LIBELLING A LADY DOCTOR.

Auckland Star, Volume LI, Issue 73, 27 March 1920, Page 19

LIBELLING A LADY DOCTOR.

DAMAGES AGAINST SISTER-IN-LAW. In the London Court before Mr. Under-Sherlff Burchell and a Jury Dr. p Edith: O'Neill "described as a widow, to recover images for libel contained in a letter and Densham appeared for the plaintiff. Q The defendant was not present, nor was she „ ThTcafe had been remitted from tbe * High Court for tbe assessment of damages „ judgment having been allowed to go by "'liTopening the plaintiff's case, counsel ( said when tbe jury heard the nature of the c case they would not be surprised that the _ defendant had not appeared. The plain- , tiff was a professional woman holding a c public appointment, and the defendant had p written a series of gross an* aggravated t libels on her sister-in-law. The plaintiff was one of the County Council doctors at Stoke-on-Trent. She married some years ago and bad a daughter about 12 years old, who was living with her. Unfortunately, owing chiefly to the plaintiff's husband s • determination not to support her, Dr. Conswell was obliged to leave him, and for'some years she had been maintaining herself hy exercising her own profession, and she bad also maintained -her daughter. The defendant, who was a sister of Dr. Cogswell's husband, seemed to have taken 'some offence at the marriage of her brother 'Percy 10 the plaintiff. Anyhow, she began, rather more than a year ago. a system of , perseculon by a series of libels In a letter , and ou postcards. The jury would recog- , r.ise that for a lady in tbe plaintiff's posl- ] tion, who was exercising the profession of , ja doctor and employed by a public body j 'like a County Council, these matters were , I most serious. They would hear that the , j plaintiff, being anxious to avoid trouble with the family. Cld ber best to induce tbe defendant to give an undertaking to cease the annoyance. The first postcard com- _ ] plained «f was written by the defendant. , to the plaintiff, and dated Jan. o. 101 S. It j I read: \ "Percy's mother is dying at 191, Queen's j Road. Temperature 104 for three days. ' INo fire: no one to attend her. I am in bed. I told you 1 could not keep the two." Percy, counsel went on to say, was the i plaintiff's husband, aud apparently tbe deftndani was indignant because the plaintiff was not keeping bim as well as her child. On November 13, 191S, defendant wrote: "Will you ask Dr. Mary Cogswell what she Intends to do with regard to the film j business? Double joints." I The 6ugsest!on was that Molly. the i plaintiff's daughter, was to be trained for I the films, and he supposed "double joints" ! was a recoDdite reference to acrobatic perj formances that the child would have to learn. As a fact, the child had always ' been living with her mother, and was being thoroughly well educated with a view to I her following her mother's profession as a ' doctor. In a subsequent letter the defendant wrote: j "Percy wants Molly at once to put on the filing to earn a living." I This suggested that plaintiff's husband wanted his child to support him. The next letter was more serious than ail, i and counsel did not think there could be [a more gross libel. It was written by the I defendant to the plaintiff's little daughter lon may and read as follows:— "My dear little Niece.—What is your I mother going to do with father? She has j left him ever since yon were born. It is I a wife's duty to look after her husband. Tour mother threatened to leave him unless he worked. He was brought up as a gentleman and cannot do it." It was evident, counsel remarked, that the defendant thought a gentleman's duty was to be a parasite. The letter continued: "He has a double rupture and is ill. and wants his wife to look after him. She salß she would drown herself If he did not marry her. Well, she married him. What more does she want?—l'our affectionate annt. Edith O'Neill." P.S.— I am writing to the County Council all about her. She -could not find a man, so my brother proposed to her wben be was , drunk. Tell your mother yonr father Is :In -, and in two weeks' time the workj honse." After that the plaintiff felt It necessary to take proceedings, and iv response to a solicitor's letter the defendant wrote: j "If Mrs. Percy Cogswell wishes to wash ;her dirty liven in public let -her do so. ?he lis Wrish, and I am English with a little bit of Irish mixed with it." | Another letter referred to the fact that I Tercy was ill and unable lo Join the Army, land asked: "How the devil does she think jhe can work on tbe land?" The defendant j was asked to apologise and give an under- : taking not to repeat tbe annoyance, aud. Ito pay £2 10/ toward the expenses. She I promised to do so, but signed the under- | taking "without prejudice." which, of j course, was no signature at all, and she , I never paid the £2 10. I Plaintiff bore out her counsel's state- . ! The jury assessed the damages at £25. . ! Judgment was given. accordingly with