DAMAGES FOR LIBEL.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LVIII, Issue 17754, 13 April 1921, Page 8

DAMAGES FOR LIBEL.

TENANT SUES LANDLORD.

PLAINTIFF AWARDED £50.

Reserved decision was given by Mr. J. W. Poynton yesterday, in the action for £100 damages for libel, brought by Mw. Margaret Jano Wright (Mr. Indcr), against John Henry Hnnnan (Mr. Dickson). Judgment was for plaintiff for £50. Defendant is the owner of ft house occupied by plaintiff as tenant. Sho is a soldier's widow, and the Returned Soldiers' Association* takes an interest in her welfare. Some friction having arisen between the parties, sho applied to the association, the secretary of which wrote defendant about her. The letter gave offence to defendant, who replied defending bis action. In this reply ho made the statements, which, it was alleged, reflected on plaintiff's moral, character. The defence of privilege and nonpublication was raised. It was contended that as the associationwwa r acting fir plaintiff, it was the duty and of defendant to give reasons for his actiou as to ono in loco parentis. In some cases this would have been defendant's right, said the Magistrate, but he had stated that he looked upon the association in a different light. As defendant, from hia evidence, regarded the association as having no right to interfere between him and his tenant, he could not claim privilege, or th*i he had a duty to perform in writing the letter complained of. Publication of the letter to the executive of the association followed. 11 was the duty of the secretary to Bubmit the letter to that bodv, because if plaintiff were a woman of bad character, the association would not continue to assist her. It was there> fore necessary to have the allegations proved or disproved. The association's solicitor wrote to defendant asking for an apology for (he libels contained in it, and tne payment of a small sum for costs. That request waß not complied -with. The magistrate held that the' letter was clearly libellous, and ho did not think it privileged. In fairness to defendant, it should be stated that he felt insulted by <he letter that provoked" his reply containing the libels, that other tenants had complained to him about plaintiff; that ho nnd previously, suffered much annoyanco and expense through tenants of bad character being in one of his houses; and that the language which plaintiff used to him at an interviow previously, gave him a bad impression as to her character. Judgment was for £50 and costs. Security for appeal was fixed at £20, plus amount of judgment and costs. Decision was also given in the case in which John Henry Hannan (Mr. Dickson) claimed rent and possession of a house in Cook Street against Mrs. Wright (Mr. Inder). Possession was claimed on the ground of rent in arroar, neglect of tho premises, waste and improper conduct. The magistrate said the arrears of rent arose out of an increase in the amount after notice given, but the law was not complied with and this increase could not be claimed. Judgment could be given only for the rent payable on the basis of that received* before the irregular notice was delivered. There was no ovidenoe to disprove defendant's statement regarding the alleged waste, the .alleged neglect was not proved, and the conduct complained of was not sufficient to give the plaintiff the right td eject the tenant, who was a soldier's widow, and as such could claim certain privileges. In her case there would be hardship as she had three small children. Tho order for possession was refused, but judgment was given for rent owing on the old basis.