SLANDER PROVED

Auckland Star, Volume LXXII, Issue 136, 11 June 1941, Page 8

SLANDER PROVED

MAN CLEARS HIS NAME

DAMAGES AGAINST WOMAN

Judgment in an action for slander which was heard in the Magistrates Court on May 21 by Mr. I-. H. Levi en, S.M.. was delivered by the magistrate this morning, when he awarded the plaintiff. Richard Punch, a bookbinder, of Seabrook Avenue. New Lynn, one quarter of the damages he claimed from the defendant. Mrs. Bradley, also of Seabrook Avenue. Plaintiff claimed from defendant £100 damages, sustained by reason of the defendant falsely and maliciously speaking and publishing to plaintiff's two sisters, his daughter and another woman, on December 9. 1910. the following words. "He killed his wife and I have definite proof he did it. He is a thief— swindled his brother out of his propertv." "Anger Took Possession

"The evidence showed that on December 9. 1940. Mrs. Bradley, who lived opposite plaintiff in Seabrook Avenue. New Lynn, deliberately waited for him on the footpath near his home as he was returning from his work about 6 p.m.," said Mr. Levien in his judgment.

Plaintiff, added the magistrate, was a returned soldier in indifferent health, who lived with his two sisters and a daughter, his wife having died some time ago. "The evidence, as is not unusual in cases of this description, is difficult because of sides being taken by friends of both parties." continued the magistrate. "The defendant, in my opinion, al'owed her anger to take possession of her under circumstances that lacked justification for a.nger. In my opinion also, the defendant did use the words. 'He killed his wife.* and the words 'he swindled his brother out of his property—he is a thief and I can prove it.' in the presence of Mrs. Sewell and others, some of whom had been called to the scene by the defendant."

"I find it difficult under all the circumstances to come to the conclusion that the expression. 'He killed his wife.' is actionable, but with reference to the other words used by the defendant, it does appear to me that the words are actionable as they stand, and also in view of other explanatory expressions used by defendant to the plaintiff which indicated that she had busied herself to find out details of the alleged swindling. The plaintiff said in evidence that he did not press for the full damages claimed, but wished rather to vindicate his good name in a locality where, apparently, people were inclined to loose talk."

Mr. Levjen assessed the damages payable to plaintiff at £25 and gave judgment for this amount, with costs and witnesses' expenses. At the hearing. Mr. J. J. Sullivan appeared for the plaintiff and Mr. Hall Skelton for defendant.