ISLAND BAY LABEL ACTION.

Evening Post, Volume LXXXI, Issue 51, 2 March 1911, Page 8

ISLAND BAY LABEL ACTION.

" CIiAIM FOR £50 T>AMAGES. 'A libel -action arisrngvout-of ,a- dispafr*. 'Sefcween neighbours a* Island Bay, was> heard= brfore the Chief Justice (Sir - J Robert Stout) and a ymyxjf four to-day. .Tie j>arties were Lionel Wilfred Hill^ plaintiff and William and Edith Matilda Witts, defendants, the claim being .for £50 damages. • Mr. A. H. Hindmarsh appeared for.plaintiff, and Mr. A. Gray for defendants. - The statement of claim set oof that iji'aintJff. resides in Tamar-street^ 'Island 7?ay, and that defendants live next door. ,On 31st October, 1910, the female defendant falsely and maliciously wrote and published in Tamar-street, and in fbhe vicinity the following letter : "You" (meaning the plaintiff) "miserable rat-faced,,.spitef nl man. It is a pity you should rnn down and make objec(tions for spite to worry a sick man" [{meaning thereby that plaintiff had out oi mere wickedness in order to worry a aick man drawn the attention of theiWellington City Engineer to a breach by fche male defendant of the by-la-ws). "I iKaje told all the neighbours, and they isaid _thafc if Will is made to' alter, through your spiteful tales, they 'will all jcome and help him to aller it, so that >your spite won't hurt us" (meaning that •decent people would assist the male deIfendanfc). "I won't forget you, and ,your day will come. You .would be too .much of a coward to do it if my husfband was well" (meaning that plaintiff ■ ihad been gnßty of contemptible conduct), "and let me tell you I will* stop r your spite and give you' a good thrashing myself or try to if you don't mind. lEdith Witts. P. S.— Rat-face is riot my name for you. Other' people gave it /you." ' , In a plea of justification, it was set* out that defendant William Witts was, and ie to the, knowledge of plaintiff, a chronic invalid, suffering from a painful malady, which frequently incapacitated ■him from working, and made it necessary that he should be kept free from, iworry and trouble. For some time prior' to 29th October, 1910, Witts had been*engaged j to the knowledge of plaintiff, in building a -small addtion to his house during his spare time, when he wa* not incapacitated by illness from working. Defendants say" that no complaint whatever was made to them concerning the< addition- although the parties daily ''held friendly intercourse as neighbours: When, the addition was almost completed, plaintiff, without giving any' warning, ■wrote a letter of complaint to the" City' .Engineer, and procured a building in-i specter to examine the building, and to order it to be shifted on the ground' that although it waa in line with the ■main building it was contrary .to a xe<;ent bylaw, placed one foot too near the ■boundary of the property. Defendants, had not bean aware of this bylaw. The conduct of plaintiff in makng the complaint and the results thereof -when brought to the knowledge of Witts, co acted upon his mind as to cause a serious recurrence of his malady. 'Li opening,' Mr. Hindmajvsh said that plaintiff did not desire to make money, but to put a stop to an unpleasant state of affairs. Witts was building a small -^workshop near his house, and plaintiff •^r-ent to Mm in a civil way saying that "ißi. breach of the by-laws was being commritted. Defendant would not. lisett to •ireaaon and said, "I don^" wish to talk to :you." Plaintiff then drew th&- attention; ■erf tie City Council authorities to the 'matter, anSTVitts was" .compelled to re"iimove ,the/,building. - When spoken to he •lad only done a little .work, and it .would not have caused him' -much inconvenience to shift it. Emma Hill, wife of plaintiff, stated .that one evening Mrs. Witts used the epithet "rat face" about twenty times in' her hearing. Mrs. Witts also said, "You expect me to apologise, but I jim nofc--going 'to." • • Mr. Gray read the letter to the City Council complaining of the erection of the building, on l;he ground that it would be a permanent injury to the adjoining property. Witness denied having laughed 'at Mrs. Witts, or having called her bad names. Mr. Gray : "Have you not said to her, "Get a looking-glass. You will find that rat-face applies to both of you?" 1 Witf^s : No. If she says so will you contradict it? •—Yes. Mr. Gray submitted that no case to ,go to a jury had been made out. The letter contained terms ueed by an angry Eerson, but plaintiff's reputation had -not een. injured. Plaintiff had been called a nick-name, which, at worst, was only an abusive epithet. ' . His Honour decided that there waa a doubt, and the case should go to the •jury. In opening his case, Mr. Gray said the case was just a neighbour's quarrel. Wm. Witts said the parties liad been on, the best of terms up to this occurrence. The trouble was owing to the fact that the workshop blocked some of the light. ' Mr. Hindmarsh suggested that the illness was a sham. In her evidence, Mrs. Witts stated that th& illness, eczema, was very seri- • oub, and plaintiffs were well aware of tliis. Witness denied encouraging her 'boy and ten other children to Call out " v rat face."' Before writing the letter complained of Mrs. Hill greatly provoked her. His Honour said that as the letter was only shown to the wife, it could only injure Kirn if it lessened her affection for him. If the jury merely considered the words as abuse they might cot be libellous. The jury retired at 1 p.m. At 2.30 p.m., the jury brought in a yerdict for the defendants. , On Mr. Gray's application, judgment was entered accordingly, with ■ihe usual CO3tS. ' /