DAMAGES FOR LIBEL

Dominion, Volume 29, Issue 199, 20 May 1936, Page 13

DAMAGES FOR LIBEL

Unfulfilled Agreement For Settlement JUDGE .MAKES ORDER By Telegraph-—l're>s A.fswiatioii. Auckland. .May 19. Ah action for libel in which an agreement for settlement had been made in February last but had not been fulfilled came before Mr. Justice Callan in the Supreme Court to-day. It was stated during the hearing that a letter falsely and maliciously written to a young woman acquaintance of plaintiff bad led to an end of that acquaintance. Plaintiff in the action was Thomas Robert Goddisson (Mr. Glaister), farm-hand, of Papatoetoe, and defendant, Miss Clara Genevieve Thompson, farmer, of Warkworth. The subject of the libel was the following letter written by defendant to a young woman in Epsom: “Would you be kind enough to ask Goddisson to return the blanket and tools be stole from my property before leaving; also the police is waiting a reply from me before making an arrest. Beware of him as he is a liar and a thief.” There was no signature to the letter. No defence was filed to the claim for £lO for special damages, the cost of identifying the author of Hie letter, and also £l9O general damages. There was no appearance of defendant.

Mr. Glaister said the matter was really settled in February last when it was agreed that £5O should be paid by defendant and an apology written. The sum of £lO was actually paid, but later defendant ignored requests for the balance and refused lo sign an apology. Plaintiff in evidence stated that prior to August last year be was in the employ of defendant. After he left he was forwarded by a young woman in Epsom a letter which she had received and which was unsigned. This young woman was a friend of bis. Later he received the actual letter and after some trouble identified the handwriting as that of defendant. The young woman iu Epsom was on good terms with him prior to the receipt of the letter but afterward there was a coolness. He had since not had any communication from her or seen her with one exception. His Honour: 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 Honour asked if there was any covering letter to plaintiff when he received the letter which defendant had written plaintiff said that in effect there was a note hoping that what had been written was not true. Mr. Glaister said he recognised the difficulty in establishing damages, but it had to be taken into account that there was no attempt at an apology until a writ was issued. There was a general tardiness to put the matter right which should be taken into account in consideration of damages. These should be as much as was offered in the settlement. His Honour said he was not inclined to take a serious view of the matter and was certainly not inclined to fix damages higher than had been agreed between the parties. A sum of £lO had been paid and he thought justice would be done by giving judgment for a further £4O. The letter went no farther than to tlie person to whom it was posted, and it was no fault of defendant’s if it. went farther. It had done some casual harm but in effect was not serious.

His Honour then gave judgment for £4O and certified fur Supreme Court costs when Mr. Glaister had explained certain difficulties in bringing tiie matter to the Supreme Court, and not the Magistrate’s Court.