FARMER AND WIFE SUED FOR SLANDER

Manawatu Times, Volume LV, Issue 6867, 25 May 1932, Page 11

FARMER AND WIFE SUED FOR SLANDER

Domestic Claims £2OO Damages

Alleging that defendants had falsely and maliciously spoken and published slanderous statements regarding her, Mary Watts, domestic, of Fitzherbert West, instituted a claim for damages in the Palmerston North Magistrate’s Court yesterday against Ales, baundcis, farmer, of Fitzherbert West, and his wife. The sum claimed was £IOO from each. Mr. A. M. Ongley appeared for plaintiff, whilo Mr. H. E. Cooper counselled defendants. In opening plaintiff’s case, Mr. Ongley stated that Miss Y/atts was engaged by Mr. and Mrs. Walker as a domestic on a farm which adjoined the Saunders’ property. Counsel spiel apparently Mrs. Saunders' had set liorsclt out as judge of morals and dictator of conduct for the district and for no apparent reason set out on a campaign against the girl to blacken her character. Neither defendant would withdraw the allegations nor would cither deny having made them, leaving one to surmise that what they had said was true. What appeared to have given rise to the talk was the fact that when Miss Watts returned from trips to town, she was met at the corner of Hewitt’s road, Fitzherbert, by Mr. Walker in tho latter’s car. On one occasion defendants saw him waiting there at night as they went jiast, and thought it was ' another man named Colley. Plaintiff decided to go to Mrs. Saunders and try and get her to stop the talk, but instead of withdrawing ns one would have expected on receiving an explanation from Miss Watts, Mrs. Saunders made further slanderous statements, making plaintiff to appear not respectable. During tho conversation Mrs. Saunders also asked plaintiff why she ordered rubber gloves, whereupon plaintiff accused her of listening

over tho telephone. Mr. Saunders had backed up his wife’s efforts and told two employees that ho had. seen Miss Watts in tho car with Colley and on another occasion when Colley went past, referred to him as a man with live wives, ono of whom was plaintiff. Plaintiff had brought the action simply to clear the matter up. Her character would suffer considerably in a small community if the remarks were allowed to go on uncorrccted. Defendants had been written to asking them to withdraw the statements but Mrs. Saunders had 'continued to repeat them.

Plaintiff’s Story. Plaintiff entered tho witness box to state that sho had been working for Mr. Walker for 19 months. The Saunders lived on an adjoining farm and sho had been there on several occasions prior to Mrs. Saunders commencing libr attacks. Witness said that when coming from town, Mr. Walker ■would meet her at the corner of Hewitt’s and Main roads with his car. When sitting in tho ear with Mrs. Walker ono day in the Square, Mrs. Saunders y.amc over and said she had nearly knocked witness down at the corner of Hewitt’s road while passing in tho car. Witness asked when, and defendant said whilo she was sitting in the car with a Mr. Colley. Witness denied that Colley was there. Later she went to Mrs. Saunders’ house with a Miss Telford. She told defendant that she had come to see her about saying she had been in the car with Colley. “I told her it was Mr. Walker in the car and I was not there,” continued plaintiff. Defendant replied that it was nearly- midnight and Mr. Walker would not bo waiting for me at that time. Plaintiff said she replied that it was Mr. Walker and she (witness) was not there. She asked Mrs. Saunders what right she had to say such things. Defendant asked her if she had been to different parties, witness replying that that was her own business. She also asked Mrs. Saunders where she got her information, defendant replying that witness was known from one end of the town to the other. Mrs. Saunders then asked her why she ordered rubber gloves from the grocer, adding "you don’t use them for housework or cleaning the

stove.” "I told her no sano person would ask such a senseless quostion,” added plaintiff. “Mrs. Saunders then said I was not respectable; that 1 walked to the corner ono night on my own. I asked her how she expected I should get home if there was nobody to meet me. She said I should stay at homo. Mrs. Saunders also said I illtreated tho Walker children behind Mrs. Walker’s back,” continued witness, who denied the allegation. “Mrs. Saunders said she would not have a dog in my care let alone a child. I told her that anyway I wanted her to stop her talk, whereupon her daughter, who was present, said it was their duty to warn the people of tho locality about me. I told her I would take steps to have it stopped, and Mrs. Saunders told mo to go to a lawyer and she would show me up.” Plaintiff said no reply :yas received to a letter demanding a published apology.

To Mr. Cooper witness said she still had her job with Mrs. Walker and still had her old frichds. Colley used to work for Walker and she and Col Joy on occasions, had driven in the car together. Mrs. Walker gave her a good deal of liberty and she would go to town sometimes three times a Week, which included night trips. Witness denied that she and Colley had stopped on the roadside in the car. Counsel: The first you heard of this matter was when Mrs. Saunders came over to tho car in the Square? Witness: Yes. Counsel: There is no harm in her saying she nearly ran you down, is there? His Worship: It. depends on how T it was said. Witness said she discovered later that Walker had been in the car at tho corner waiting for her to return from town. Plaintiff admitted being in a car which had crashed into a milk cart at 4 o’clock in the morning. His Worship to Mr. Cooper: Is your defence justification? Counsel: I think it affects tho question of damages. His Worship: Perhaps it will affect it in the wrong way as far as you arc concerned. Counsel submitted that it was perfectly fair cross-examination.

His Worship: Wo don’t, know what your defence is. Aro you denying tho allegations or trying to justify them? Your questions look liko justification. Counsel said ho was not trying to make plaintiff out a bad character. • His Worship: Then your quesflon is irrelevant. Mr. Ongley stated that witness had been to a party that night at her sister’s place where sho had been lending a hand. Counsel (to plaintiff): Aro you just bringing this action to make money? It is a largo sum —£200. Witness: I am not. <sefendants' statements might do a lot of harm. Counsel: Did Mrs. Saunders suggest that a conversation you had with a young man over tho ’phone was a filthy conversation? Witness: She did, but it was nothing of tho sort. Mr. Ongley (to Mr. Cooper): Was Mrs. Saunders listening on tho 'phone? Listened To The Argument. Eilocn Mary Telford, who accompanied plaintiff to interview Mrs. Saunders, corroborated the story as to wliat happened when they got there. Miss Watts opened 1 the conversation, saying that sho had come to have an understanding about “tho car business at the corner.” Mrs. Saunders wanted to know- why plaintiff bought rubber gloves from tho grocer, whereupon plaintiff accused defendant of listening on the ’phone. Defendant also said sho was surprised at Mrs. Walker leaving the children in plaintiff,'s care as she had been cruel to them behind Mrs. Walker’s back. Mrs. Saunders said she would not leave a dog in plaintiff’s care let alone a child. Plaintiff asked defendant what business she had running around tho countryside writh the allegations, whereupon Miss Saunders interruped, stating that it was their duty to warn the countryside. Mrs. Saunders visited witness’s home in Palmerston North recently, telling her father that she had come to warn him of tho company witness was keeping. Mrs. Saunders was talking very loudly about “boozaroo parties.” Witness said sho told Mrs. Saunders that she had been “to every house in i Palmerston North trying ■ to get evidence to blacken Miss Watts’

character and now had the check to como here.” Mr. Cooper: Who did tho “boozaroo” parties concern? Witness: Miss Watts’ sister. Theo Walker, farmer, of Hewitt's road, Fitzherbert, said that when plaintiff went to town, either ho or his wife would go down in tho car to the mam road to meet her. One night while waiting at .the corner, Saunders’ car passed him. On perceiving witness’s car the Saunders slowed up and went by slowly. Mrs. Saunders recalled Mrs, Saunders speaking to her when waiting, in the car in the Squaro ono day. She mado out that plaintiff and someone else had used the car at the corner of Hewitt’s road. Arthur Win. Trcvcna, formerly in tho employ of Saunders, recalled an occasion when Mr. Saunders said that Colley was “a man with five wives and Mary Watts is one of them.” To Mr. Cooper: Walker’s car and Mary Watts were often brought up as a topic of conversation wlrilc milking. Saunders also said that he had seen Walker’s ear parked at the corner of Hewitt’s road one night and that Colley and' Miss Watts were either in it or outside somewhere. Ho said lie could not see properly.

James Arthur Sharman told a similar story regarding remarks made by Mr. Saunders. Mr. Ongley' announced at this stage that one witness who had appeared when the case was first called and adjourned, had not, accepted a subpoena by post and consequently was not now in Court to give evidence. The consequence was that ho would have to abandon that part of the claim ot which that witness was to speak. Case Against Husband Adjourned. Mr. Cooper submitted that as far as Mr. Saunders was concerned, it was the duty of plaintiff to disclose to whom the slanderous statements were mado and quoted authority in support of his contention. Plaintiff had given some particulars but not all. He aslced for an adjournment so that others present when the statements were supposed to have been made, could bo interviewed. Ono .of these included Norman Robert Dcckc.

The Magistrate granted tho adjournment, Mr. Ongley raising no objection. Ho i'ar as the claim against Mrs. Saunders was concerned, Mr. Cooper submitted that plaintiff had suffered no damage. 'She was still in her same job and still had her friends. To say that plaintiff was not respectable did not touch her chastity. ' ' '' The Magistrate said the words would have to read in their context. Counsel: There is no allegation of unchastity. Mr. Ongley submitted that the allegations of ill-treatment of the children was certainly defamatory.

Defendant’s Denial. Mrs. Saunders gavo evidence regarding tho interview with plaintiff. .Miss Watts complained about her saying things, to which witness replied she had not said anything about her character. Defendant denied saying plaintiff was not respectable but as regards tho Walker children, told her she was nico to the children when Mrs. Walker was present but not so nice behind her back. She never used the word “ill-treat.” Defendant admitted saying she would not care to leave a cat with plaintiff. “I then asked Mary Watts a number of questions which made her very uncomfortable,” said witness, who added that one of the questions was about a “dirty, filthy conversation over a party line.” Plaintiff asked what that had to do with witness. The girl who stood in the witness box this morning (Miss Telford) was not the girl who accompanied plaintiff at the interview. Mr. Ongley: So she is a perjured liar.

Defendant: It was a different looking girl altogether. >Shc may have been painted up and that, but she is not the girl I saw. Defendant admitted talking plaintiff over with her husband and daughters. Counsel: Did you ask her what she used rubber gloves for? Witness: Yes, I did. Counsel: What did you do that for? What did you mean? Witness: I did not mean anything. Counsel: What was your suggestion? Witness: There is no suggestion. Counsel: I sec, you asked her that question just out of the deep. You asked her also what she was doing at a certain house down the road. What was the suggestion this time? Witness: Well, that she had been drinking. Counsel: Is it not a fact that tnc people on your party wire are terrified at your listening in? i Witness denied that she was a telephonic evesdropper and added that she was disgusted at tho conversation that had heard over the ’phone. Mr. Htout: How do you know it was dirty and filthy if you were not listening? Defendant said she had gone to the ’phone three times to order bread and could not because of the half-hour conversation plaintiff carried on with another girl. The few words she had heard had been enough for her. Counsel: If plaintiff’s character was quite good, why did you say you would not leave a dog in her care? Defendant replied she had gone to the Walker home one day when Mrs. Walker was in hospital and found one of the Walker children seriously ilk stuffed with mushrooms by Mary Walts. She would not like a sick dog of hers stuffed with mushrooms. As regards plaintiff taking care of children she was quite fit to do that as long as they were not her (defendant’s) children. “This is just spite because 1 kept my daughter from mixing with Mary Watts,” said defendant, wiio added that she know, a little bit more than to make malicious statements about anyone.

Counsel: Wliat about the car inci-

dent. Witness: I saw Mary Watts in the car—she has red hair —and the man with her was not Mr. Walker. Counsel: Is that not an insinuation against her chastity? Witness denied the suggestion, statin_ that she was annoyed to think that the road should be blocked by the car. “We have a beautiful six-cylinder car,'’ added defendant, “and I was annoyed that we could not get past a tin-lizzie stuck at the end of the road.” Defendant denied that she had insisted on giving evidence but thought she should bo given an opportunity of defending herself against the statements of Miss Telford. Counsel: I see, so it was not so that you could repeat what you thought about plaintiff. Defendant again stated that she had nothing to say as regards plaintiff’s character. Doreen Saunders, daughter of defendant, said she was present during the whole of the conversation between her mother and plaintiff. Her mother had not said plaintiff was not respectable nor that she would not leavo a dog with her. The witness, Miss Telford, was not the girl she saw with Miss Watts. To Mr. Onglcy witness said that had anyone passed tho samo remarks about her as her mother had about Miss Watts, she would not have taken any notice of them. His Worship reserved decision.