LIBEL ACTION.

Auckland Star, Volume LXVII, Issue 117, 19 May 1936, Page 8

LIBEL ACTION.

FRIENDSHIP BROKEN. LETTER BY WOMAN. "SOME CASUAL HARM." An action for libel, in which an agreement. for settlement had been made in February las-t, but had not been fulfilled, came before Mr. Justice Callan in the Supreme Court this morning. It was stated durjng the hearing that a, letter falsely and maliciously written to a young woman acquaintance of the plaintiff had led to. an end of that acquaintance. The plarntlfl in the action was Thomas Robert Goodisson (Mr. Glaister), farm hand, of Papatoetoe, and the defendant Miss Clara Genevieve Thompson, farmer, of Warkworth.

The subject of the libel was the following letter written by the defendant to a young woman in Epsom: "Would you be kind enough to ask Goddisson to return the blanket and tools he stole from my property before leaving; also the police is waiting a reply from me before making arrest. Beware of him as he is a liar and a thief." There was no signature to the letter.

No defence was filed to a claim for £10 for special damages (the cost of identifying the author of the letter) and also £190 general damages. There was no appearance of the defendant this morning.

Mr. Glaister said that the matter was really settled in February last, when it was agreed that £50 should be paid by the defendant and an apology written. The sum of £10 was actually paid, but later the defendant ignored requests for the balance and refused to sign an apology. In reply to his Honor as to what steps had been taken to bring the knowledge of the hearing of the action before the defendant Mr. Glaister said that her solicitor had been in touch with her, but she would not give any instructions. His Honor then stated that it would be required to lead such evidence as was necessary on the question of damages. Coolness after Letter. The plaintiff, in evidence, stated that prior to August" last year he was in tin* employ of the defendant. After he left he was forwarded by the young lady in Epsom the letter which she had received, and which was unsigned. This young lady was a friend of his. Later he received the actual- letter, and after some trouble, identified the handwriting as that of - the ' defendant. The young lady in Epsom was on good .terms with him prior to the receipt of the letter, but afterwards there was a coolness. He had since not had any communication from her or seen her with one exception.

His Honor: Tlie defendant evidently thought that the young lady in Epsom was a person who would be seeing you. Witness: She had observed the fact that I was in correspondence with her. His Honor: Is it damages for an interrupted incipient romance that you are after ? Mr. Glaister: They had not reached the stage when I could say that something might have happened which did not happen. When his Honor asked if there was any covering letter to the, plaintiff when he received the letter which the defendant had "written, plaintiff said that in effect there was a note hoping that what had been written was not true. In reply to further questions by his Honor, plaintiff said that, he rang the young lady arid went out to see her. When he arriVed she had a-girl friend with her and did not invite him l as she usually did. He arrange'd to take her to the theatre next evening, and she arrived • with her girl friend. Theatre Visit Off. Plaintiff said he did not take them to the theatre. It jvas not a question of refusing to rise to the occasion and taking them both, but he inferred that he was not trusted, so he did not go to the theatre.

His Honor: She brought the other girl as a chaperon? —Yes. " His Honor: At any rate, her reception of you was not encouraging, so you dropped the matter? —Yes. Mr. Glaister said that he recognised the difficulty in establishing the damages, but it had to be taken into account that there was no attempt at apology until a writ was issued. There was a general tardiness to put the. matter right, which should be taken in>o account in the consideration of damages. These should be as much as was offered in-the settlement. His Honor said that he was not inclined to take a serious view of the matter, and was certainly not inclined to fix the damages higher than had been agreed between the parties. The sum of £10 had been paid, and he thought justice would be done by giving judgment for a further £40. The letter went no further than to the person to whom it was posted, and it was no fault of the defendant's if it went further. It had done some casual harm, but in effect was not serious.

His Honor then gave judgment for £40, and certified for Supreme Court costs when Mr. Glaister had explained certain difficulties in bringing the matter to the Supreme Court, and not the Magistrate's' Court.