NEW TRIAL.

Auckland Star, Volume LXVIII, Issue 54, 5 March 1937, Page 8

NEW TRIAL.

FARTHING DAMAGES

CLAIM FOR SLANDER.

VERDICT CHALLENGED.

JUDGE GRANTS APPLICATION

On the grounds that the damages awarded at the first trial were "too small. and that the verdict

of the jury, in so far as it related to the damages, was against the weight of evidence, a motion asking the t ourt to grant k new trial of the action, Wrack v. Bekker, was argued before Mr. Justice Callan in the Supreme Court this morning. Mr. Singer appeared for the plaintiff. Mr. Xorth, with him Mr. Field, appeared for the defendant.

The actions were heard on Wednesday of last week, when Marguerite Metre Wrack sought £400 damages in each of two claims alleging that the defendant, William John Bekker, a retired soap manufacturer, had uttered slanderous statements concerning her. The jury found that the slanders had been uttered and awarded a farthing damages in respect of each of the two claims. The question of costs was reserved bv his Honor.

In support of the motion for a new trial, Mr. Singer first drew the Court's attention to the nature of the charges contained in the slander. The charges were the gravest that could be laid against the character of a woman. There was no provocation on the part of the plaintiff to justify the slanders made by the defendant. His Honor's Comment. His Honor said he felt that in view of the nature of the slanders the damapes awarded were too small. If the verdict of the jury was due to general disapprobation of the plaintiff, that would not justify so small an amount of damages being awarded. The only way so small an amount could be awarded was if the jury decided that the slanders did not do the woman any harm, because they were believed. Mr. Singer traversed the evidence given in the trial. He said the slanders uttered were totally outside any relationship of the parties. Therefore there must have been a motive, and Mr. Singer submitted that the jury had not taken the question of motive into consideration to the extent t they should have. When plaintiff refused to marry Bekker, the latter, submitted Mr. Singer, uttered the slanders to prevent her from marrying anyone else. r ' Singer then quoted several authorities dealing with slander actions and the question of damages. If ever there was a case where the damages awarded should be sufficient to vindicate a woman's character, such a case was the present one. The awarding of one farthing damages in view of the grave character of the slanders, said counsel, showed that the jury had not properlv considered its duty. Mr. Singer said a farthing damages to a woman whose character was unassailable was not a fair verdict, and if the \erdict was unreasonable, then the i Court should not prevent her from getting a new trial. Application Opposed. In opposing the application for a new trial, Mr. North submitted that the verdict was not a perverse one. The onlv way a new trial could be justified would be if it could be shown that the jury's verdict was a compromiser and left the judge entirely dissatisfied. Mr. North said it was quite admissable for the jury to take into consideration the plaintiff's conduct in relation to the defendant. It was permissable for the jiyv to believe that the plaintiff had not had anv intention of marrying defendant, and had simply egged the old man on. The jury was entitled, taking all the circumstances into consideration, to conclude that the defendant was a stupid old man, who had made statements which nobodv believed and, therefore, no harm had been done.

His Honor: Yes, but if the statement is repeated over a period of a couple of months, the person hearing it micrht begin to think there was something in it. His Honor, in granting a new trial, ■said that whatever view was taken the jury was really not justified in awarding as low as a farthing damages for the utterance of the gross slanders. Costs on the former trial and to-dav's motion were reserved.