£5O DAMAGES

Gisborne Times, Volume LXXXIV, Issue 12866, 21 May 1936, Page 3

£SO DAMAGES

LETTER. SENT TO YOUNG WOMAN “DID ONLY CASUAL HARM.” SAYS JUDGE IPress Association). AUCKLAND, May 20. ; An action for libel in which'an agreement for settlement bad heen made in February last, but had not heen fulfilled, came before Air. Justine Gallon in the Supreme Court yesterday. Jt was staled during the hearing that a letter, falsely and maliciously written to a young woman 'acquaintance of the plaintiff led to the end of that.' acquaintanceship. Tho plaintiff in the action was Thomas Robert •Goddison (Air. Glaister), a farm hand, of Papatoetoc, and the defendant was Alias Clara Genevieve Thompson, farmer, of Warkworth. ■ The subject of the alleged libel was contained m a letter* written by the defendant lo a, young woman in Epsom. “Would you be kind enough to ask Gotklissoa to return tho blanket and'tools which he stole from by property before, leaving?” was a request alleged' to have been made in the letter' together with the fol- ‘ lowing: “The police are waiting a I reply Irony me before making an arrest. Beware of him, as ho is a liar and' a thief.” There was no signature tof tho letter. No defence was filed to a claim for ■ £lO special damages, the cost of identifying the author of the letter,and also £IOO general damages. There was no appearance of the defendant. Afr. Glar.ster said the matter was really settled in February last, when it was agreed- that £SO should lie paid by the defendant and an apology written. The sum of £lO was actually paid, but. later the defendant ignored requests for the balance and refused to sign an apology. The plaintiff, in evidence, abated that prior to August of last year ho. was in the employ of defendant. After he left, lie was forwarded, by a young lad in a letter which she huff received and, which was' unsigned. Tin's young lady was a friend of h’s. After some trouble he identified the handwriting in the letter as that of defendant. The young lady in Epsom was -on good} terms with him prior to the reoeljU of the letter, hut afterwards- there was a coolness. Tie had since uofc had any communication with he) 1 , or Seen her, with one exception. His Honour; Is it damages for an interrupted incipient romance llia/r . you ore after. Air. Glaistor: They had not. reached the stage when I could say that. Something might have happened witch did not. happen. When His. Honour asked if tfhere was any covering letter to plaintiff when he.received the letter which defendant had written, the plaintiff •said that in effect there was* a note hoping that what had l>een written was. not true. • , Air. Gla'ster said that he recog- ■ nised the difficulty in establishing i damages, but it had to be taken into account that there was no attempt < at an apology until a writ was '?- I sued. There was a general tardiness 1 to put the matter right which 'should ; he taken into account in the con- i s:deration of damages. These should i 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 that which l had been agreed between f. the parties. • r The sum of £lO bad been paid, and A lie thought that justice would be done < by giving judgment for a further £ £4O. ' c A letter went no further than to n the person to whom it was posted, C and it was no fault of the defendant T if it wortf; further, continued the judge. It had done some casual harm hut in effect was not serious. His Honour then gave judgment Q with costs, when Air Glaistor ex- A plained certain difficulties in bring- f ing the matter to the Supreme Court j and not the Magas-trate’s • Court. i