WOMEN AT LAW

Evening Star, Issue 19197, 13 March 1926, Page 3

WOMEN AT LAW

SLANDER ACTION DISHONESTY AND WORSE IMPUTED DAMAGES AWARDED. [Pell Uf!mu Press Association] WELLINGTON, March 12. A case with many unusual iu which £BOO damages were claimed!, for alleged slander, was heard before liis Honor Mr Justice Sim and a jury of twelve to-day. The parties wor* Eleanor Heap, wife of Walter Heap, • salesman, of Wellington, plaintifF, and Elizabeth Green, a. married woman. Tinakorj road, delendant, who was sued iu respect of her separate estate. Mf A. Dunn appeared on behalf of plaintiff, and Mr O. C. Mazcngarb for doiendant. Plaintilf stated that while employed as a saleswoman by Macdufis, ol Cuba street, defendant falsely and malicioußly published concerning her a statement t.i Mr Richards, of Macdufis, that the plaintiff had stolen tobacco, iu consequence of which she was summarily dismissed. On the same day, December 23, 1925, defendant further stated to plaintiffs husband: “Stanislaus has been out at night with your wife, and misconducted himself with her. He is. in Macdufis every day seeing your wife, lie takes her homo from work every night to Courtenay place,” whereby plaintiff’s reputation and character bad been greatly injured. She claimed special damages of £IOO for the loss of employment, £350 in respect of the allegations as regards theft, and £350 in respect to the allegations regarding a did ten*—a total of £BOO.

Mr Dnnii, for plaintiff, said the defence did not plead jutification. The fact of the matter would b© shown to be that defendant was madly jealous regarding Stanislaus, who had been a friend of hers for ton years, and she bad made the allegations in spite. The jury bad not to decide whether the statements were true or not, nor would counsel for the defence be permitted to cross-examine witnesses to prove them true. The defendant said that the charges were not true, but that she believed them true when she made them. . .

Mr Mazengarh: No. All we say is that the defendant made the charges believing them to he true, Mr Dunn said that if the defendant believed the .statements to ho true she would ho privileged. His Honor would direct them as to privilege, and assuming that defendant was given the benefit of privilege she would be protected, unless it could bo proved she was actuated Irv malice.

The defence denied the publication of the statements, as allegedly made, but admitted thinking, from information supplied by Vincent Stanislaus, that the plaintiff was supplying goods belonging to her employer to customers without receiving sufficient payment, and was arranging for Stanislaus to receive goods belonging to her employers on plaintiff’s behalf, but that—if it wore proved that she used such words as alleged—they were not spoken maliciously. It was denied that plaintiff lost her employment in consequence of the alleged statements. Stanislaus was . an old fried of defendant’s, and frequently was her guest. Becoming aware*of the alleged frauds on Macduff’s, defendant endeavoured to dissuade Stanislaus from complicity, but, failing, went tp Heap and urged him to speak to plaintiff about the matter. Heap declined, and defendant then gave information to Richards, acting , under a sense of duty to her family and others, and believing her. statements to be true. The words published were only to plaintiff’s husband and to Richards, who each had a duty and interest in the matter. defendant pleaded privilege. Detailed evidence regarding the aotious and conversations of the parties was taken.

Walter Heap, husband pf plaintiff, in the course of evidence, said Mrs Green had called to see him privately, and.had said: “Your wife is a thing. A director of Macduff’s (Limited) said lie told one of the empolyees about the giving of parcels over the counter. Mi’s Heap’s name having been mentioned. Plaintiff was surprised, but he lost faith in her, and asked her to leave immediately.

Vincent Stanislaus denied the allegation. All the goods he had obtained at the counter had been paid for. He had taken a parcel for Mrs Heap. Plaintiff had asked him to call, and he had left some goods for her. Her husband ■had said they had hotter be careful. Plaintiff had said there was no danger. Asked whether ho did not get the goods without paying tho full value for them, and if lie did not call it thieving, witness said ho had been a, party to tho dishonest action committed by Airs Heap, but was not a thief. Alter the evidence had boon heard, His Honor summed up. The jury returned a. verdict fur plaintiff for £250.