SLANDER ACTION AGAINST AN R.A. AND WIFE.

Auckland Star, Volume XLI, Issue 16, 16 July 1910, Page 15

SLANDER ACTION AGAINST AN R.A. AND WIFE.

■TnVTiAGB TttTUB TATTLE, AMAZING ATOTTBSTOK. Cffrom Oni Special Correspondent.) .XXWtDOaf, Jnne 3. For five days last week and this Mr Justice Grantham and a jury were occupied Hiearing a most extraordinary slander case, •in which Mr Briton Riviere, the well known artist and Royal Academician, and his wife i were the defendants, ami airs Cole the! plaintiff. The alleged slander was uttered by Mrs Riviere, but the law of tbe land makes tne husband responsible for his wife's tongue and pen, hence the R.A's unhappy position.

The alleged slander was a particularly cruel one. Mrs Cole <wns the daughter of a fanner of Jtimdesley, Norfolk, and she married Cole in ISOO, one child, a little girl, being born. Cole carried on business as a draper and grocer, but the business did not flourish. Mr William Suffolk (Mrs Cole's uncle), -who lived at UJundesley, gave the pair financial assistance. Mr Cole committed an offence against the law, and his j wife by shielding him was guilty of an offence, and the Tesult was tnat they left secretly for Ixradon, where now and again Mr Suffolk assisted them. Tien Cole and Ibis wife were arrested, the hnsband receiving six months' imprisonment, and the -wife one month. After her imprisonment, Mrs Cole found life intolerable at her father's farm, so sac returned to londcra. and lived in a flat with her uncle, who kept her and the cMld.

Soon after rwas released Irora prison a collection was made among the Mundesley people, and £30 was subscribed to give him a new start, among the subscribers being Mr and airs Riviere. MeanwMle Mrs Cole kept house for her uncle. A day or EO alter -the 'husband nad dispatched some •Christmas presents to bis -wife and daughter in 1308, he received A LETIEB. FKOMJ MBS EJ.VXKKE, •In "which this passage occurred: "Have you ever inquired iwliettter It (would be possible for you to set -a divorce without coming over? As your "wife has this other baby, it ought to *>c easy lor you to get if, as it requires no proving, .and If you get it you can many again." Cole's first action was to ■write a letter to his wife, in which he addressed her as ■her uncle's prostitute, cursed her and the alleged child "from generation to generation," and briefly, addressed iher as a woman too vile to live. Mrs Cole answered hds charges with indij .aant denials, and demanded tho source of his information. In repjy, Cole mentioned Mrs Riviere as Ibis informant, anil, challenged ihis wife to 'bring an action for slander against that lady. Meanwliile, 'Mrs Biviere fcad again written to Cole a letter, which contained, the ■words:— "I cannot think you can Tcisih for you* •wife to %o out after what I have told you. If she cirme out she "would only waste your money, and bring your little girl pp to be as bad as herself." Mrs Cole then consulted a lawyer, and entered, an action against Mr and IJrs Kiviere. The latter, wnen called upon, in court to justify Iher statements, made £he most - cfi tounclin pr admissionsI Mrs Biviere did not now assert that it was true that a baby 'had been born, but she had given particulars in mitigation, of damages, in which she asserted that during tie time <3ole was in prison and since his release, the plaintiff had been living Iα tocest with ncr uncle, TfiZiam SuffolE. Her charge wifli regard to the baby appeared ■to be BASED OS TII/I/AGE GOSSIP, to the effect that Mrs Cole had been seen witn a baby in her arms. The defendant pleaded that the occasion was privileged, on the ground that .'her relations "with, the eigrocer Cole were in some way so confidential, that she was justified in willing to him iv such, terms about bis wife. It was inconceivable that it should be so. The alleged privilege =was based on tfre statement that! Cole had written Mrs Riviere four or five letters about his position ±n Canada, and asked for money for a store. What ihad ■this to do with his marital relations?

The plaintiff, .;in cross-examination, admitted that her husband wrote a letter to tier father, her mother, and her little girl Noran, on November 17, Iα which. lie stated '"I am ashamed of my wife; . . , . she carried on with that brute before she left Mundeslej-."

Continuing, witness said that while 'her husband was in prison she and her child and her uncle were living together at No. 66, .New Kent-road, op to April, 1907. After Jier husband left for Canada, iwitness continued to live at No. 66 with her uncle. Sme used never to speak of her uncle as "her irusiband" to the lodger. She "never called berself "Mrs Suffolk" to the lodger. A Mr Jarvis occupied the eecond floor. Her uncle slept on a portable bedstead in the kitchen in the basement.

Opening the case for the defence, Mr submitted that the letters in question -were written by the defendant in THE D-ISCHAiEGB OP A MORAL. DUTX, ■which, she owed to the husband. Mrs Riviere really believed thut tlie plaintiff !had had a chad by some other man when she wrote the letters. That toeing so, the jury would lave to find her guilty of express malice before they could find a verdict for the plaintiff. When the plaintiff compained, Mis Riviere immediately wrote to the husband saying she was SORRY FOB. THE MISTAKE. Mrs Riviere, examined by Mr Avory, said that she 'had 1-ong known Mr Cole, the grocer, in the village of Mundesley, and that efae knew Mrs Cole merely as Us wife. In 1906 she heard of their getting into trouble, and being sent to prison. She subscribed •■with a number of other people to enable him to be started afresh, in life. Mr Avory: "What led you to make the statement that his wife iiad another baby? I HEARD IT FRAM A PARLOURMAID, who had .been with mc for 13 years. Continuing, witness eald-that at the time of fixe letter she did not know who wua the lather, but, knowing the character- of the plaintiff, witness thought it was a likely thing that she should have a. baby. In cross-examination Mrs Riviere said i that Mrs Robinson, who 2iad ma.de the statements to the witness, was the wife of a Norwich doctor. Witness understood from Mrs Robinson •that the plaintiff was living in adultery wifih her upcle. In all Mr Cole's letters he complained of his <wife'e unkindI ness. Witness did not know that Cole and his wife had lived in the same rooms with Mr Suffolk for a. month. Had she known that she wouM not have believed in the guilt of the plaintiff so quickly. •Mrs Tice, the plaintiff's mother, in reply to •Mγ Avpry, eaid £he had often tried to persuade" iher to come away from iMr Suffolk. Continuijrg lier evidence, 'Mrs Tice said that after Cole -wen-t to Toronto, she spent! a few nights with her brother and Mrs Cole at 66, New Kent-road. She thought then •tlint something improper -was going on, and it made her unhappy. A Mrs Jarvis, .who piad Jived at 66, New JSfint-roaO, eaid. she bad- told Mis Cole '&&t

•«a» pugit not to stay there. No reason was stated, but Mrs Cole knew quitewea iwhat phe meant. There; -n-as ; bed in tie front parlour," and there was no slsn of a bed or a bedstead in the Mtehen. was eiven by a number of the hew Kent-road neighbours. Mrs Gordon Thompson, furniture dealer, said Mrs Cole first called herself -Mrs Bussell. She told -witness that. -was * niece of Mr Suf folk, bat sue was living -svith as his wife, and could not live with Him hf any other way, as he .was so baa-tempered. COaughter.) When witness went to No GO, New Kent-road, the bed in the back room ■was disused. When witness asked Mm Oole where she slept, she eaid that eha slept in the front room with her uncle. and that they did not intend to have child. : ren. Mrs Cole confessed tne adultery ■ about six months after her hnsband went ■away, and witness never had any quarrel

Mr Justice Grantham, in summing m ruled that the comimmicatioiis were not an* could not be privileged. In his view Chen was no duty on the part of Mrs Riviere tt make the statements which she did to M» Cole. So far as he could see, Sirs Riviere had repeated the tittle tattle of the villagi to Mr Cole, without any question being Put by the husband. He thought the jurj •would regard with great suspicion th« evidence they had heard that day. it -was almost incredible that the plaintiff should so on living with her uncle after the libels were written tmless she -were innocent. Hia Lordship said that in his view the only question for the jury was one of damageeT' JehaS W6re ,maW * to agr6e —««*