THE SEAFIELD ESTATES

Manawatu Standard, Volume XLVI, Issue 199, 23 July 1926, Page 5

THE SEAFIELD ESTATES

£ISOO DAMAGES FOR LIBEL. SUIT BY COUNTESSES. SEQUEL TO FOOLISH LETTER. The hearing of the Seafiekl libel case, as reported by cable, was concluded in London on June 11, before Mr Justice Horridge and a special jury. Damages for alleged libel were claimed by the Dowager Countess of Seafield and her daughter, the Countess of Seafield (an infant suing by Sir Reginald MacLeod of MacLeod, her next friend), of .Cullen House, BanfL shire, against Mr George Wilberforce Grant, of London. The first-named plaintiff is the widow of the eleventh Earl of Seafield, who died on November 12, 1915. The second-named plaintiff is the daughter and only issue of the marriage and was born on April 17, 1906. Upon the death of her father she succeeded to the earldom and its subsidiary titles, and became the Countess of Seafield in her own right. Plaintiffs alleged that on January 25 defendant falsely and maliciously wrote and published to Mr Alexander Tullocb, the editor of the Strathspey Herald, a letter reflecting upon them. Defendant in Iris defence denied that he wrote or published the words complained of, and he further denied that the words bore the alleged or any defamatory meaniug. The letter complained of, which was marked “private,*” ran as follows: Dear Mr Tulloch.—Have you heard the report that the nyesent Countess is said not to be her daughter ? Lord Strathspey called upon a prominent society lady friend of mine and she came to call upon me, and gave me the particulars. We can easily account for her asking for a commission, of which an article appeared in your paper. This news will startle the trustees and society, as she i£ drawing money to which she - is not entitled. Seafield’s letter to me that he possessed evidence about the birth of the claimant and knew that he visited her at Cullen House before she died in 1911—this letter wa» a very pleasant surprise to me, and will win the case for the claimant coupled with others of his letters which I luckily have, refuting Lady Seafield’s mo6t insulting reference to myself. This will clearly explain why she fled, for it will soon reach the ears of the public. —With kind regards, yours very sincerely, George W. Grant. Counsel for tho defence said he admitted publication and that the letter was defamatory. DOWAGER COUNTESS’ EVIDENCE

The Dowager Countess of Seafield, giving evidence, said she was the widow of the eleventh Earl of Seafield, to whom shq was married on June 22, 1898. Their daughter, the present Countess, was born at Nice. Witness knew defendant when at Nice. Ho and tho Earl were fellow-clansmen and became very friendly. After returning from Barbadoes their relations were not so friendly. Defendant never was a friend of hers. On one occasion he asked her to lend him money, but she refused as she had none to lend.

The Judge: A very good reason. (Laughter.) Counsel was proceeding to question witness about the statements in the letter when the Judge reminded him that as it was not pleaded that they were true they must therefore be taken as untrue. Witness could say that all the statements were untrue. Strictly she was not entitled to say that, but it might be fair that she should. Mr Spence: Are any of the charges in the letter true.

Witness: No; they are all untrue. To what does “the insulting reference, to myself”, refer? —It was my evidenoe in the other case, but it was not insulting, really. Counsel for defence intimated that he did not propose to cross-examine Lady Seafield or to call any evidence. Addressing the jury, counsel for plaintiff asked for such substantial damages aa would vindicate the character of plaintiffs; otherwise the public might think that there was some justification for the libellous statements. He suggested that it was a wicked thing for defendant, a supporter of the pursuer in the Scottish proceedings, to vent his malice against' this unfortunate lady by making these abominable charges. “IDLE CHATTER AT TEA PARTY.” Counsel for the defence asked the jury not to be too severe on his client, who was an old man and was extremely sorry that he wrote the letter. He was simply, repeating tittle-tattle. It was merely the idle chatter at a woman’s tea party that ho was writing in a private letter to an old friend. He did not justify what ho had written, and admitted that he had done an extremely foolish thing. Indeed, he (counsel) would agree that •cbefondant had done an iextremely wicked thing, for which he must suffer.

Counsel reminded the jury that defendant bad expressed his regret, and that this was a private letter, which had been improperly disclosed to a third party. To say what defendant did of ladies with a great, title and great estates carried with it its own answer. Most people would have consigned such a letter to the wastepaper basket. The libel could have done no damage, and but for Lady Seafield’s enthusiastic lawyeis only one Scotsman would have known about it.

The jury found for plaintiffs, awarding the mother £IOOO and the daughter £SOO damages. The judge entered judgment accordingly. He ordered the.£soo to be paid into Court and to be invested for the benefit of the daughter until she came of age next year. He also granted an injunction restraining , defendant from writing other similar letters about plaintiffs.