EXTRAORDINARY ACTION FOR LIBEL.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXV, Issue 9022, 7 April 1888, Page 2 (Supplement)

EXTRAORDINARY ACTION FOR LIBEL.

♦ • On February 14, afc the Westminster County Court, before His Honor Judge Bay ley and a jury, the case of Stokes v. Stokes came on for hearing. It was an action brought by Miss Laura Stokes to recover from her father the sum of £5000 as damages for libel and slander. The action was remitted from the High Court of Justice, and came before Judge Scott, at the Westminster County Court, on January 24, on an application on the part of the defendant to 6tay proceedings until certain costs were paid. The application was refused, and the case now came on for trial. From the opening statement of counsel, it appeared that the plaintiff lived with her father and mother both in London and Brighton. The libel consisted in defendant writing letters and stating that his daughter Laura stole his money and pawned his goods to the amount of from £30 to £40 per week. This, the learned counsel contended, was a serious libel, for which the plaintiff should obtain a large sum as damages. The plaintiff was called, and bore out the opening statement. She denied that she had ever stolen her father's money or pawned his goods. Sho had Jgreatly suffered through her father's statements. Mrs. Stokes, the mother of the plaintiff, stated that she was security for ner daughter's costs in this action. Her husband's statements about the plaintiff had become a by-word in Brighton. \ The defendant had made those statements before the workpeople in Coventry-street. The trouble between her and the defendant arose through witness seeing him with a woman afc the Inventions Exhibition. The defendant was a very wealthy man. He was now living with another woman. She had no vindictive feeling against the defendant. The slander which ne had uttered about the plaintiff wes known at Brighton as' well as in London. The defendant, Mr. Stokes, was called, and gave a complete denial to the charge of libel. Hβ deposed that he had received considerable provocation from Mrs. Stokes and the plaintiff, as well as from his other children. Hewas being continually robbed. He charged his children with the robberies, but only in a fit of anger. His wife had left him, taking the furniture with her, and he was served with two writs. He settled it by making her an allowance of £6 per week and £500 down. Then he was assailed by his son, who asked him for £25 down. He paid him £125. He was asked to send a letter of apology, which he did, and notwithstanding this, he was served with a writ. The letter of apology was read in court by Mr. Kempt, Q.C., who, with Mr. Rose-Innes, was counsel for the defendant, and stated that the defendant had no recollection of saying that Laura (the plaintiff) had robbed him, but if he had he would fully apologise. The letter further stated—"God knows that I have worked hard enough, and it is very hard that Laura, my favourite child, should turn against me." The action was not brought for damages, but merely from the vindictive motives of Mrs. Stokes. The latter had not always been his wife, her real name formerly being Laura Reynolds. He had lived with her for thirty years. His children and Mrs. Stokes had insulted and annoyed him for years, and if he had said anything against the plaintiff it was only in anger. Witnesses from the of the defendant deposed that they had heard the defendant call the plaintiff a robber, but they considered they were only angry words. Mr. Kemp, Q.C., argued that if a verdict were given for the plaintiff, it should be with damages of the smallest coin of the realm. The learned counsel said that the defendant's wife was keeping up the action merely for revenge, she having quarrelled with the defendant. Mr. Kemp characterised her as a cruel, wicked, and vindictive woman. In the result the jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, damages £250. His Honor refused costs, and said he considered it a scandalous case. He granted a stay of execution for 14 days, to allow the defendant to apply for a new trial.