Justice Conolly, and a jury of four. Miss Anna Wrigley, the teacfler of the Fairburn Koad School, Mangonui, sued Mr .T. Fisiier, the Chairman of the local School Cbnanuttoe, ior libel, alleged to have been contained in certain letters addressed*, by the defendanb to the. Board of Education. Mr Campbell, instructed by Mr Cave, appeared lor tho plainxifi, • and Mr Cotter for the defendant. STATEMENT OF CLAIM. The statement of claim sob oub that the plaintifr was a certificated teacher under the Education Board of Auckland, and from Auguab, ,1889, up to December, 1893, held the appointment of teacher in the Fairburn Road School. The defendant from September, 1893, wa3 Chairman of the School Committee. On the sth of September he wrote to the Secretary of the Board of Education, asking the Board to appoint a male teacher instead of the present fomale teacher. The Commit" tee had offered her an opportunity to resign, which ehe declined to cake advantage of. Be added that tha Committee trusted ib would,, he unnecessary to enter into any detail, as it was hopeless to g9t on withoub a change. It was alleged that this meant that the plaintiff was gui'ty of misconduct and was incompetent and unfit to fulfil her duties. On the 20th October, 1593, the defendant further wrote to the. Secretary of the Board of Education in reply to a letter, asking the Committee to specify reasons why they desired n change of teachers. " They are —incompetence of the teacher, particularly inability to maintaiu order, and misconduct." On the 18th November the defendanb further wrote to the Board thab on the 15th insb. Mr Airoy inspected the school, and by arrangement made at) the instance of the Committee, held an interview with the teacher, at which the Committee was represented by three members. Ab that meeting the question of-the teacher's misconduct was gono into. On Friday, the 17bh, at four p.m., an assault with violence was made on the defendant, who had been induced by tho teacher to ineeb her then and there in .the school on business of pretended importance, the invitation being by letter. The defendanb, in his letter to the Board, eaid a Committee mooting would ba held soon, at which his aiticude would be considered, and the course to decide on in view of the outrage. It was alleged that the defendant meant that plaiutitt had been guilty, of misconduct, had assaulted the defendant,' and waa unfit for the appointmenb of teacher under the Board. On the 23rd November the defendant wrote to the Board that at a meeting of the Committee it was resolved to suspend the teacher for gross misconduct in connection with the outrage committed on the Chairman, nnd he wrote to the teacher accordingly. Finally the statement of claim said :—" In consequence of the writing and publishing of said letters or some of them by the defendant the said Education Board determined the engagement of the plaintiff as teacher of the Fairburn Road School, and tho plaintiff lost the benefit of such engagement and employment and emoluments thereof, and has incurred expenses in removing from Fairburn, and obtaining other employment, and has been, and i?, greatly injured in her character and reputation." THE STATEMENT OF DEFENCE. The statement of defence admitted that defendant wrote and published the letters, bub denied that they were written maliciously or falsely. The defendanb was ao the time of writing those letters Chairman of the School Committee of the district, and the Committee had the management of educational matters within the district, subject to the supervision and control of the Board and to inspection by the inspector. Prior to the bth September the Committee were dissatisfied with the management of the school, and aba meeting it was resolved that the chairman should apply to the Board asking for tho removal of the plaintiff and the appointmenb of a male teacher. The defendant accordingly, as Chairman, wrote to the Board, andheciaimedthatitwasa privileged letter. On or obout the 18th October the defendant, as Chairman of Committee, received a letter from Mr Rice, secretary of the Board of Education, askingthe committee to specify the reason why they desired a change of teacher. The conaraitteg, met on 20th October, and after considering the matter, resolved that plaintiff be charged with incompetence and misconduct. This he sent to the Board, and claimed ib was a privileged communication. On the 15th of NovemberMr Airoy,lnspector of the Board, i at the roquosb of the committee, had an interview with plaintiff in the presence of a quorum of the Committee, at which complaints made by the Cotnmibtee of the plaintiffs conduct were investigated. On the 16th November the plaintiff wrote to detendanb as Chairman of the Committee, inviting him to meet Her. Defendanb attended ab the schoolroom ab four o'clock on the 17th November. A Mrs Whitehead, a friend of plaintiff's, was present). Plaintiff informed the defendanb that the business she wished to speak to him on was tho charges made against her by tho Committee, and she demanded that defendant explain the reason why the charges were made. Mrs Whifcehead closed the door of the schoolroom, and said that she and the plaintiff would not allow defendanb to leave the room until ho had made the explanation. Defendant remonstrated with plaintiff on such conduct, j and endeavoured to leave the room, when j Mrs Whitehead struck ab him with the school .pointer, but he warded off the blow and succeeded in leaving the room. The Committee then resolved to suspend the plaintiff for gross misconducb, and tho chairman forwarded the rosofution to tho Board and the plaintiff. The defendant further denjed that plaintiffa engagement withtheßoard as a teacher has been determined by tho Board. Ha admits that she was removed from the school, but she was appointed to a school of equal value. He denied that she had incurred any expense of removal, as these were borne by the Board, and he denied that ehe had to eeek other employment, or that she had been injured in her character and reputation. EVIDENCE FOR IHE PLAINTIFF. William Henry Airey deposed to having examined the school under Miss Wrigloy's supervision in his professional capacity as one of the Inspectors for the Board of Education of the Auckland district. He considered the plaintiff a competent teacher. When he examined the Bcbool in November of 1893, which was the only time that he did so since Miss Wrigley went there, he found the school discipline was good, and his examination report for the year 1893 was Very satisfactory. By Mr Cotter : From a conversation which he had had with tho Chairman of the School Committee he gathered that a change in tho teaching staff of the school waa desired. He did nob propose to reporb to the Board the particulars of tho disagreements that had taken place between the plaintiff and the Committee. Tho truth was that ho had seen Miss Wrigley could not geb along with the Committee, and he had promised to make inquiries with a view to making peace between them, and if necessary to remove the teacher to some other place. He wenb in company with three of the

members of the Committee ,to the school about November 15tb, 1895, to sco Miss Wrigley and talk the mutter over. On that occasion he told the plaintiff that the Committee had stated that there were stories going about concerning the proprioty of her conduct, or words to that effect. If a scandal exiated in a school ib was not hie duDy Co report ib to the Board, but he would probably mention the matter to the Chairman of the Board privately. When a complaint was made to him of a teacher being immoderate in her actions, the course he adopted waa. to ask tho person informing him to make o»ub a written statement of the facts of the case, and he would then convey it to the Committee. He had asked Miss Wrigley to allow him to interest) himeelf in having her removed to some other school in order to arrive at a solution of the difficulty. Miss Wrigley declined his interference. Whilst witness was speaking to Miss Wrigley none of the Committee took part in the conversation, except once, when one of them made a reply to a statement by the plaintiff that the Committee had made her uncomfortable. Ie had appeared to him that the Oommittee believed the statements made aboub the teacher, though ha himself was careful to tell them ho did not accept) these statements as true. He could nofc recollect) Misa Wrigley mentioning the name of any particular individual ac having made these statements. Re-examined by Mr Campbell: Witness bad no recollection that the Committee man,* when writing ttf the Board, charged fcba plaintiff with misconduct and incompotency.. Ho had asked the defendant if the latter had charged Mm Wrigiey with immorality, and he said he did nofc. The statement; was that there was too great an fntimßcy existing between the teacher and a male friend of hers, or, to be moro specific, that the latter Was in the habit of visiting her hou3e too lute at night and of walking about with her along the road. The plaintiff objected to being removed to Borne •ther school on the ground that ib would be tantamount to admitting the truth of tha reports thab had been made concerning har.

Elizabeth Anna Wrigley, tho plaintiff in the acbion, deposed to having been in the employment! of tho Board for aboub 10 year?. The Fairburn Road School was opened on September 2nd, 1889. Plaintiff became the sole teacher of the school at that time, and continued to be so until the end of las* year. The first School Committee for tho district was, she believed, elected in April 1890, when M r Christianson was appointed Chairman.. Mr Christianson remained in thab position until June 1893, and nob the slightest complaint bad been made of her incom potency as a teacher up to thab time. About the beginning of July the keys of the school were banded to her by Mr Fisher, which was the first occasion upon which she had any.thing to do with the defendant in connection with ncliool matters. Up to September, 1893, Mr Fisher made no complaint of her incompetoncy as a teacher. She remembered Mr Rogers and Mr Fisher coming to the school on September Ist. The children woro present when they came in, but shortly after went away. Mr Fisher said" thab the Committee wished a change of teacher, whereupon plaintiff aaked him for what reason. She did not think any reason was given. Defendant told her thab if she did nob apply for removal he would write to the Board and would represent the circumstances in such a manner thab the Auckland Board wonld dismiss her, and thab she would nob then get employment under any other Board in the colony. Plain bifF refused to apply for removal, because she was unable to geb any reasons from the Committee for her so doing. The members of the Committee then interviewing hor asked ber to sib down and write the letter to the Board ab once, and on her refusing to do that, they said they wonld give her until Monday to consider the matter. They were very anxious that she should giv« them a reply whether she was willing to do ac they suggested, bub she refused, and they then wonb away. She wroto a letter to the Board on the following day. No further communication with the defendant was held on the subjecb until the time of tho examination, the 15th of November. She remembered having a conversation with Mr' Airey about thab time—when three members of tho Committee were also present. Mr Airey spoke to her and said thab tho Committee had informed him that some intimacy existed between the plaintiff and a gentleman which should nob have existed. She replied that she did nob see how such an intimacy could exist when she very rarely left the house ab which she resided. Mr Airey said that he did nob know anything about thab. Ho was only stating what he had been told, and thab there was no reason why a lady teacher should not go out when she was instructed to do so by the Committee. He also asked hor to allow him to effect her removal. Plainbiff declined the offer, for the reason that if she applied for removal ab that particular time there would appear to be some truth in the statements. When plaintiff declined, Mr Airey said to the members present that the Committee bad better put the Batter in writing and send it in to the Board, when an inquiry would probably be held. The Inspector and two of the members of the Committee then left. Mr Fisher remained behind and informed her that there was yet time for her to .write to the Inspector and alter the decision she had fciven. He tried to persuade her to do so, saying thab if she did not take this course, tho Board of Education would dismiss hor and thab she would be unable to geb employment elsewhere in New Zealand, or words to thab effect. The defendant did nob then, or at any time previous, tell hor that the Committee had made complaints to the Board concerning her. The first intimation ahe received of that was from a paragraph in the " Weekly News " of on or about November ll.th, in the report of a meeting of the Board of Education held on the 7th November. The paper referred to was handed in. Mr Cobter pointed out that the report'was inaccurate as the teacher of the school was described n.B "ho," and that in any case ib could not be accepted as evidence. His Honor upheld the objection. Witness, continuing her evidence, said that as a consequence of seeing thab report, she wrote to Mr Fisher on November 16lh asking him to meet hor ab tho school on the following Friday as she wished to see him with rogard to a matter of importance.' The defendant camQ to tho school at 4 o'clock on the day appointed. Mrs Whicehoad was there alao. When Mr Fisher came in she asked him if he had seen a paragraph in the " Weekly News," and he said he had nob. Defendant read the paragraph and then admitted that he had glancod. hurriedly through it. Miss Wrigley called upon him to explain the meaning of the paragraph but be refused to do co, putting her ofi' by saying thab ahe would hear from the Board all in £?ood time. Mrs Whitehoad was present, bub did nob interfere. . Plaintiff recollected Mr Fiaher referring to Mrs Whiteheud dur> ing tha conversation, when the latter told him she would epeak to him after Miss Wrigley had finished. Mrs Whitehead then asked the defendant why her name had been made public. Mr Fisher replied thab her name was already well known. A wrangle then ensued between the defendant and Mrs Whitehead, in the course of which • Mr Fieher pulled the pointer out of Mrs VVhitehead's hands and threw it down the hill on the aide of which the school was built. If there was any assault on that occasion ib was on the side of Mr Fisher. The defendant subsequently went over to his house, but came back again to say that if he thought fit he would reporb the whole matter to the Board. Mrs Whitehead replied that she would probably bring him to account for

| his conduct that afternoon. To this Mr (Fisher made an ungentiemany remark and then went away. • Plaintiff remained as teacher-of tho school until tha following Tuesday when theCoinmictee hold ameeting and decided to address her v letter suspendi ing her appointment as teacher. The Committee thon closed the school. That) was the 22nd November, 1893. Since j that time, she did not receive any I requests from the Committee to resume .toacbinsr. She began to toacha native school in February lasb at Kaikohc, under the Wellington Education Department, but her present situation was not so remunerative as her previous one. By Mr Cotter : Plaintiff knew*the defendant from the time he came to the settlement, which was about throe years ago. Prior to the time when Mr Fisher became the Chairman of the School Committee to all appearances good friendship' had existed between them. On one or two occasions she had dined at his house. She had been on the game terms both with Mr Christianspn and Mr Fisher ; she was quite sure of that. Before the defendant became one of the Committee she had beard reports connecting her name with that of Mr Christianßon. The latter was a married man, and had eight or nine children. . The reports reached her ears through Mrs Whitehead, with whom she was living. On one occasion she was told Ibab ib had been said she had been out walking with Mr Christiansen. The facts, however, were,thab he had- come to a house ab which she had been visiting, and as his- way lay in the aatno direction as hers they both walked home together. She also* heard that Mr Christianson was visiting the Echool too frequently. When she mentioned to him tho rumour thab was going about, Mr Christianson said that he visited the school as Chairman of the Committee, and that his business was solely connected with his duties as Chairman.