CIVIL SITTINGS.

Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume XLII, Issue 7381, 6 February 1902, Page 2

CIVIL SITTINGS.

MORRISSEY V. QUIN,

This was a claim for £500 damages for alleged libel.

Mr Barton for plaintiff ; Mr Skerrett (instructed by Mr Welsh) for defendant.

The following special jury was sworn in : W. Campion, N. Syme, J. Goodson, J. J. Hodgson (foreman).

Mr Barton said this was an action brought by Miss Morrissey against Mr W. A. Quin. The circumstances were extraordinary. Defendant was engaged to be married, and it would appear that he had been subjected for some time to the annoyance of anonymous letters reflecting on his betrothed. On 25th October he wrote to Miss Morrissey's father the letter which was the subject of this action. The letter was to the effect that he was surprised to learn that since he (defendant) had written to Miss Morrissey Mr Morrissey was about to defend his daughter's position in a legal manner. He thought instead of such being done, apology and reparation (not, ef course, monetary) would have been forthcoming, and offered to let tbe matter drop so far as be was concerned, if such were done. If, he wrote, Miss Morrissey swore on the Bible that she was innocent, he would go down on his bended knees and apologise, and in conclusion said that it would be more merciful to put a bullet through his brain than torture him as he had been tortured through the medium of anonymous letters. That was, said counsel, the bombshell fired into Mr Morrissey's household ; an accusation against Miss Morrissey that she had been the waiter and originator of certain fabrications. Tbe letter to Miss Morrissey was to the effect that for some time past defendant had been endeavouring to obtain proof regarding the writer of anonymous letters he had received, and had arrived at the conclusion that Miss Morrissey was the writer and her relatives accessories. An apology for forgery and defamation was demanded by three o'clock next day ; failing which, informations would be laid against Miss Morrissey. Defendant added that if he were proved in the wrong he would apologise. After writing to plaintiff, defendant had gone to her brother, and told him to ascertain from her if she had received an important letter from him. Counsel said plaintiff had not written any anonymous letters, and knew nothing at all about them. Mr Quin, it would have been thought, would have brought forward proof of tbe truth of his statement. The only plea of privilege that a man could put in in a case of libel was that he wrote it without malice, and bona fide, believing the statements therein contained to be true. Any candid mind reading through defendant's letters could only arrive at the conclusion that plaintiff was being charged with forgery and defamation, and that Miss Morrissey only had one course open to her, and that was to clear herself of the imputations cast upon her character. Mr Quin had not apologised or made any tacit admission that he had been in error. The question of whether the occasion of the writing of the letter to the father was a privileged one was for the Judge to decide. Even if it were decided that the letter was privileged, it was for the jury to say that it waß written honestly and bona fide. When the jury heard the evidence, they must arrive as tbe conclusion that the defendant bad acted in an unduly suspicious manner, and that there were no grounds for his accusation. Having written these letters, defendant was liable to the plaintiff, and should be punished. As to the measure of tbe punishment, he would address the jury on that subject at a later stage of he proceedings.

Mary Josephine Morrissey, the plaintiff, stated that she had known Mr Quin, to speak to, for many years. She had never had any quarrel with him. She had received the letter produced on the 24th October. Miss Carroll, mentioned in the letter, was a friend of witness. Witness knew Miss Katie Flynn, and never had any quarrel with her, nor was there any ill-feeling towards that lady on witness' part. She knew Miss Annie Flynn (now Mrs Quin) and bad never had any quarrel with her. Witness had never written any anonymous letter to the Eev. H. Anson; neither had she written one to Mr Quin. She had never written an anonymous letter to anyone, nor originated one; neither had she been aware of any such having been written. When witness received tbe letter from defendant she showed it to her brother Edward, then to a friend, then to her mother, and afterwards took it to her solicitor. She had seen tbe letter (produced) to her father ; it was brought to her, and read by her brother Frank. It made her feel very queer ; she did not know what to do. A writ was issued on the 26th. There was no foundation at all for the charges made by Mr Quin. To Mr Skerrett: Witness saw Mr Barton before she saw her father. She tallied over the matter with her father later. Mr Barton sent the letter (produced) to Mr Quin demanding an unqualified withdrawal and apology. She saw Mr Barton again on the 25th, in the afternoon, after the letter had been received by her father. Without doubt her father took her view of the matter. She knew nothing whatever of any letters sent to Mrs or Miss Flynn. William Morrissey, father of plaintiff, said he had never had the letter to his daughter read to him, His daughter told him about the letter. When next day he received a letter from Mr Quin, addressed to himself, he understood that the reference to the fabricator of anonymous letters was meant to apply to his daughter, and he took the letter to Mr Barton. He had never known any anonymous letters having been written by any member of his family. Francis Morrissey, brother of plaintiff, remembered seeing the letter of tbe 25th. His brother Robert received the letter. Witness read it to his mother, father, sisters, and brother. At that time he was aware that his sister had received a letter from Mr Quin. He understood the references in the letter of the 25th to apply to his sister Mary. He did not know of any anonymous letters having been written or instigated by any members of his family. Robert and Edward Morrissey, brothers of plaintiff, stated that they knew of no writing of anonymous letters by any of their family. Alice and Margaret Morrissey, sisters of plaintiff, gave similar evidence.

This was the case for the plaintiff. Mr Skerrett said the jury must have come to the conclusion that this was a veritable tempest in a teapot, reminding one of the tittle-tattle of a tea-party — an old lady's tea-party. Learned counsel had feelingly . alluded to the fact that the letters of defendant were likely to cause dissension in the Morrissey family, yet the family looked happy and comfortable enough. He held that the matter was of such a trivial nature that it should not have been brought forward to waste the time of the learned judge and the jury. The haste which marked tho action of the plaintiff and her father after receipt of the actionable letter on. the 25th allowed no time for one to breathe, and appeared to be marked by a certain amount of malignity. Any publicity which had been given to the letter of the 28rd was of Miss Morrissey's own making. Letters of an extremely offensive character had I been received by Mrs Flynn, Mr Quin, and other members of the Flynn family. The letters were of such an offensive character that they were burnt immediately after receipt. Further a letter was written to Mr Anson stating that there was te be a wedding in the Flynn family, and Mr and Mrs McKenna, of Patea, had received one inviting them to a wedding-breakfast, j Mr Quin found that his fiancee was dis- j turbed by thes& letters, and he set about finding the author of the anonymous letters, and he came to the conclusion — no doubt honestly, though mistakenly — that Miss Morrissey was the author of the letter. The letter written by Mr Quin on 23rd October, was an angry one. no doubt, but was not of such a nature as learned counsel for plaintift endeavoured to make it out to be. It was a harsh letter, but one not different to any which might have been written by himself (counsel) or the jury under similar circumstances. The letter to Mr Morrjpsey, which was the subject of the present action, was in the main a mild one, if Bomewhat hysterical towards the end; jt was wntjben in studiously moderate language. There wap considerable exous,e for £he writer

who was highly strung, but the letter was the letter of a sincere and honest man. The defendant had bonestly believed that Miss Morrissey was the writer of the anonymous letters, bis honest desire was to put a stop to the nuisance, and was willing to accept an explicit' assurance that Miss Morrißsey was not connected with the letters. From the time of the receipt of the letters from Mr Quin the anonymous letters ceased. He asked the jury to make a note of that fact. The jury was not to judge whether defendant had sufficient reason for believing chat Miss Morrissey wrote the anonymous letters, but whether be honestly believed she had written them. The question of who was the originator of the letters was not for the jury to consider ; it was not raised in the pleadings, nor had it been stated during the course of the triaL It appeared to him that the Morrissey family had used the letter not to vindicate their character, but to make as much money as they could out of Quin. He called

Mary Jane Flynn, who stated that she was mother of Mrs W. A. Quin. Both before, after, and during the engagement between defendant and her daughter several anonymous letters had been received. They were very filthy letters, and witness burnt them. Some anonymous letters to her daughter were intercepted by witness. Witness and her daughter were much concerned about the letters.

To Mr Barton : There had been no secret regarding her daughter's engagement, and no doubt a good few persons would have known of it. The only anonymous letters preserved were the two produced. James Augustine McKenna, of Patea, said he was a brother-in-law of defendant. A card addressed to him, and purporting to be an invitation to a wedding breakfast, had been received. He wrote a note accepting, but received a wire telling him not to come.

William Alphonsus Quin, the defendant, said that after his engagement he received an anonymous letter signed "A. Hall." The general character cf the letter was grossly offensive, and he destroyed it about three days after receipt. About a month later he received another one which was unsigned. This letter was offensive to his then affianced wife and his family. A third letter v/as received by him three weeks later which was a concentration of vindic'Jveness. He was aware at this time that the Flynn family bad .been receiving anonymous letters. He put advertisements in the paper offeiing rewards, withont result, and on the 23rd October wrote the letter to Miss Morrisaey. Prior to that he had made diligent enquiry and had come to the conclusion that plaintiff had written the anonymous letter of the 23rd. Finding Mr Wm. Morrissey was interesting himself in the matter, he wrote the letter of the 25th. He was incensed at that time, believing Miss Morrissey was the writer of the anonymous letters. He had no reason for feeling bitter towards the Morrisseys. He had received no anonymous letter since the 23rd.

To Mr Barton : Witness began to make enquiries after receipt of first letter to himself. About August he had formed the opinion that Miss Morrissey was the author of some of the letters. He had hoped by the first advertisement he had iuserfed in the paper to get an interview with the author of the letters. Had the writer been a male he would have horsewhipped him, or something of the kind. All the letters were received by him after his engagement. He formed his theory that Miss Morrissey had written the letters not only because of the letters received by himself, but because of those received by the Flynn family. One of the letters received by the latter referred to a member of the Fiynn family's dress and demeanour in church. From that he concluded that the writer was an attendant at the Catholic Church. As it was apparent that more than one person had something to do with the letters, he was partially convinced that the author was one of a family. The envelopes used were of a description usually used commercially, and as there were only a few attending the ohurch who were in business, he narrowed down the list of possible writers, and came . to a conclusion as to the writer, particularly as he had heard that the family of the writer had been implicated in a similar affair. Subsequently, after the advertisements had been inserted in the paper, he noticed coolness towards him on the part of members of the Morrissey family; and there was evident avoidance of him on the street by the Misses Morrissey. Something more definite than the deductions mentioned caused him to write the letter of the 23rd. About a year before Mr Morrissey had volunteered information of an offensive description regarding defendant's prospective wife and her family. This conversation subsequently recurred to his mind, and in the letter the information was conveyed in a manner similar to that in which Mr Morrissey had given it to him (witness.) Mr Morrissey had dealt with witness up to the time witness wrote the letters. Witness had also dealt with Mr Morrissey, but had instructed his (witness' employees) to take the work elsewhera. Regarding the tumour that the Morrissey's had been previously engaged in something similar to the writing of anonymous letters, he !had made inquiries, and had been given to understand they had carried tales. Witness would be- surprised to hear that the heads of Catholic families engaged in business in, Hawera numbered 23, that there were 40 single persons engaged in commercial pursuits, and that the Catholics of Hawera parish numbered about one thousand. When he wrote to Miss and Mr Morrissey he was convinced he had hit on the author of the anonymous letters. If similar circumstances arose he would again write a letter similar to the one he had written to Miss Morrissey, even although counsel said it was a criminal offence to do so. The letter to Mr Morrissey was written because witness was desirous of having the affair settled amicably ; in a Christian way, to use a cant expression. To Mr Skerrett : When he wrote the letters of 23rd and 25th October he was honestly of opinion that Miss Morrissey was the anonymous writer. Until the Morrissey family went into the box that day he had received no assurance, either verbal or written, that Miss Morrissey had not written the letters.

This was the case for the defence.

Legal argument ensued on the point whether the letter to Mr Morrissey was or was not privileged. His Honor held that the occasion was a privileged one. For some time, defendant, bis wife, and her relations had been subjected to systematic perse' cution, and it was no wonder he should try to put an end to it. It web not unreasonable that he should write to the father of the girl whom he had reason to think had written the letter, for a fourfold purpose. First, to stop the nuisance to which himself and his relations were being subjected ; secondly, to obtain an admission and apology from the young woman whom he suspected ; thirdly, he wanted a disclaimer that -he could rely on ; and, fourthly, he had a legitimate object in the desire to stop litigation. It was for the jury to say whether .the privileged occasion had been abused.

Mr Barton recalled plaintiff, who said she was certain that herself and her sister never crossed the street to avoid Mr Quin ; and there was no truth in the statement of defendant that plaintiff blushed and got confused on a certain occasion when Mr Quin in passing pulled out a letter.

Lily Morrissey gave corroborative evidence on the point.

Mr Skerrett Baid it was a pity this case had ever had a beginning." The libel was a nominal one, a technical one, a mere shred on which to hang a dog, Mr William Morrissey was the third person to whom the publication of the libel had been made, but Mr Morrissey was the father of the plaintiff, and would have known all about the letter accusing his daughter even had he not received a letter himself. No attempt had been made during the trial to connect Miss Morrissey with the anonymous letters ; the question was not in issue. As to the attempts of counsel for plaintiff to show that Mr Quin was made out by his letter to be a blackmailer, the threats therein were flummory, for there could not be a forgery in an anonymous letter, and an information for defamation of character could not be laid, because defamation of character was decided by civil action. Counsel proceeded to urge that the letters of defendant had been written honestly and bona fide, and not with malice. Defendant had been subjected to an ingenious and able cross-examina-tion and he (counsel) contended that he had come through it very well indeed. No evidence had been called to show malice or anger by Quin towards the Morrisseys. The only thing counsel could bring forward as a peg was the use of the word " devilry " in the letter to Mr Movrissoy, but he would ask if the term used was too strong in the case of a man who had been subjected tq great annoyance. Ho pointed out that

the jury was not concerned with the letter of the 23rd. They had to consider only whether defendant had or had not acted honestly and without malice.

Mr Barton said if Mr Quin had gone into the box, and said like a man that he had written the letter while in a fit of hysteria, and that his reasons were insufficient, and that he was sorry for his mistake, he would have had the sympathy of every man in the jury box. He did not do so, however, but raked his brains to bring forward reasons why he had formed an opinion that it was Miss Morrissey who had written the anonymous letters. When in the box defendant had led the jury to believe that the Morrissey family had been implicated in a similar matter to anonymous letter writing on a previous occasion. The jury was asked to let plaintiff leave the Court under the imputation that she had written the letters ; defendant had not withdrawn his charge against her. Counsel said the charges had been made solely on conjecture, as defendant had stated at first, although without adding to his evidence he had later stated that he had formed a partial conviction, and later still, and still without adding to his evidence, he said his conviction was an absolute one. It had been asserted that after the writing of the letters of the 23rd and 25th the anonymous letters had ceased, yet such had not been proved to be the case. The inference that it was desired to raise by that statement was that Miss Morrissey was the writer of the anonymous letters, and it would have gone uncontradicted had not he (counsel) pressed two witnesses for the defence on the point. No one would fail to sympathise with defendant in the persecution he had been subjected to, but that was no reason why he should make charges against an innocent person.

His Honor said he intended to submit the following issues to the jury : Ist. Was the letter of the 25th October, 1901, a libel, and was it written and published by the defendant? 2. Did defendant write it bona fide and honestly, believing it to be true? 3. Was defendant actuated by malice ? 4. If so, what damage, if any, is plaintiff entitled to ?

His Honor explained shortly the law of libel as bearing on the case before the Court. There would be no difficulty in arriving at a decision in the affirmative on the first issue, as the defendant had made a practical admission. He (His Honor) had ruled that the letter written by defendant to the plaintiffs father was a privileged communication, and the onus lay on plaintiff to prove that it had not been written honestly. Counsel for plaintiff had admitted, and there could be no doubt on the point, that the defendant was deserving c£ sympathy, as he and his wife and relations had been subjected to much annoyance by anonymous letters. The question the jury had to decide was whether the letter had been written honestly and bona fide, without malice. On the question of damages nothing had been said. The assessment of damages was one for the jury, but it appeared that the amount claimed (J6500) was excessive. What actual damage had been done to tbe plaintiff? Had her father kept the matter to himself, nobody outside the family would have known of the letter. His Honor then enumerated the several classes of damages. He did not think the jury would return a verdict for vindictive damages.

To issue 1 the jury returned an answer in the affirmative, and to issues 2 and 3 in the negative.

Judgment was entered up for defendant, with costs £21 11s.