£6000 LIBEL DAMAGES.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LIX, Issue 18025, 25 February 1922, Page 2 (Supplement)

£6000 LIBEL DAMAGES.

VERDICT AGAINST WOMAN, RESULT OP POSTCARD VENDETTA. Sending of abusive postcards through tt«a post led to damages for libel being claimed in the King's Bench Division recently by members of the Greek community in London. Mrs. Emily Kessisoglu and her daughter, Claire Kessisoglu, of Boundary Road, London, were sued by six different plaintiffs, mostly Greeks. Mrs. Kessisoglu counter-claimed against three of the plaintiffs, and said that by an agreement made by one John Michael Zarifi they undertook to pay to her husband, for her benefit during her life, £320 a year, and that after her husband died they agreed to continue that payment. This agreement was denied by the plaintiffs. Mr. Hogg said the alleged libels consisted of about 70 abusive and virulent postcards, sent by the defendants to six members of a family who were connected with her and her husband. Mrs. Kessisoglu was the wife of one Xenophon Kessisoglu, who lived a great part of his life in Smyrna, and whose sister, Fanny, married Mr. Michael Zarifi. Xenophon Kessisoglu, said counsel, was unfortunately tho black sheep of the family. He speculated and gamblod and lost his money. Thereupon some of his nephews and nieces subscribed £320 a year, which was paid to hira in quarterly instalments.

He died in March, 1918, and the annuity came to an ond. Mrs. Kessisoglu asked that it should be continued to her, and they offered her an allowance of £120 a year, so long as she did not molest anyone. She did not think that was enough, and during tho period she was asking for more she conceived the idea of blackmailing tho plaintiffs into paying more. She wrote the most abusive and Mack-mailing things against these people on open postcards, first to their own addresses and then to houses a few doors away in the same street.

Several of the postcards wore read in Court. In one case the recipient; was told that her family were thieves and swindlers, and "an Asiatic gang of camel drivers." There were other and more offensive epithets. To Mrs. Alexandra Zarifi, on January 19. 1920, a postcard read:—Well, Alexandra, no doubt you think you have been very cluver in your deceitful treachery towards me after your craving for my husband. You d — Greeks have always got a knife ready when one's back is turned for a blow when opportunity comeg your way. To Mr. Gland John Yorlco on that day a postcard from Mrs. Kessisoglu said:— I see, Claud Yorko, that you havo thoroughly gone into the brigand hand, and ready to put a Knife into the back of the first Englishman or woman that comes in your way. ■ She wrote a' postcard to Mrs. lonides on the same day saying:—Yon loathsome, deceitful cat! Had I known what I know row I would have had you kicked out of my house as your Greek gang should be kicked out of the country. Mr. Justice Darling intimated that he thought that Mr. Hogg had read sufficient of the libels to the jury. "I understand,* he added, " that you do not olaim damages." Mr. Hogg:' All we want is to stop this persecution. Addressing the defendant, Mrs. Kessisoglu, his lordship asked her if she wrote 4 ,he cards in question. The Defendant: Yes. my lord, Mrs. Emily Kessisoglu gave evidence after the conclusion of the plaintiffs' case, and handed to his lordship'other letters. " If you don't read them I am lost," she exclaimed.

Mrs. Kessisoglu: Why should these Asiatic Greeks'put me in this position and I take all from me? I had to take hold of j any weapon I could. J His lordship warned Her against making any further accusation against the plaintiffs, and said: " You are accused of writing these postcards." ' Witness: Well, my lord. I did write them. She added that she had been Hunted to death, and, referring to the plaintiffs, said: "They are money grabbers and body switchers.'' His Lordship (sternly)« Do not slander people. Do you ask her any questions, Mr. Hoe?? 4 Mr. Hog? said he would not cross-ex-amine, and was.prepared to accept an undertaking by Miss Kessisoglu, which was equivalent to an injunction. The juty returned a verdict for the plaintiffs, and assessed the damages in each case at £1000. They also found for the plaintiffs on the counter-claim. His lordship granted an injunction against Kessisoglu, and entered judgment in accordance with the jury's verdict making no order or judgment against Miss, Kessisoglu.