“MORAL DUTY”

Greymouth Evening Star, 4 March 1926, Page 6

“MORAL DUTY”

NO EXCUSE FOR TELLING. (Special to “Star.”) WELLINGTON, March 3. Moral duty as an excuse tor telling was refused recognition by Justice Alpers in the reserved judgment in a slander case struck out with three guineas costs to plaintiff. Plaintiff complained of alleged publication by defendant to plaintiff s employers of words imputing dishonesty in the course of her employment, and to plaintiff’s husband of words imputing unchastity as well as dishonesty. Defendant had said that she felt it a duty to inform plaintiff’s husband pleading privilege and honest belief in her words. Plaintiff’s husband declined to speak to plaintiff about the matter. Defendant gave the information in confidence to another person acting under a sense of duty without malice towards plaintiff, the words used conveying information published only to the husband and the other person each of whom had ditty and interest in the matter. Defendant pleaded that under such circumstances publication of any words used was privileged. Counsel for the defendant had pointed out that duty may be one imperfect obligation, and the tendency of the Court to extend the scope of such duty, and had suggested the duty of his client towards the husband was a kind of social moral duty on which a defence of indefeasible immunity might be based. Justice Alpers’ judgment said that in the cases he had examined he found no trace of any tendency to encourage such very disagreeable conception of duty. If such tendency did exist the reign of the self-righteous would be hastened. The defence had suggested it was a question of law for the Judge trying the case. It was quite impossible to gather from the plea of justification and belief in the imputations whether defendant proposed to justify tlie allegations of dishonesty and unchastity or both. Defendant may justify as to part when the imputations were distinct and severable, but in that case also, the plea must give such particulars of time, place and circumstances as would enable the plaintiff to know precisely what she had to meet.