MALICIOUS LETTERS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LI, Issue 15626, 4 June 1914, Page 8

MALICIOUS LETTERS.

SENT ANONYMOUSLY. ftp SUPREME COURT ACTION, M £loob DAMAGES AWARDED. ' [BY TELEGRAm.-OWX CORRESPONDENT.] WAXfiANOi, Wednesday. , A libel action, which aroused great pub', lie interest, was concluded in the Supremo Court here in the early hows of this morning. Crowds of people waited till after midnight to hear the verdict. The plaintiff was Vera Paterson, wife of a well-known business man. and the defendant Sybil Mary Smythe, whoso husband is also a well-known local mident. The claim was for £2000 damages" the alleged libel being contained in two anonymous letters allegedly written by tho defendant concerning the "conduct of Mrs. Patterson, who is a young and very pre woman and a young college student named Miles, aged 18. Mr. A. Hatrick. indent agent of Auckland, was also mentioned in one of the letters, tho writer alleging that lie was obliged to leave the country because of the plaintiff. All the allegations were denied, and it was proved, in the case of Miles, that tho first letwr was written just nine da V 8 after Mrs. Patterson's introduction to him and that he had spent three of these days in camp.

The authorship of the letters was denied until after Court proceedings had commenccd. An expert in handwriting had expressed the opinion that the letters had been urn ten by Mrs. Smythe. Mr. Wi'. ford, who appeared for defendant, then admitted authorship and pleaded justification. -Mr. Hatrick was railed as a witne&i and gave an omphalic denial to the aces. sation that he was obliged to leave the country. All the evidence went to show that Mrs I atterson had ben merely kind and W. pitoble to the hoys of the college near which institution she lived

"Stabbing la the Dark." Mr. Justice Ed J;, in tho course of a very lengthy address to the jurv, said these were anonymous letters and'anony. moos letters wen. not favoured bv th British wee; writing letters like these was J ke stabbing „i the dark. Fcr the defence it was said that Mrs. Smythe' did this to hide her identity, and that she considered her actions in this respect in (ho best interests of Mrs. Patterson. This, said Mr. Justice Edwards, must seem a somewhat evading excuse. Would it not have been more womanly to have gone to Mrs Patterson herself and said, Well, ,-I are making a fool of yourself with these boys, and you had better drop it." Then, jf Mrs. Patterson did not take any notice it was open to the defendant to go to the Rev. D.»ve, headmaster, in confidence. WouM not this. His Honor asked, have been a better way of protecting the public morality. It would be noticed, added His Honor, that a letter was also written to Mrs. Dove, also that Mrs. Smythe had written the letters at a time when she could not have known very much about the parties' conduct, though the letter conveyed the impression that the course of conduct nad been going on for some lime. The first letter, that from Palmerston North, alleged that the matter was a publio reandal as far down as that town. Unfortunately. Mrs. Smythe had written a good deal that had not been substantiated by evidence, and this on the pretext that it was true. It would have been much vor'* penerous for her to have said what she had seen herself and net what 6he h"d only heard. Why had'Mrs-VSjnythe departed from the truth? '•'?■ v

,-:-vA Question of '

If these letters as they purport to ha were written solely in the interests of the morality of the boys they are, said His Honor, privileged- But were they? Mrs. Smythe was not satisfied with making these insinuations against the conduct of Mile;'. She had, without any excuse, dragged in Hatrick, who at the time was in America. Why did she bring him in? She could not hope to prove thai what had happened long before and ns concerning ft man in America bad anything to do with influencing the protection of publie morals. The motive to be considered in the matter was solely that of the protection of the public or not. Very gravO charges had been made and insisted on up till the last moment, and this would have to be taken into consideration in any damages the jury award if they considered the allegations not proved. In conclusion His Honor pointed out that great public interest had been taken in the case and wide publicity givtfi it. Therefore the damages would have to be commensurate with this factor. The jury's findings were to the effect that the "allegations contained in both anonvmous letters were untrue and that the defendant had been actuated by malice. Damages amounting to £1000 were awarded plaintiff, with costs on the lower scale.