ALLEGED SLANDER.

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume X, Issue 78, 15 March 1920, Page 6

ALLEGED SLANDER.

GARRICK v. PRICE. DAMAGES CLAIMED Tho attention of the Supreme Court in Napier, this morning, was occupied with the hearing of the case Ethel May Garrick, wife of John H. Garrick of Napier, labourer, v. Frederick Price of Puketapu, sheepf'ariner, claiming £5Ol on each of two informations. Air. B. J. Dolan appeared for plaintiff. and Air. H. Holdcrness for defendant.

The following was the jury: A. Wells (■foreman), C. I). North. I). Shanahan, H. D, Templeton, AV. Alehan, G. Al. Fitzhenrv, AV. Kellv, J. H. Murdock, D. McKnight, J. B. Ellery, J. P. AVilliamson, G. Stevens. Tho statement of claim alleged that on or about April 16tlu 1919, defendant falsely and maliciously spoke and published of the plaintiff tho words following: “You’ve cut a hole in the mail bag and have taken a telegram out. Have you the telegram in your possession?”, tho words being addressed to J. H. Garrick, Ernest Walter Sutton and Alfred AVard. The said words meant that the plaintiff had committed an offence punishable by imprisonment, wherefore the plaintiff claimed £5Ol damages.' The statement further alleged at the same time, before the same people, and in the same false and malicious manner, defendant said: “You Garricks, (meaning plaintiff and her husband), have stolen articles from my house; I will show you no mercy and addressing the police officer stated: “Take those things,” meaning a quilt and vase, plaintiff’s property. In this connection the plaintiff also claimed £5Ol on the same grounds-

The statement of defence denied that defendant spoke or published the words, or that, if spoken, they applied to plaintiff, in each cause of action, and for a further defence said, that the words were spoken bona fide, without malice, and on a privileged occasion. The defence went on to state that plaintiff had been employed by defendant and left without notice on April Ist, 1919, after which the damaged mail bag was discovered with a telegram and certain mail matter missing. Defendant also missed a number of articles from tho homestead. Subsequently, on April 16th, a. search warrant was executed on plaintiff’s premises and certain articles, the property of defendant, were discovered. The words in the statement of claim, so spoken by the defendant, were published in the honest belief that the facts stated were true, and without malice towards the plaintiff. (Proceeding.)